None.

BackgroundUnderstanding immunity, incidence and risk factors of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic (2009 H1N1) through a national seroprevalence study is necessary for informing public health interventions and disease modelling.Methods and FindingsWe collected 1687 serum samples and individual risk factor data between November-2009 to March-2010, three months after the end of the 2009 H1N1 wave in New Zealand. Participants were randomly sampled from selected general practices countrywide and hospitals in the Auckland region. Baseline immunity was measured from 521 sera collected during 2004 to April-2009. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titres of ≥1∶40 against 2009 H1N1 were considered seroprotective as well as seropositive. The overall community seroprevalence was 26.7% (CI:22.6–29.4). The seroprevalence varied across age and ethnicity. Children aged 5–19 years had the highest seroprevalence (46.7%;CI:38.3–55.0), a significant increase from the baseline (14%;CI:7.2–20.8). Older adults aged ≥60 had no significant difference in seroprevalence between the serosurvey (24.8%;CI:18.7–30.9) and baseline (22.6%;CI:15.3–30.0). Pacific peoples had the highest seroprevalence (49.5%;CI:35.1–64.0). There was no significant difference in seroprevalence between both primary (29.6%;CI:22.6–36.5) and secondary healthcare workers (25.3%;CI:20.8–29.8) and community participants. No significant regional variation was observed. Multivariate analysis indicated age as the most important risk factor followed by ethnicity. Previous seasonal influenza vaccination was associated with higher HI titres. Approximately 45.2% of seropositive individuals reported no symptoms.ConclusionsBased on age and ethnicity standardisation to the New Zealand Population, about 29.5% of New Zealanders had antibody titers at a level consistent with immunity to 2009 H1N1. Around 18.3% of New Zealanders were infected with the virus during the first wave including about one child in every three. Older people were protected due to pre-existing immunity. Age was the most important factor associated with infection followed by ethnicity. Healthcare workers did not appear to have an increased risk of infection compared with the general population.

The discovery of new or divergent viruses using metagenomics and high-throughput sequencing has become more commonplace. The preparation of a sample is known to have an effect on the representation of virus sequences within the metagenomic dataset yet comparatively little attention has been given to this. Physical enrichment techniques are often applied to samples to increase the number of viral sequences and therefore enhance the probability of detection. With the exception of virus ecology studies, there is a paucity of information available to researchers on the type of sample preparation required for a viral metagenomic study that seeks to identify an aetiological virus in an animal or human diagnostic sample. A review of published virus discovery studies revealed the most commonly used enrichment methods, that were usually quick and simple to implement, namely low-speed centrifugation, filtration, nuclease-treatment (or combinations of these) which have been routinely used but often without justification. These were applied to a simple and well-characterised artificial sample composed of bacterial and human cells, as well as DNA (adenovirus) and RNA viruses (influenza A and human enterovirus), being either non-enveloped capsid or enveloped viruses. The effect of the enrichment method was assessed by both quantitative real-time PCR and metagenomic analysis that incorporated an amplification step. Reductions in the absolute quantities of bacteria and human cells were observed for each method as determined by qPCR, but the relative abundance of viral sequences in the metagenomic dataset remained largely unchanged. A 3-step method of centrifugation, filtration and nuclease-treatment showed the greatest increase in the proportion of viral sequences. This study provides a starting point for the selection of a purification method in future virus discovery studies, and highlights the need for more data to validate the effect of enrichment methods on different sample types, amplification, bioinformatics approaches and sequencing platforms. This study also highlights the potential risks that may attend selection of a virus enrichment method without any consideration for the sample type being investigated.

BackgroundThe term severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) encompasses a heterogeneous group of respiratory illnesses. Grading the severity of SARI is currently reliant on indirect disease severity measures such as respiratory and heart rate, and the need for oxygen or intensive care. With the lungs being the primary organ system involved in SARI, chest radiographs (CXRs) are potentially useful for describing disease severity. Our objective was to develop and validate a SARI CXR severity scoring system.MethodsWe completed validation within an active SARI surveillance project, with SARI defined using the World Health Organization case definition of an acute respiratory infection with a history of fever, or measured fever of ≥ 38 °C; and cough; and with onset within the last 10 days; and requiring hospital admission. We randomly selected 250 SARI cases. Admission CXR findings were categorized as: 1 = normal; 2 = patchy atelectasis and/or hyperinflation and/or bronchial wall thickening; 3 = focal consolidation; 4 = multifocal consolidation; and 5 = diffuse alveolar changes.Initially, four radiologists scored CXRs independently. Subsequently, a pediatrician, physician, two residents, two medical students, and a research nurse independently scored CXR reports. Inter-observer reliability was determined using a weighted Kappa (κ) for comparisons between radiologists; radiologists and clinicians; and clinicians. Agreement was defined as moderate (κ > 0.4–0.6), good (κ > 0.6–0.8) and very good (κ > 0.8–1.0).ResultsAgreement between the two pediatric radiologists was very good (κ = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.65–1.00) and between the two adult radiologists was good (κ = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.57–0. 93).Agreement of the clinicians with the radiologists was moderate-to-good (pediatrician:κ = 0.65; pediatric resident:κ = 0.69; physician:κ = 0.68; resident:κ = 0.67; research nurse:κ = 0.49, medical students: κ = 0.53 and κ = 0.56).Agreement between clinicians was good-to-very good (pediatrician vs. physician:κ = 0.85; vs. pediatric resident:κ = 0.81; vs. medicine resident:κ = 0.76; vs. research nurse:κ = 0.75; vs. medical students:κ = 0.63 and 0.66).Following review of discrepant CXR report scores by clinician pairs, κ values for radiologist-clinician agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.70 and for clinician-clinician agreement from 0.97 to 0.99.ConclusionsThis five-point CXR scoring tool, suitable for use in poorly- and well-resourced settings and by clinicians of varying experience levels, reliably describes SARI severity. The resulting numerical data enables epidemiological comparisons of SARI severity between different countries and settings.

Measurement of anti-neuraminidase antibodies in addition to anti- hemagglutinin antibodies may be important in capturing the true influenza infection rates.