Seasonal Influenza in Adults and Children—Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Harper, Scott; Bradley, John S.; Englund, Janet A.; File, Thomas M.; Gravenstein, Stefan; Hayden, Frederick G.; McGeer, Allison; Neuzil, Kathleen M.; Pavia, Andrew T.; Tapper, Michael L.; Uyeki, Timothy M.; Zimmerman, Richard K.

doi:10.1086/598513

Cited by 595 publications

(584 citation statements)

References 208 publications

(280 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

548

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This diverse profile of coinfecting pathogens confirms current Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) recommendations for broad‐spectrum antibiotic coverage for influenza‐related pneumonia 63. However, although there have been significant increases in the incidence of MRSA infections in the last decade, particularly community‐associated MRSA (CA‐MRSA),64 there was not enough data to draw any inferences regarding temporal changes in the etiology of coinfecting pathogens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Klein

Monteforte

Gupta

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

460

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimCoinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection in influenza patients.MethodA systematic search of MeSH, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Studies of humans in which all individuals had laboratory confirmed influenza, and all individuals were tested for an array of common bacterial species, met inclusion criteria.ResultsTwenty‐seven studies including 3215 participants met all inclusion criteria. Common etiologies were defined from a subset of eight articles. There was high heterogeneity in the results (I 2 = 95%), with reported coinfection rates ranging from 2% to 65%. Although only a subset of papers were responsible for observed heterogeneity, subanalyses and meta‐regression analysis found no study characteristic that was significantly associated with coinfection. The most common coinfecting species were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 35% (95% CI, 14%–56%) and 28% (95% CI, 16%–40%) of infections, respectively; a wide range of other pathogens caused the remaining infections. An assessment of bias suggested that lack of small‐study publications may have biased the results.ConclusionsThe frequency of coinfection in the published studies included in this review suggests that although providers should consider possible bacterial coinfection in all patients hospitalized with influenza, they should not assume all patients are coinfected and be sure to properly treat underlying viral processes. Further, high heterogeneity suggests additional large‐scale studies are needed to better understand the etiology of influenza bacterial coinfection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Klein

Monteforte

Gupta

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

460

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to annual influenza vaccination, to prevent or mitigate future influenza outbreaks in ship settings, we recommend considering the implementation of a screening process to restrict persons with acute respiratory illness from boarding. While at sea, onboard active surveillance should include mechanisms to improve self‐report of illness, incorporate active surveillance of close contacts of ill persons in workspaces or sleeping areas to enable prompt isolation of additional ill persons, potential quarantine of exposed contacts, prompt empiric antiviral treatment of symptomatic persons, and consideration of antiviral chemoprophylaxis of exposed persons 21, 22. Maintaining laboratory surveillance programs for early detection of respiratory illness outbreaks, including influenza testing, will enable prompt intervention for disease mitigation, control, and prevention.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroepidemiologic investigation of an outbreak of pandemic influenza A H1N1 2009 aboard a US Navy Vessel—San Diego, 2009

Khaokham

Selent

Loustalot

et al. 2013

Influenza Resp Viruses

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDuring summer 2009, a US Navy ship experienced an influenza‐like illness outbreak with 126 laboratory‐confirmed cases of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus among the approximately 2000‐person crew.MethodsDuring September 24–October 9, 2009, a retrospective seroepidemiologic investigation was conducted to characterize the outbreak. We administered questionnaires, reviewed medical records, and collected post‐outbreak sera from systematically sampled crewmembers. We used real‐time reverse transcription‐PCR or microneutralization assays to detect evidence of H1N1 virus infection.ResultsRetrospective serologic data demonstrated that the overall H1N1 virus infection attack rate was 32%. Weighted H1N1 virus attack rates were higher among marines (37%), junior‐ranking personnel (34%), and persons aged 19–24 years (36%). In multivariable analysis, a higher risk of illness was found for women versus men (odds ratio [OR] = 2·2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1·1–4·4), marines versus navy personnel (OR = 1·7; 95% CI, 1·0–2·9), and those aged 19–24 versus ≥35 years (OR = 3·9; 95% CI, 1·2–12·8). Fifty‐three percent of infected persons did not recall respiratory illness symptoms. Among infected persons, only 35% met criteria for acute respiratory illness and 11% for influenza‐like illness.ConclusionsApproximately half of H1N1 infections were asymptomatic, and thus, the attack rate was higher than estimated by clinical illness alone. Enhanced infection control measures including pre‐embarkation illness screening, improved self‐reporting of illness, isolation of ill and quarantine of exposed contacts, and prompt antiviral chemoprophylaxis and treatment might be useful in controlling shipboard influenza outbreaks.

show abstract

“…Rapid diagnosis for influenza is useful in order to minimize nosocomial infections, thus allowing the timely institution of infection control measures [8]. It also allows for the timely administration of antiviral treatment which is most effective if initiated within 48 hours since the onset of symptoms [9][10][11]. Finally, tests that yield results rapidly can influence clinical management regarding antibiotic treatment decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of rapid influenza testing in hospitalized children

Stripeli

Sakkou

Papadopoulos

et al. 2010

Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seasonal Influenza in Adults and Children—Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Cited by 595 publications

References 208 publications

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Seroepidemiologic investigation of an outbreak of pandemic influenza A H1N1 2009 aboard a US Navy Vessel—San Diego, 2009

Performance of rapid influenza testing in hospitalized children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About