Search

Background: The term severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) encompasses a heterogeneous group of respiratory illnesses. Grading the severity of SARI is currently reliant on indirect disease severity measures such as respiratory and heart rate, and the need for oxygen or intensive care. With the lungs being the primary organ system involved in SARI, chest radiographs (CXRs) are potentially useful for describing disease severity. Our objective was to develop and validate a SARI CXR severity scoring system. Methods: We completed validation within an active SARI surveillance project, with SARI defined using the World Health Organization case definition of an acute respiratory infection with a history of fever, or measured fever of ≥ 38 °C; and cough; and with onset within the last 10 days; and requiring hospital admission. We randomly selected 250 SARI cases. Admission CXR findings were categorized as: 1 = normal; 2 = patchy atelectasis and/or hyperinflation and/or bronchial wall thickening; 3 = focal consolidation; 4 = multifocal consolidation; and 5 = diffuse alveolar changes. Initially, four radiologists scored CXRs independently. Subsequently, a pediatrician, physician, two residents, two medical students, and a research nurse independently scored CXR reports. Inter-observer reliability was determined using a weighted Kappa (κ) for comparisons between radiologists; radiologists and clinicians; and clinicians. Agreement was defined as moderate (κ > 0.4-0.6), good (κ > 0.6-0.8) and very good (κ > 0.8-1.0). Results: Agreement between the two pediatric radiologists was very good (κ = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.65-1.00) and between the two adult radiologists was good (κ = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.57-0. 93). Agreement of the clinicians with the radiologists was moderate-to-good (pediatrician:κ = 0.65; pediatric resident:κ = 0.69; physician:κ = 0.68; resident:κ = 0.67; research nurse:κ = 0.49, medical students: κ = 0.53 and κ = 0.56). Agreement between clinicians was good-to-very good (pediatrician vs. physician:κ = 0.85; vs. pediatric resident:κ = 0.81; vs. medicine resident:κ = 0.76; vs. research nurse:κ = 0.75; vs. medical students:κ = 0.63 and 0.66). Following review of discrepant CXR report scores by clinician pairs, κ values for radiologist-clinician agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.70 and for clinician-clinician agreement from 0.97 to 0.99. Conclusions: This five-point CXR scoring tool, suitable for use in poorly- and well-resourced settings and by clinicians of varying experience levels, reliably describes SARI severity. The resulting numerical data enables epidemiological comparisons of SARI severity between different countries and settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent experience with pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 highlighted the importance of global surveillance for severe respiratory disease to support pandemic preparedness and seasonal influenza control. Improved surveillance in the southern hemisphere is needed to provide critical data on influenza epidemiology, disease burden, circulating strains and effectiveness of influenza prevention and control measures. Hospital-based surveillance for severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) cases was established in New Zealand on 30 April 2012. The aims were to me asure incidence, prevalence, risk factors, clinical spectrum and outcomes for SARI and associated influenza and other respiratory pathogen cases as well as to understand influenza contribution to patients not meeting SARI case definition. Methods/Design: All inpatients with suspected respiratory infections who were admitted overnight to the study hospitals were screened daily. If a patient met the World Health Organization's SARI case definition, a respiratory specimen was tested for influenza and other respiratory pathogens. A case report form captured demographics, history of presenting illness, co-morbidities, disease course and outcome and risk factors. These data were supplemented from electronic clinical records and other linked data sources. Discussion: Hospital-based SARI surveillance has been implemented and is fully functioning in New Zealand. Active, prospective, continuous, hospital-based SARI surveillance is useful in supporting pandemic preparedness for emerging influenza A(H7N9) virus infections and seasonal influenza prevention and control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding immunity, incidence and risk factors of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic (2009 H1N1) through a national seroprevalence study is necessary for informing public health interventions and disease modelling. Methods and Findings: We collected 1687 serum samples and individual risk factor data between November-2009 to March-2010, three months after the end of the 2009 H1N1 wave in New Zealand. Participants were randomly sampled from selected general practices countrywide and hospitals in the Auckland region. Baseline immunity was measured from 521 sera collected during 2004 to April-2009. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titres of ≥1:40 against 2009 H1N1 were considered seroprotective as well as seropositive. The overall community seroprevalence was 26.7% (CI:22.6-29.4). The seroprevalence varied across age and ethnicity. Children aged 5-19 years had the highest seroprevalence (46.7%;CI:38.3- 55.0), a significant increase from the baseline (14%;CI:7.2-20.8). Older adults aged ≥60 had no significant difference in seroprevalence between the serosurvey (24.8%;CI:18.7-30.9) and baseline (22.6%;CI:15.3-30.0). Pacific peoples had the highest seroprevalence (49.5%;CI:35.1-64.0). There was no significant difference in seroprevalence between both primary (29.6%;CI:22.6-36.5) and secondary healthcare workers (25.3%;CI:20.8-29.8) and community participants. No significant regional variation was observed. Multivariate analysis indicated age as the most important risk factor followed by ethnicity. Previous seasonal influenza vaccination was associated with higher HI titres. Approximately 45.2% of seropositive individuals reported no symptoms. Conclusions: Based on age and ethnicity standardisation to the New Zealand Population, about 29.5% of New Zealanders had antibody titers at a level consistent with immunity to 2009 H1N1. Around 18.3% of New Zealanders were infected with the virus during the first wave including about one child in every three. Older people were protected due to pre-existing immunity. Age was the most important factor associated with infection followed by ethnicity. Healthcare workers did not appear to have an increased risk of infection compared with the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]