Influenza surveillance was carried out in a subset of patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) presenting at an Employee Health Clinic (EHS) at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi (urban) and pediatric out patients department of civil hospital at Ballabhgarh (peri-urban), under the Comprehensive Rural Health Services Project (CRHSP) of AIIMS, in Delhi region from January 2007 to December 2010. Of the 3264 samples tested, 541 (17%) were positive for influenza viruses, of which 221 (41%) were pandemic Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 168 (31%) were seasonal influenza A, and 152 (28%) were influenza B. While the Influenza viruses were detected year-round, their types/subtypes varied remarkably. While there was an equal distribution of seasonal A(H1N1) and influenza B in 2007, predominance of influenza B was observed in 2008. At the beginning of 2009, circulation of influenza A(H3N2) viruses was observed, followed later by emergence of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 with co-circulation of influenza B viruses. Influenza B was dominant subtype in early 2010, with second wave of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in August-September, 2010. With the exception of pandemic H1N1 emergence in 2009, the peaks of influenza activity coincided primarily with monsoon season, followed by minor peak in winter at both urban and rural sites. Age group analysis of influenza positivity revealed that the percent positivity of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus was highest in >5–18 years age groups (OR 2.5; CI = 1.2–5.0; p = 0.009) when compared to seasonal influenza. Phylogenetic analysis of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 from urban and rural sites did not reveal any major divergence from other Indian strains or viruses circulating worldwide. Continued surveillance globally will help define regional differences in influenza seasonality, as well as, to determine optimal periods to implement influenza vaccination programs among priority populations.

No abstract

Quarantine of health care workers (HCWs) exposed to COVID-19–confirmed cases is a well-known strategy for limiting the transmission of infection. However, during a pandemic situation in a resource-constraint setting, we require an evidence-based guideline for quarantining HCWs. We developed an algorithm for exposure-based risk stratification and quarantine of HCWs. We did contact tracing and risk stratification of 3853 HCWs, of whom 560 (14.5%) were categorized as high-risk contacts. High-risk contacts were quarantined for 14 days and underwent testing for COVID-19, while low-risk contacts continued their work with adherence to physical distancing, hand hygiene, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, and self-monitoring of symptoms. Overall, 118 (3.1%) contacts tested positive for COVID-19. The positivity rate among high-risk contacts was 7.1% (95% confidence interval = 5.2-9.6). Our strategy of risk stratification prevented 3215 HCWs from being quarantined and thus saved 45 010 person-days of health workforce in the institution.

Background Influenza is a cause of febrile acute respiratory infection (FARI) in India; however, few influenza vaccine trials have been conducted in India. We assessed absolute and relative efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among children aged 2 to 10 years in rural India through a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted over 2 years. Methods and findings In June 2015, children were randomly allocated to LAIV, IIV, intranasal placebo, or inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in a 2:2:1:1 ratio. In June 2016, vaccination was repeated per original allocation. Overall, 3,041 children received LAIV (n = 1,015), IIV (n = 1,010), nasal placebo (n = 507), or IPV (n = 509). Mean age of children was 6.5 years with 20% aged 9 to 10 years. Through weekly home visits, nasal and throat swabs were collected from children with FARI and tested for influenza virus by polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated FARI; vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated using modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis by Cox proportional hazards model (PH) for each year. In Year 1, VE was 40.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25.2 to 51.9) for LAIV and 59.0% (95% CI 47.8 to 67.9) for IIV compared with controls; relative efficacy of LAIV compared with IIV was −46.2% (95% CI −88.9 to −13.1). In Year 2, VE was 51.9% (95% CI 42.0 to 60.1) for LAIV and 49.9% (95% CI 39.2 to 58.7) for IIV; relative efficacy of LAIV compared with IIV was 4.2% (95% CI −19.9 to 23.5). No serious adverse vaccine-attributable events were reported. Study limitations include differing dosage requirements for children between nasal and injectable vaccines (single dose of LAIV versus 2 doses of IIV) in Year 1 and the fact that immunogenicity studies were not conducted. Conclusions In this study, we found that LAIV and IIV vaccines were safe and moderately efficacious against influenza virus infection among Indian children. Trial registration Clinical Trials Registry of India CTRI/2015/06/005902.

No abstract