The comparative clinical course of pregnant and non-pregnant women hospitalised with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection

Introduction: The Influenza Clinical Information Network (FLU-CIN) was established to gather detailed clinical and epidemiological information about patients with laboratory confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in UK hospitals. This report focuses on the clinical course and outcomes of infection in pregnancy.Methods: A standardised data extraction form was used to obtain detailed clinical information from hospital case notes and electronic records, for patients with PCR-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection admitted to 13 sentinel hospitals in five clinical 'hubs' and a further 62 non-sentinel hospitals, between 11th May 2009 and 31st January 2010.Outcomes were compared for pregnant and non-pregnant women aged 15-44 years, using univariate and multivariable techniques.Results: Of the 395 women aged 15-44 years, 82 (21%) were pregnant; 73 (89%) in the second or third trimester. Pregnant women were significantly less likely to exhibit severe respiratory distress at initial assessment (OR?=?0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.82)), require supplemental oxygen on admission (OR?=?0.40 (95% CI: 0.20-0.80)), or have underlying co-morbidities (p-trend <0.001). However, they were equally likely to be admitted to high dependency (Level 2) or intensive care (Level 3) and/or to die, after adjustment for potential confounders (adj. OR?=?0.93 (95% CI: 0.46-1.92). Of 11 pregnant women needing Level 2/3 care, 10 required mechanical ventilation and three died.Conclusions: Since the expected prevalence of pregnancy in the source population was 6%, our data suggest that pregnancy greatly increased the likelihood of hospital admission with A(H1N1)pdm09. Pregnant women were less likely than non-pregnant women to have respiratory distress on admission, but severe outcomes were equally likely in both groups

Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in autoimmune rheumatic diseases treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in people with autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRDs) is not known. We investigated whether the influenza vaccine is effective in preventing respiratory morbidity, mortality and all-cause mortality in AIRD patients.MethodsAdults with AIRDs treated with DMARDs prior to 1 September of each year between 2006 and 2009, and 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Exposure and outcome data were extracted. Data from multiple seasons were pooled. Propensity score (PS) for vaccination was calculated. Cox-proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated, and were (i) adjusted, (ii) matched for PS for vaccination.ResultsData for 30 788 AIRD patients (65.7% female, 75.5% with RA, 61.1% prescribed MTX) contributing 125 034 influenza cycles were included. Vaccination reduced risk of influenza-like illness [adjusted HR (aHR) 0.70], hospitalization for pneumonia (aHR 0.61) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (aHR 0.67), and death due to pneumonia (aHR 0.56) on PS-adjusted analysis in the influenza active periods (IAPs). The associations were of similar magnitude and remained statistically significant on PS-matched analysis except for protection from influenza-like illness, which became non-significant. Sub-analysis restricted to pre-IAP, IAP and post-IAP did not yield evidence of residual confounding on influenza-like illness and death due to pneumonia. Vaccination reduced risk of all-cause mortality, although IAP-restricted analysis demonstrated residual confounding for this outcome.ConclusionInfluenza vaccine associates with reduced risk of respiratory morbidity and mortality in people with AIRDs. These findings call for active promotion of seasonal influenza vaccination in immunosuppressed people with AIRDs by healthcare professionals

Increased risk of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection in UK pig industry workers compared to a general population cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pigs are mixing vessels for influenza viral reassortment but the extent of influenza transmission between swine and humans is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether occupational exposure to pigs is a risk factor for human infection with human and swine-adapted influenza viruses. METHODS: UK pig industry workers were frequency-matched on age, region, sampling month, and gender with a community-based comparison group from the Flu Watch study. HI assays quantified antibodies for swine and human A(H1) and A(H3) influenza viruses (titres≥40 considered seropositive and indicative of infection). Virus-specific associations between seropositivity and occupational pig exposure were examined using multivariable regression models adjusted for vaccination. Pigs on the same farms were also tested for seropositivity. RESULTS: 42% of pigs were seropositive to A(H1N1)pdm09. Pig industry workers showed evidence of increased odds of A(H1N1)pdm09 seropositivity compared to the comparison group, albeit with wide confidence intervals (CI), Adjusted Odds Ratio after accounting for possible cross reactivity with other swine A(H1) viruses (aOR) 25.3, 95% CI [1.4-536.3], p=0.028. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was common in UK pigs during the pandemic and subsequent period of human A(H1N1)pdm09 circulation, and occupational exposure to pigs was a risk factor for human infection. Influenza immunization of pig industry workers may reduce transmission and the potential for virus reassortment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved