Literature DB >> 17684187

Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.

Howard Markel1, Harvey B Lipman, J Alexander Navarro, Alexandra Sloan, Joseph R Michalsen, Alexandra Minna Stern, Martin S Cetron.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: A critical question in pandemic influenza planning is the role nonpharmaceutical interventions might play in delaying the temporal effects of a pandemic, reducing the overall and peak attack rate, and reducing the number of cumulative deaths. Such measures could potentially provide valuable time for pandemic-strain vaccine and antiviral medication production and distribution. Optimally, appropriate implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions would decrease the burden on health care services and critical infrastructure.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions for epidemic mitigation in 43 cities in the continental United States from September 8, 1918, through February 22, 1919, and to determine whether city-to-city variation in mortality was associated with the timing, duration, and combination of nonpharmaceutical interventions; altered population susceptibility associated with prior pandemic waves; age and sex distribution; and population size and density. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Historical archival research, and statistical and epidemiological analyses. Nonpharmaceutical interventions were grouped into 3 major categories: school closure; cancellation of public gatherings; and isolation and quarantine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weekly excess death rate (EDR); time from the activation of nonpharmaceutical interventions to the first peak EDR; the first peak weekly EDR; and cumulative EDR during the entire 24-week study period.
RESULTS: There were 115,340 excess pneumonia and influenza deaths (EDR, 500/100,000 population) in the 43 cities during the 24 weeks analyzed. Every city adopted at least 1 of the 3 major categories of nonpharmaceutical interventions. School closure and public gathering bans activated concurrently represented the most common combination implemented in 34 cities (79%); this combination had a median duration of 4 weeks (range, 1-10 weeks) and was significantly associated with reductions in weekly EDR. The cities that implemented nonpharmaceutical interventions earlier had greater delays in reaching peak mortality (Spearman r = -0.74, P < .001), lower peak mortality rates (Spearman r = 0.31, P = .02), and lower total mortality (Spearman r = 0.37, P = .008). There was a statistically significant association between increased duration of nonpharmaceutical interventions and a reduced total mortality burden (Spearman r = -0.39, P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate a strong association between early, sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. In planning for future severe influenza pandemics, nonpharmaceutical interventions should be considered for inclusion as companion measures to developing effective vaccines and medications for prophylaxis and treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17684187     DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.6.644

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  211 in total

1.  Social mixing patterns within a South African township community: implications for respiratory disease transmission and control.

Authors:  Simon P Johnstone-Robertson; Daniella Mark; Carl Morrow; Keren Middelkoop; Melika Chiswell; Lisa D H Aquino; Linda-Gail Bekker; Robin Wood
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  Influenza: the once and future pandemic.

Authors:  Jeffery K Taubenberger; David M Morens
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  "Better off in school": School medical inspection as a public health strategy during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States.

Authors:  Alexandra Minna Stern; Mary Beth Reilly; Martin S Cetron; Howard Markel
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  The American Red Cross and local response to the 1918 influenza pandemic: a four-city case study.

Authors:  Marian Moser Jones
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  1918 and 2009: a tale of two pandemics.

Authors:  Stephen C Redd; Thomas R Frieden; Anne Schuchat; Peter A Briss
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  "Destroyer and teacher": Managing the masses during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.

Authors:  Nancy Tomes
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.792

7.  Effect of school closure on the incidence of influenza among school-age children in Arizona.

Authors:  Colleen C Wheeler; Laura M Erhart; Megan L Jehn
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

8.  Absolute humidity and pandemic versus epidemic influenza.

Authors:  Jeffrey Shaman; Edward Goldstein; Marc Lipsitch
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  William Augustus Evans (1865-1948): public health leader at a critical time.

Authors:  Georges C Benjamin; Elizabeth Fee; Theodore M Brown
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 10.  Supramolecular Hydrogelators and Hydrogels: From Soft Matter to Molecular Biomaterials.

Authors:  Xuewen Du; Jie Zhou; Junfeng Shi; Bing Xu
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 60.622

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.