Assessing secondary attack rates among household contacts at the beginning of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in Ontario, Canada, April-June 2009: A prospective, observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Understanding transmission dynamics of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus in various exposure settings and determining whether transmissibility differed from seasonal influenza viruses was a priority for decision making on mitigation strategies at the beginning of the pandemic. The objective of this study was to estimate household secondary attack rates for pandemic influenza in a susceptible population where control measures had yet to be implemented.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All Ontario local health units were invited to participate; seven health units volunteered. For all laboratory-confirmed cases reported between April 24 and June 18, 2009, participating health units performed contact tracing to detect secondary cases among household contacts. In total, 87 cases and 266 household contacts were included in this study. Secondary cases were defined as any household member with new onset of acute respiratory illness (fever or two or more respiratory symptoms) or influenza-like illness (fever plus one additional respiratory symptom). Attack rates were estimated using both case definitions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Secondary attack rates were estimated at 10.3% (95% CI 6.8-14.7) for secondary cases with influenza-like illness and 20.2% (95% CI 15.4-25.6) for secondary cases with acute respiratory illness. For both case definitions, attack rates were significantly higher in children under 16 years than adults (25.4% and 42.4% compared to 7.6% and 17.2%). The median time between symptom onset in the primary case and the secondary case was estimated at 3.0 days.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Secondary attack rates for pandemic influenza A (H1N1) were comparable to seasonal influenza estimates suggesting similarities in transmission. High secondary attack rates in children provide additional support for increased susceptibility to infection.</p

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Development of an Infectious Disease Surveillance Framework at Public Health Ontario

Since its inception in 2008, Public Health Ontario (PHO) has grown through new funding, as well as a series of program transfers from the Government of Ontario, including infectious disease (ID) surveillance. In an effort take a strategic approach to ID surveillance, PHO has developed its first Infectious Disease Surveillance Framework. The overarching aim of the framework is to establish key priorities, strategies, and actions to guide ID surveillance over the next five years. The presentation will outline the development process for the framework, highlight its key elements, and identify examples of initiatives planned for implementation

Clinical manifestations of reported Lyme disease cases in Ontario, Canada: 2005–2014

<div><p>Lyme disease (LD) is the most common vector-borne disease in Ontario, Canada. We describe the epidemiology and clinical manifestations of LD in Ontario and examine trends in the incidence of non-disseminated and disseminated LD. LD surveillance data from the integrated Public Health Information System (iPHIS) from 2005–2014 were mapped to symptoms according to syndrome groups (erythema migrans (EM), flu-like, cardiac, neurologic or arthritic) and disease stages (early localized, early disseminated or late disseminated). During the study period, 1,230 cases due to <i>Borrelia burgdoferi</i> were reported in Ontario with annual incidence rates ranging from 0.32 (2006) to 2.16 (2013) cases per 100,000 population. Seventy percent of cases had EM and the proportion of cases with EM increased over time. Other clinical manifestations included flu-like (75%), arthritic (42%), neurologic (41%) and cardiac (6%) symptoms. Early localized disease (n = 415) manifested with EM (87%) and flu-like (57%) symptoms; early disseminated disease (n = 216) manifested with neurologic (94%), cardiac (10%) and EM (63%) symptoms; and late disseminated disease (n = 475) manifested with EM (62%), neurologic (55%), cardiac (9%), and arthritic symptoms (i.e., arthralgia (93%) and arthritis (7%)). Early localized and early disseminated cases (88% each) occurred primarily from May through September, compared to late disseminated cases (81%). The proportion of cases reported to public health within 30 days of illness onset increased during the study period, while the proportion of cases reported within 1–3 months and >3 months decreased. Geographical variations characterized by higher incidence of early localized disease and earlier public health notification (within 30 days of illness onset) occurred in regions with established or recently established LD risk areas, while later public health notification (>3 months after illness onset) was reported more frequently in regions with recently established or no identified risk areas. This is the first study to describe the clinical manifestations of LD in Ontario, Canada. The observed geographical variations in the epidemiology of LD in Ontario reinforce the need for regionally focused public health strategies aimed at increasing awareness, promoting earlier recognition and reporting, and encouraging greater uptake of preventive measures.</p></div

Characteristics of Lyme disease cases by stage, Ontario: 2015–14.

<p>Characteristics of Lyme disease cases by stage, Ontario: 2015–14.</p

Incidence rate per 100,000 for Lyme disease cases by stage, Ontario: 2005–14 (n = 1,133)*.

<p>*Includes only cases with ≥ 1 reported symptom.</p

Number and incidence rate of Lyme disease cases by classification, Ontario: 2005–14 (n = 1230)*.

<p>* Probable cases are included after 2009 as they are equivalent to a subset of confirmed cases reported in prior years.</p

Age-specific incidence rate per 100,000 for Lyme disease cases by clinical stage, Ontario: 2005–2014*^†.

<p>* Ranges for scales are different for each chart. ^† All charts do not include cases with missing data on age; chart for all cases includes cases for whom disease stage could not be determined.</p

Incidence rates for Lyme disease cases by disease stage and region of residence, Ontario: 2005–14*.

<p>* <b>A</b> represents early localized LD cases (n = 415), <b>B</b> represents early disseminated LD cases (n = 216), <b>C</b> represents late disseminated cases (n = 475) and <b>D</b> represents all LD cases, including cases with no reported symptoms and cases with symptoms not related to LD (n = 1,230).</p

Time to public health notification of Lyme disease cases, Ontario: 2005–14 (n = 1,104)*.

<p>* Includes only cases with an onset date for symptoms reported.</p