2011
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021340
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence of Antibodies to 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus in German Adult Population in Pre- and Post-Pandemic Period

Abstract: BackgroundIn order to detect levels of pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies in different age groups and to measure age-specific infection rates of the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic in Germany, we conducted a seroprevalence study based on samples from an ongoing nationwide representative health survey.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe analysed 845 pre-pandemic samples collected between 25 Nov 2008 and 28 Apr 2009 and 757 post-pandemic samples collected between 12 Jan 2010 and 24 Apr 2010. Reactive antibodie… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
31
1
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
6
31
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These are in line with available data on population immunity against A(H1N1)pdm09 following the pandemic season 2009/10 in the UK, indicating a very high immunity among elderly and low immunity among children [52]. However, in Germany post-pandemic antibody titres against A(H1N1)pdm09 were comparably low among elderly, although in the subsequent season the lowest infection rates were also detected among elderly [53]. This inconsistency might be caused from pre-existing immunity not measurable through cross-reactive antibodies [53], such that our estimated susceptibilities provide a rough assessment of the actual pre-existing immunity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…These are in line with available data on population immunity against A(H1N1)pdm09 following the pandemic season 2009/10 in the UK, indicating a very high immunity among elderly and low immunity among children [52]. However, in Germany post-pandemic antibody titres against A(H1N1)pdm09 were comparably low among elderly, although in the subsequent season the lowest infection rates were also detected among elderly [53]. This inconsistency might be caused from pre-existing immunity not measurable through cross-reactive antibodies [53], such that our estimated susceptibilities provide a rough assessment of the actual pre-existing immunity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…In European countries serial seroepidemiological studies were conducted in United Kingdom [6], [12], where a considerable increase in HI antibody titers in children living in metropolitan areas from 1.8% to 23% (0 to 4 years) and from 3.7% to 46% (5 to 14 years), was shown, and similar results were found in Scotland [44]. In Germany [8][10], [15], [16], in Greece Maltezou, 2011 2205/id}, France [17], Sweden [18] and Norway [11] results showed increasing antibody titers mostly in younger age groups, but also in the elderly [11]. With regard to overseas countries, similar serial seroprevalence studies were conducted in the US where an overall increase of seroprevalence from 6% to 21% was found with the highest prevalence observed among children aged 0 to 19 years, followed by over- 80-year-olds, while no increase in seroprevalence was observed among the 70- to 79-year-olds.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…To further examine the validity of this conjecture, we performed crude analyses of published pdmH1N1 seroprevalence data from other countries to examine the robustness of their IAR estimates across different seropositivity thresholds and ISP adjustments (see Text S1). In a study in Germany with HI 1∶40 threshold and no ISP adjustments, Δ S HI 1∶40 /Δ S HI 1∶20 was around 0.9, 0.7, and 0.4 among unvaccinated individuals of age 18–32, 33–52 and >52 [8]. Similarly, in a study in New Zealand with HI 1∶40 threshold and no ISP adjustments, Δ S HI 1∶40 /Δ S HI 1∶20 was around 0.7, 0.9, and 0.6 among individuals of age 1–4, 5–19 and 20–59 [6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%