BackgroundDisease transmission patterns are needed to inform public health interventions, but remain largely unknown for avian influenza H5N1 virus infections. A recent study on the 139 outbreaks detected in Indonesia between 2005 and 2009 found that the type of exposure to sources of H5N1 virus for both the index case and their household members impacted the risk of additional cases in the household. This study describes the disease transmission patterns in those outbreak households.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe compared cases (n = 177) and contacts (n = 496) in the 113 sporadic and 26 cluster outbreaks detected between July 2005 and July 2009 to estimate attack rates and disease intervals. We used final size household models to fit transmission parameters to data on household size, cases and blood-related household contacts to assess the relative contribution of zoonotic and human-to-human transmission of the virus, as well as the reproduction number for human virus transmission. The overall household attack rate was 18.3% and secondary attack rate was 5.5%. Secondary attack rate remained stable as household size increased. The mean interval between onset of subsequent cases in outbreaks was 5.6 days. The transmission model found that human transmission was very rare, with a reproduction number between 0.1 and 0.25, and the upper confidence bounds below 0.4. Transmission model fit was best when the denominator population was restricted to blood-related household contacts of index cases.Conclusions/SignificanceThe study only found strong support for human transmission of the virus when a single large cluster was included in the transmission model. The reproduction number was well below the threshold for sustained transmission. This study provides baseline information on the transmission dynamics for the current zoonotic virus and can be used to detect and define signatures of a virus with increasing capacity for human-to-human transmission.

The type of exposure and the genealogical relationship between index cases and their contacts impacts the risk of clustering. The study adds evidence that AI H5N1 infection is influenced by, and may even depend on, host genetic susceptibility.

WHO, FAO and OIE developed a 'four-way linking' framework to enhance the cross-sectoral sharing of epidemiological and virological information in responding to zoonotic disease outbreaks. In Indonesia, outbreak response challenges include completeness of data shared between human and animal health authorities. The four-way linking framework (human health laboratory/epidemiology and animal health laboratory/epidemiology) was applied in the investigation of the 193 rd human case of avian influenza A(H5N1) virus infection. As recommended by the framework, outbreak investigation and risk assessment findings were shared. On 18 June 2013, a hospital in West Java Province reported a suspect H5N1 case in a 2-year-old male. The case was laboratory-confirmed that evening, and the information was immediately shared with the Ministry of Agriculture. The human health epidemiology/laboratory team investigated the outbreak and conducted an initial risk assessment on 19 June. The likelihood of secondary cases was deemed low as none of the case contacts were sick. By 3 July, no secondary cases associated with the outbreak were identified. The animal health epidemiology/laboratory investigation was conducted on 19-25 June and found that a live bird market visited by the case was positive for H5N1 virus. Once both human and market virus isolates were sequenced, a second risk assessment was conducted jointly by the human health and animal health epidemiology/laboratory teams. This assessment concluded that the likelihood of additional human cases associated with this outbreak was low but that future sporadic human infections could not be ruled out because of challenges in controlling H5N1 virus contamination in markets. Findings from the outbreak investigation and risk assessments were shared with stakeholders at both Ministries. The four-way linking framework clarified the type of data to be shared. Both human health and animal health teams made ample data available, and there was cooperation to achieve risk assessment objectives.