Pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses

The panzootic caused by A/goose/Guangdong/1/96-lineage highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5) viruses has occurred in multiple waves since 1996. From 2013 onwards, clade 2.3.4.4 viruses of subtypes A(H5N2), A(H5N6), and A(H5N8) emerged to cause panzootic waves of unprecedented magnitude among avian species accompanied by severe losses to the poultry industry around the world. Clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses have expanded in distinct geographical and evolutionary pathways likely via long distance migratory bird dispersal onto several continents and by poultry trade among neighboring countries. Coupled with regional circulation, the viruses have evolved further by reassorting with local viruses. As of February 2019, there have been 23 cases of humans infected with clade 2.3.4.4 H5N6 viruses, 16 (70%) of which had fatal outcomes. To date, no HPAI A(H5) virus has caused sustainable human-to-human transmission. However, due to the lack of population immunity in humans and ongoing evolution of the virus, there is a continuing risk that clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses could cause an influenza pandemic if the ability to transmit efficiently among humans was gained. Therefore, multisectoral collaborations among the animal, environmental, and public health sectors are essential to conduct risk assessments and develop countermeasures to prevent disease and to control spread. In this article, we describe an assessment of the likelihood of clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses gaining human-to-human transmissibility and impact on human health should such human-to-human transmission occur. This structured analysis assessed properties of the virus, attributes of the human population, and ecology and epidemiology of these viruses in animal hosts

Epidemiological Differences between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up. Objectives. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain. Methods. We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries. Results. Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group. Conclusion. Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations

Disabling musculoskeletal pain in working populations: Is it the job, the person, or the culture?

To compare the prevalence of disabling low back pain (DLBP) and disabling wrist/hand pain (DWHP) among groups of workers carrying out similar physical activities in different cultural environments, and to explore explanations for observed differences, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 18 countries. Standardised questionnaires were used to ascertain pain that interfered with everyday activities and exposure to possible risk factors in 12,426 participants from 47 occupational groups (mostly nurses and office workers). Associations with risk factors were assessed by Poisson regression. The 1-month prevalence of DLBP in nurses varied from 9.6% to 42.6%, and that of DWHP in office workers from 2.2% to 31.6%. Rates of disabling pain at the 2 anatomical sites covaried (r = 0.76), but DLBP tended to be relatively more common in nurses and DWHP in office workers. Established risk factors such as occupational physical activities, psychosocial aspects of work, and tendency to somatise were confirmed, and associations were found also with adverse health beliefs and group awareness of people outside work with musculoskeletal pain. However, after allowance for these risk factors, an up-to 8-fold difference in prevalence remained. Systems of compensation for work-related illness and financial support for health-related incapacity for work appeared to have little influence on the occurrence of symptoms. Our findings indicate large international variation in the prevalence of disabling forearm and back pain among occupational groups carrying out similar tasks, which is only partially explained by the personal and socioeconomic risk factors that were analysed