» Articles » PMID: 26692335

Transmission of the First Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 Pandemic Wave in Australia Was Driven by Undetected Infections: Pandemic Response Implications

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2015 Dec 23
PMID 26692335
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: During the first wave of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in Victoria, Australia the rapid increase in notified cases and the high proportion with relatively mild symptoms suggested that community transmission was established before cases were identified. This lead to the hypothesis that those with low-level infections were the main drivers of the pandemic.

Methods: A deterministic susceptible-infected-recovered model was constructed to describe the first pandemic wave in a population structured by disease severity levels of asymptomatic, low-level symptoms, moderate symptoms and severe symptoms requiring hospitalisation. The model incorporated mixing, infectivity and duration of infectiousness parameters to calculate subgroup-specific reproduction numbers for each severity level.

Results: With stratum-specific effective reproduction numbers of 1.82 and 1.32 respectively, those with low-level symptoms, and those with asymptomatic infections were responsible for most of the transmission. The effective reproduction numbers for infections resulting in moderate symptoms and hospitalisation were less than one. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the importance of parameters relating to asymptomatic individuals and those with low-level symptoms.

Conclusions: Transmission of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was largely driven by those invisible to the health system. This has implications for control measures--such as distribution of antivirals to cases and contacts and quarantine/isolation--that rely on detection of infected cases. Pandemic plans need to incorporate milder scenarios, with a graded approach to implementation of control measures.

Citing Articles

Influenza and COVID-19 co-infection and vaccine effectiveness against severe cases: a mathematical modeling study.

Liang J, Wang Y, Lin Z, He W, Sun J, Li Q Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024; 14:1347710.

PMID: 38500506 PMC: 10945002. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2024.1347710.


Assessing the spatial variability of raising public risk awareness for the intervention performance of COVID-19 voluntary screening: A spatial simulation approach.

Kuo F, Wen T Appl Geogr. 2022; 148:102804.

PMID: 36267149 PMC: 9567310. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102804.


Comparison of methods to Estimate Basic Reproduction Number ( ) of influenza, Using Canada 2009 and 2017-18 A (H1N1) Data.

Nikbakht R, Baneshi M, Bahrampour A, Hosseinnataj A J Res Med Sci. 2019; 24:67.

PMID: 31523253 PMC: 6670001. DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_888_18.

References
1.
To K, Chan K, Li I, Tsang T, Tse H, Chan J . Viral load in patients infected with pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza A virus. J Med Virol. 2009; 82(1):1-7. PMC: 7167040. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21664. View

2.
Denholm J, Gordon C, Johnson P, Hewagama S, Stuart R, Aboltins C . Hospitalised adult patients with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza in Melbourne, Australia. Med J Aust. 2010; 192(2):84-6. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03424.x. View

3.
Van Kerkhove M, Mounts A . 2009 versus 2010 comparison of influenza activity in southern hemisphere temperate countries. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2011; 5(6):375-9. PMC: 5780652. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00241.x. View

4.
Duchamp M, Casalegno J, Gillet Y, Frobert E, Bernard E, Escuret V . Pandemic A(H1N1)2009 influenza virus detection by real time RT-PCR: is viral quantification useful?. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010; 16(4):317-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03169.x. View

5.
Cowling B, Chan K, Fang V, Lau L, So H, Fung R . Comparative epidemiology of pandemic and seasonal influenza A in households. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(23):2175-2184. PMC: 4070281. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0911530. View