| Literature DB >> 14643124 |
Karl G Nicholson1, John M Wood, Maria Zambon.
Abstract
Although most influenza infections are self-limited, few other diseases exert such a huge toll of suffering and economic loss. Despite the importance of influenza, there had been, until recently, little advance in its control since amantadine was licensed almost 40 years ago. During the past decade, evidence has accrued on the protection afforded by inactivated vaccines and the safety and efficacy in children of live influenza-virus vaccines. There have been many new developments in vaccine technology. Moreover, work on viral neuraminidase has led to the licensing of potent selective antiviral drugs, and economic decision modelling provides further justification for annual vaccination and a framework for the use of neuraminidase inhibitors. Progress has also been made on developing near-patient testing for influenza that may assist individual diagnosis or the recognition of widespread virus circulation, and so optimise clinical management. Despite these advances, the occurrence of avian H5N1, H9N2, and H7N7 influenza in human beings and the rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome are reminders of our vulnerability to an emerging pandemic. The contrast between recent cases of H5N1 infection, associated with high mortality, and the typically mild, self-limiting nature of human infections with avian H7N7 and H9N2 influenza shows the gaps in our understanding of molecular correlates of pathogenicity and underlines the need for continuing international research into pandemic influenza. Improvements in animal and human surveillance, new approaches to vaccination, and increasing use of vaccines and antiviral drugs to combat annual influenza outbreaks are essential to reduce the global toll of pandemic and interpandemic influenza.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2003 PMID: 14643124 PMCID: PMC7112395 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14854-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lancet ISSN: 0140-6736 Impact factor: 79.321
Figure 1Natural hosts of influenza viruses
Figure 2Origin of antigenic shift and pandemic influenza
The segmented nature of the influenza A genome, which has eight genes, facilitates reassortment; up to 256 gene combinations are possible during coinfection with human and non-human viruses. Antigenic shift can arise when genes encoding at least the haemagglutinin surface glycoprotein are introduced into people, by direct transmission of an avian virus from birds, as occurred with H5N1 virus, or after genetic reassortment in pigs, which support the growth of both avian and human viruses.
Summary of near-patient tests
| Directigen Flu A; Becton Dickinson ( | Membrane adsorption EIA: detection of influenza NP | 15 | Colour change in small cassette | 11 | 62–100 (median 89·7) | 84–100 (median 97·2) | Detects influenza A only |
| Directigen A/B; Becton Dickinson | Membrane adsorption EIA: detection of influenza NP | 15 | Colour change in small cassette | 2 | Median 90 influenza A, 71 influenza B | Median 99·8 influenza A, 98·5 influenza B | Detects A and B and distinguishes between them |
| Biostar; Biota ( | Optical immunoassay; detection of influenza NP | 15 | Change in refractive index on silicon chip embedded in small cassette | 8 | 37–93 (median 52·7) | 73·1–95·7 (median 86) | Detects A and B; does not distinguish between them |
| Z Stat; Zyme Tx Inc ( | Membrane adsorption EIA; detection of influenza neuraminidase | 30 | Colour change in small cassette | 6 | 65–96 (median 71) | 63–92 (median 83) | Detects A and B; does not distinguish between them |
| QuickVue; Quidel ( | Membrane capillary flow; detection of influenza NP | 10 | Dipstick; colour change | 3 | 74–95 (median 79·2) | 76–98 (median 82·6) | Detects A and B; does not distinguish between them |
NP=nucleoprotein.
Efficacy of influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed symptomatic influenza in populations of children, working adults, and community-dwelling elderly people
| Children | Split product and surface antigen, 15 μg | Random-effects meta-analysis | Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza | 80 (74–90) |
| Adults of working age | Split product, 15 μg | Random-effects meta-analysis | Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza; laboratory-confirmed influenza | 77 (66–85) |
| Community-dwelling elderly | Surface antigen, 15 μg | RCT | Laboratory-confirmed influenza | 52 (29–67) |
| Elderly people in welfare nursing homes | Split product, 15 μg | Prospective cohort study | Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza | 60 (NA) |
NA=not available; RCT=randomised controlled trial.
Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in community-dwelling elderly people
| Retrospective cohort | 1980–81 to | Low | 40 (1 to 64) |
| study | 1988–89 | High | 30 (17 to 42) |
| Retrospective cohort | 1990–91 to | Low | 49 (29 to 69) |
| study | 1995–96 | Intermediate | 32 (−8 to 71) |
| High | 29(11 to 47) | ||
| Retrospective cohort | 1996–97 | Elderly | 20 (5 to 31) |
| study | 1997–98 | 24 (14 to 34) | |
| Case-control study | 1982–83 | Elderly | 37 (15 to 53) |
| 1985–86 | 39 (19 to 53) | ||
| Case-control study | 1989–90 | Elderly | 63 (17 to 84) |
| Case-control study | 1989–90 | Elderly | 45 (14–64) |
| Case-control study | 1990–91 | Elderly | 31 (4 to 51) |
| 1991–92 | 32 (7 to 50) | ||
| Case-control study | 1994–95 | Elderly | 79 (45 to 91) |
| Case-control study | 1994–95 | Elderly | 33 (5 to 52) |
| Retrospective cohort | 1990–91 to | Elderly | 32 (29 to 40) |
| study | 1995–96 | ||
| Case-control study | 1982–83 | Elderly | 17 (1 to 32) |
| 1985–86 | 32 (20 to 43) | ||
| Retrospective cohort | 1994–95 to | Elderly | 20 (10–30) |
| study | 1996–97 | ||
| Retrospective cohort | 1980–81 to | High | 33 (−7 to 58) |
| study84 | 1988–89 | ||
| Case control study87 | 1982–83 | Elderly | 64 (19 to 84) |
| 1985–86 | 54 (7 to 77) | ||
| Retrospective cohort study | 1989–90 | Elderly | 75 (21 to 92) |
| Retrospective cohort | 1990–91 to | Elderly | 50 (44 to 56) |
| study | 1995–96 | ||
| Retrospective cohort | 1996–97 | Elderly | 60 (55 to 65) |
| study | 1997–98 | 39 (33 to 44) | |
Summary results of the Health Technology Appraisal meta-analyses of zanamivir and oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza
| ITT population | Influenza positive | ITT population | Influenza positive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy individuals, aged 12–65 years | 0·78 (0·26 to 1·31) | 1·26 (0·59 to −1·93) | 0·51 (−0·02 to 1·04) | 0·46 (0·02 to 0·90) |
| At-risk individuals, including older than 65 years | 0·93 (−0·05 to 1·90) | 1·99 (0·90 to 3·08) | 0·09 (−0·78 to 0·95) | 0·2 (−0·79 to 1·19) |
| Healthy children | 1·0 (0·50 to 1·50) | 1·0 (0·40 to 1·60) | 0·5 (−0·30 to 1·30) | 0·5 (−0·40 to 1·40) |
| “All” individuals | 0·94 (0·65 to 1·23) | 1·26 (0·90 to 1·61) | 0·37 (0·01 to 0·74) | 0·37 (0·02 to 0·72) |
| Healthy individuals, aged 12–65 years | 0·86 (0·31 to 1·42) | 1·38 (0·79 to 1·96) | 1·33 (0·70 to 1·96) | 1·64 (0·69 to 2·58) |
| At-risk individuals, including older than 65 years | −0·34 (−0·71 to 1·40) | 0·45 (−0·97 to 1·88) | 2·45 (0·05 to 4·86) | 3·0 (0·13 to 5·88) |
| Healthy children | 0·87 (0·25 to 1·49) | 1·49 (0·76 to 2·20) | 1·25 (0·70 to 1·80) | 1·86 (1·06 to 2·65) |
| “All” individuals | 0·80 (0·41 to 1·18) | 1·33 (0·90 to 1·77) | 1·32 (0·91 to 1·73) | 1·64 (1·17 to 2·10) |
ITT=intention-to-treat.
Effect on complications necessitating use of antibiotics and pneumonia of zanamivir and oseltamivir
| Placeb ogroup (%) | Treatment group (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Placebo group (%) | Treatment group (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Placebo group (%) | Treatment group (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Placebo group (%) | Treatment group (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “All” individuals | 18 | 13 | 0·71 (0·56 to 0·90) | 18 | 13 | 0·82 (0·61 to 1·10) | 1 | <1 | 0·49 (0·21 to 1·06) | 2 | <1 | 0·43 (0·15 to 1·10) |
| High-risk individuals | .. | .. | .. | 24 | 15 | 0·55 (0·24 to 1·23) | 4 | 3 | 0·90 (0·21 to 3·62) | 4 | 3 | 0·69 (0·10 to 3·64) |
| High-risk children and adults | 25 | 16 | 0·57 (0·31 to 1·03) | 24 | 13 | 0·49 (0·23 to 1·04) | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| “All” individuals | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2 | <1 | 0·37 (0·15 to 0·86) | |
| Healthy | .. | .. | .. | 5 | 2 | 0·32 (0·16 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | <1 | 0·15 (0·06 |
| individuals | to 0·59) | to 0·72) | ||||||||||
| High-risk individuals | .. | .. | .. | 18 | 12 | 0·62 (0·40 to 0·94) | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 2 | 0·76 (0·24 to 2·23) |