No abstract

BackgroundInfluenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for frail older people. Whilst the antiviral drug oseltamivir (a neuraminidase inhibitor) is approved for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza during outbreaks, there have been no trials comparing treatment only (T) versus treatment and prophylaxis (T&P) in Aged Care Facilities (ACFs). Our objective was to compare a policy of T versus T&P for influenza outbreaks in ACFs.Methods and FindingsWe performed a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 ACFs, that followed a policy of either “T”—oseltamivir treatment (75 mg twice a day for 5 days)—or “T&P”—treatment and prophylaxis (75 mg once a day for 10 days) for influenza outbreaks over three years, in addition to enhanced surveillance. The primary outcome measure was the attack rate of influenza. Secondary outcomes measures were deaths, hospitalisation, pneumonia and adverse events. Laboratory testing was performed to identify the viral cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) outbreaks. The study period 30 June 2006 to 23 December 2008 included three southern hemisphere winters. During that time, influenza was confirmed as the cause of nine of the 23 ILI outbreaks that occurred amongst the 16 ACFs. The policy of T&P resulted in a significant reduction in the influenza attack rate amongst residents: 93/255 (36%) in residents in T facilities versus 91/397 (23%) in T&P facilities (p = 0.002). We observed a non-significant reduction in staff: 46/216 (21%) in T facilities versus 47/350 (13%) in T&P facilities (p = 0.5). There was a significant reduction in mean duration of outbreaks (T = 24 days, T&P = 11 days, p = 0.04). Deaths, hospitalisations and pneumonia were non-significantly reduced in the T&P allocated facilities. Drug adverse events were common but tolerated.ConclusionOur trial lacked power but these results provide some support for a policy of “treatment and prophylaxis” with oseltamivir in controlling influenza outbreaks in ACFs.Trail RegistrationAustralian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000278538

This is the first reported HEV outbreak in Australia. HEV should be considered in patients presenting with a compatible illness, even without a history of overseas travel. Pork products should be thoroughly cooked before consumption.

Under the International Health Regulations (2005), Member States are required to develop capacity in event-based surveillance (EBS). The Papua New Guinea National Department of Health established an EBS system during the influenza pandemic in August 2009. We review its performance from August 2009 to November 2012, sharing lessons that may be useful to other low-resource public health practitioners working in surveillance. We examined the EBS system's event reporting, event verification and response. Characteristics examined included type of event, source of information, timeliness, nature of response and outcome. Sixty-one records were identified. The median delay between onset of the event and date of reporting was 10 days. The largest proportion of reports (39%) came from Provincial Health Offices, followed by direct reports from clinical staff (25%) and reports in the media (11%). Most (84%) of the events were substantiated to be true public health events, and 56% were investigated by the Provincial Health Office alone. A confirmed or probable etiology could not be determined in 69% of true events. EBS is a simple strategy that forms a cornerstone of public health surveillance and response particularly in low-resource settings such as Papua New Guinea. There is a need to reinforce reporting pathways, improve timeliness of reporting, expand sources of information, improve feedback and improve diagnostic support capacity. For it to be successful, EBS should be closely tied to response.