Eurosurveillance - Volume 14, Issue 30, 30 July 2009

This report describes the results of a cross-sectional anonymised online survey on adherence to, and side effects from oseltamivir when offered for prophylaxis, among pupils from one primary and two secondary schools with confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v in London in April-May 2009. Of 103 respondents (response rate 40%), 95 were estimated to have been offered oseltamivir for prophylaxis, of whom 85 (89%) actually took any. Less than half (48%) of primary schoolchildren completed a full course, compared to three-quarters (76%) of secondary schoolchildren. More than half (53%) of all schoolchildren taking prophylactic oseltamivir reported one or more side effects. Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 40% of children and 18% reported a mild neuropsychiatric side effect. The results confirmed anecdotal evidence of poor adherence, provided timely information with which to assist decision-making, and formed part of the body of growing evidence that contributed to policy changes to restrict widespread use of prophylaxis for school contacts of confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v.

School closure along with mass prophylactic oseltamivir treatment of pupils have been used in England and elsewhere to contain school outbreaks of influenza A(H1N1)v. We evaluated the protective effect, compliance with and side effects of oseltamivir chemoprophylactic treatment with a ten-day course of 1x 75mg given to 11-12-year-old pupils in one school year in a secondary school in South West England closed for ten days in response to a symptomatic laboratory-confirmed pupil. We distributed a questionnaire to pupils in the affected school year in class after the school had re-opened. Questions included symptoms of flu-like illness, compliance with chemoprophylaxis and side effects. All present on the day, 248 (93.2%) participated. Compliance with chemoprophylaxis was high, 77% took the full course, 91% took at least seven days. Fifty-one percent experienced symptoms such as feeling sick (31.2%), headaches (24.3%) and stomach ache (21.1%). Although some children were ill with flu-like symptoms, those tested did not have A(H1N1)v infection. Compliance with oseltamivir chemoprophylaxis was high, although likely side effects were common. The burden of side effects needs to be considered when deciding on mass oseltamivir chemoprophylaxis in children especially given that the symptoms of A(H1N1)v influenza are generally mild.

New Zealand, like other southern hemisphere countries with a temperate climate, has been in the winter period with seasonal influenza activity. New Zealand has also experienced a dramatic increase in the number of cases of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v virus. Early reports from the northern hemisphere at the beginning of the pandemic showed that the virus was sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir. In this study we report that pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v viruses currently circulating in New Zealand are sensitive to oseltamivir, but seasonal influenza A(H1N1) viruses – the co-circulating predominant seasonal strain, is resistant to oseltamivir.

From 2 May to 16 July 2009, a total of 183 laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v were reported in Colombia, 117 (63.9%) of these had travelled outside the country. Hospital admission was necessary in 26 (14.21%) cases and seven patients died (fatality-case ratio: 3.8%). The infection affected younger age-groups and the symptoms most frequently reported were cough, fever and sore throat. Our findings are consistent with recent reports from other countries.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) commissioned an in-depth review of European media coverage of the opening days of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009. A total of 3,979 articles were collected from 31 European countries in the period 27 April until 3 May 2009. National and international public health authorities were by far the leading source of information on the new virus. They were identified as the main source of information in 75% of the articles analysed. 94% of the articles were either neutral, relaying factual information (70%), or expressing support for the authorities' handling of the situation (24%). These results seem to vindicate the communication strategy adopted by the public health authorities. .

Surveillance of communicable diseases is a public health corner stone. Routine notification data on communicable diseases are used as a basis for public health action as well as for policy making. While there are agreed standards for evaluating the performance of surveillance systems, it is rarely possible to analyse the validity of the data entered into these systems. In this study we compared data on all Swedish cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) routinely notified between 2000 and 2003 with follow-up information collected for each of these cases as part of a public health project. The variables Reason for testing (clinical sample, contact tracing, screening of risk group), Clinical presentation (disease, colonisation), Transmission setting (healthcare-acquired, community-acquired), Country of acquisition (Sweden, abroad) and Risk-occupation (yes, no) were analysed for sensitivity, positive predictive value and completeness of answers. The sensitivity varied between 23% and 83%, the positive predictive values were generally higher (55% to 97%), while missing answers varied from 11% to 59%. The proportion of community-acquired cases was markedly higher when excluding either cases of MRSA colonisation or cases found through public health-initiated activities (contact tracing or screening of risk groups). We conclude that the quality of routine surveillance data may be inadequate for in-depth epidemiological analyses. This should be taken into account when interpreting routine surveillance figures. Whether or not the case definition includes cases of MRSA colonisation may have a significant impact on population-wide estimates of MRSA occurrence.

Antibiotic resistance is a major European and global public health problem and is, for a large part, driven by misuse of antibiotics. Hence, reducing unnecessary antibiotic use, particularly for the treatment of certain respiratory tract infections where they are not needed, is a public health priority. The success of national awareness campaigns to educate the public and primary care prescribers about appropriate antibiotic use in Belgium and France stimulated a European initiative coordinated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and named “European Antibiotic Awareness Day” (EAAD), to take place each year on 18 November. Specific campaign materials, including key messages, logos, slogans and a media toolkit, were developed and made available for use in European countries. The focus of the first EAAD campaign was about not taking antibiotics for viral infections such as colds and flu. A post-campaign survey was conducted in January 2009. Thirty-two European countries participated in the first EAAD, producing information materials and implementing activities to mark EAAD. Media coverage peaked on 18 and 19 November. At EU level, EAAD was launched at a scientific meeting in the European Parliament, Strasbourg. The event received EU political engagement through support from the EU Commissioner for Health, the Slovenian and French EU Presidencies, and Members of the European Parliament. Critical factors that led to the success of the first EAAD were good cooperation and process for building the campaign, strong political and stakeholder support and development of campaign materials based on scientific evidence. Countries indicated wide support for another EAAD in 2009. For this purpose, ECDC is developing several TV spots as well as a second set of EAAD campaign materials targeting primary care prescribers.