Please cite this paper as: Erkoreka A. (2010) The Spanish influenza pandemic in occidental Europe (1918–1920) and victim age. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 4(2), 81–89. Background  Studies of the Spanish Influenza pandemic (1918–1920) provide interesting information that may improve our preparation for present and future influenza pandemic threats. Methods  We studied archives from France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, obtaining high‐quality data that allowed us to calculate mortality rates associated with the Spanish flu and to characterize the proportional distribution of influenza deaths by age in the capital cities of these countries. Results  French and American troops who fought in the First World War began to be affected from April 1918 onwards by a benign influenza epidemic, which hardly caused any deaths. The first occidental European country in which the pandemic spread to large sectors of the population, causing serious mortality, was Spain. The associated influenza provoked in Madrid a mortality rate of 1·31 per 1000 inhabitants between May and June (1918). In the following months of June and July, the epidemic spread to Portugal, but did not reach the Pyrenees. In September 1918, the influenza pandemic spread with tremendous virulence, presenting itself simultaneously during the month of October in South Western European countries. In Madrid, the 1918 excess mortality due in large part to the influenza pandemic is estimated at 5·27 per 1000. In Paris, the 1918 mortality rate provoked by the influenza and pathologies of the respiratory system was 6·08 per 1000. In South Western European countries, mortality rates oscillated between 10·6 and 12·1 per 1000 inhabitants. A study of the age distribution of deaths due to influenza between 1916 and 1921 reveals that the Spanish influenza principally affected men and women between 15 and 44 years of age. Deaths associated with the seasonal influenza of 1916, 1917 and 1921 represented 19·7%, 12·5% and 21·0% of all deaths respectively, whereas during the rawest moments of the Spanish influenza, in 1918, the proportion of deaths due to flu for those aged between 15 and 44 years of age reached 68·2% in Paris and 66·3% in Madrid. Conclusion  Victim age is an important criterion that can be used to evaluate the phase and evolution of pandemic influenza. The Spanish Influenza affected particularly the 25‐ to 34‐year‐old and 15‐ to 24‐year‐old age groups.

BackgroundThe impact of socio-demographic factors and baseline health on the mortality burden of seasonal and pandemic influenza remains debated. Here we analyzed the spatial-temporal mortality patterns of the 1918 influenza pandemic in Spain, one of the countries of Europe that experienced the highest mortality burden.MethodsWe analyzed monthly death rates from respiratory diseases and all-causes across 49 provinces of Spain, including the Canary and Balearic Islands, during the period January-1915 to June-1919. We estimated the influenza-related excess death rates and risk of death relative to baseline mortality by pandemic wave and province. We then explored the association between pandemic excess mortality rates and health and socio-demographic factors, which included population size and age structure, population density, infant mortality rates, baseline death rates, and urbanization.ResultsOur analysis revealed high geographic heterogeneity in pandemic mortality impact. We identified 3 pandemic waves of varying timing and intensity covering the period from Jan-1918 to Jun-1919, with the highest pandemic-related excess mortality rates occurring during the months of October-November 1918 across all Spanish provinces. Cumulative excess mortality rates followed a south–north gradient after controlling for demographic factors, with the North experiencing highest excess mortality rates. A model that included latitude, population density, and the proportion of children living in provinces explained about 40% of the geographic variability in cumulative excess death rates during 1918–19, but different factors explained mortality variation in each wave.ConclusionsA substantial fraction of the variability in excess mortality rates across Spanish provinces remained unexplained, which suggests that other unidentified factors such as comorbidities, climate and background immunity may have affected the 1918–19 pandemic mortality rates. Further archeo-epidemiological research should concentrate on identifying settings with combined availability of local historical mortality records and information on the prevalence of underlying risk factors, or patient-level clinical data, to further clarify the drivers of 1918 pandemic influenza mortality.

The virus which was responsible for the first benign wave of the Spanish Influenza in the spring of 1918, and which was to become extremely virulent by the end of the summer of 1918, was inextricably associated with the soldiers who fought during the First World War. The millions of young men who occupied the military camps and trenches were the substrate on which the influenza virus developed and expanded. Many factors contributed to it, such as: the mixing on French soil of soldiers and workers from the five continents, the very poor quality of life of the soldiers, agglomeration, stress, fear, war gasses used for the first time in history in a massive and indiscriminate manner, life exposed to the elements, cold weather, humidity and contact with birds, pigs and other animals, both wild and domestic. Today, this combination of circumstances is not present and so it seems unlikely that new pandemics, such as those associated with the avian influenza or swine influenza, will emerge with the virulence which characterized the Spanish Influenza during the autumn of 1918.

Using new and original nineteenth-century sources, we analysed the epidemiology, clinical features and virology of the 1889 pandemic, which was referred to at the time as ‘Russian flu’ or ‘Asiatic flu’. However, we rejected this identification of the disease as an ‘influenza’, which we believe to have been based on insufficient knowledge of the causative agent and instead posit that the pandemic was caused by a coronavirus. We provide a new account of the 1889–1893 pandemic, with a more detailed chronology that included at least four epidemiological waves. At the end of 1889, a new virus appeared in Europe, which could be identified as the coronavirus HCoV-OC43, causing crude death rates of 1.3 per 1000 population in St Petersburg; 2.1 per 1000 in Paris; 2.8 per 1000 in Bilbao and on the French–Spanish border; between 2.9 and 5.2 per 1000 in small towns in the Basque Country; and 5.8 deaths per 1000 in Madrid, which had the highest death rate. The clinical features of the disease differed from classical influenza pandemics in terms of the latency phase, duration, symptomatology, convalescence, immunity, age and death rates. Another factor to be considered was the neurotropic capacity of the disease. The most frequent form of the 1889 pandemic was the ‘nervous form’, with specific symptoms such as ‘heavy headache’ (céphalalgie gravative), tiredness, fever and delirium. There are strong parallels between the 1889–1894 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, and a better understanding of the former may therefore help us to better manage the latter.

No abstract