BACKGROUND: There was a record number (n = 111) of influenza outbreaks in aged care facilities in New South Wales, Australia during 2014. To determine the impact of antiviral prophylaxis recommendations in practice, influenza outbreak data were compared for facilities in which antiviral prophylaxis and treatment were recommended and for those in which antivirals were recommended for treatment only. METHODS: Routinely collected outbreak data were extracted from the Notifiable Conditions Information Management System for two Local Health Districts where antiviral prophylaxis was routinely recommended and one Local Health District where antivirals were recommended for treatment but not routinely for prophylaxis. Data collected on residents included counts of influenza-like illness, confirmed influenza, hospitalizations and related deaths. Dates of onset, notification, influenza confirmation and antiviral recommendations were also collected for analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the significance of differences between group medians for key parameters. RESULTS: A total of 41 outbreaks (12 in the prophylaxis group and 29 in the treatment-only group) were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in overall outbreak duration; outbreak duration after notification; or attack, hospitalization or case fatality rates between the two groups. The prophylaxis group had significantly higher cases with influenza-like illness (P = 0.03) and cases recommended antiviral treatment per facility (P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: This study found no significant difference in key outbreak parameters between the two groups. However, further high quality evidence is needed to guide the use of antivirals in responding to influenza outbreaks in aged care facilities.
BACKGROUND: There was a record number (n = 111) of influenza outbreaks in aged care facilities in New South Wales, Australia during 2014. To determine the impact of antiviral prophylaxis recommendations in practice, influenza outbreak data were compared for facilities in which antiviral prophylaxis and treatment were recommended and for those in which antivirals were recommended for treatment only. METHODS: Routinely collected outbreak data were extracted from the Notifiable Conditions Information Management System for two Local Health Districts where antiviral prophylaxis was routinely recommended and one Local Health District where antivirals were recommended for treatment but not routinely for prophylaxis. Data collected on residents included counts of influenza-like illness, confirmed influenza, hospitalizations and related deaths. Dates of onset, notification, influenza confirmation and antiviral recommendations were also collected for analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the significance of differences between group medians for key parameters. RESULTS: A total of 41 outbreaks (12 in the prophylaxis group and 29 in the treatment-only group) were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in overall outbreak duration; outbreak duration after notification; or attack, hospitalization or case fatality rates between the two groups. The prophylaxis group had significantly higher cases with influenza-like illness (P = 0.03) and cases recommended antiviral treatment per facility (P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: This study found no significant difference in key outbreak parameters between the two groups. However, further high quality evidence is needed to guide the use of antivirals in responding to influenza outbreaks in aged care facilities.
Authors: P H Peters; S Gravenstein; P Norwood; V De Bock; A Van Couter; M Gibbens; T A von Planta; P Ward Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Susan K Bowles; Wayne Lee; Andrew E Simor; Mary Vearncombe; Mark Loeb; Susan Tamblyn; Margaret Fearon; Yan Li; Allison McGeer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Robert Booy; Richard I Lindley; Dominic E Dwyer; Jiehui K Yin; Leon G Heron; Cameron R M Moffatt; Clayton K Chiu; Alexander E Rosewell; Anna S Dean; Timothy Dobbins; David J Philp; Zhanhai Gao; C Raina MacIntyre Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marianne Ab van der Sande; Adam Meijer; Fatmagül Sen-Kerpiclik; Remko Enserink; Herman Jm Cools; Piet Overduin; José M Ferreira; Marie-José Veldman-Ariessen Journal: Emerg Themes Epidemiol Date: 2014-09-10
Authors: Timothy M Uyeki; Henry H Bernstein; John S Bradley; Janet A Englund; Thomas M File; Alicia M Fry; Stefan Gravenstein; Frederick G Hayden; Scott A Harper; Jon Mark Hirshon; Michael G Ison; B Lynn Johnston; Shandra L Knight; Allison McGeer; Laura E Riley; Cameron R Wolfe; Paul E Alexander; Andrew T Pavia Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 9.079