Search

Please cite this paper as: Yang et al. (2011) Seroprevalence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza and effectiveness of 2010/2011 influenza vaccine during 2010/2011 season in Beijing, China. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(6), 381-388. Background In the post-pandemic period, pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus was expected to circulate seasonally and was introduced into trivalent influenza vaccine during 2010/2011 season in the Northern Hemisphere. Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the evolution of herd immunity against pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus in Beijing, China, during 2010/2011 season and effectiveness of the 2010/2011 trivalent vaccine. Methods Two serological surveys were conducted before and after 2010/2011 season in Beijing. A case-control study was used to investigate vaccine effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) and lower respiratory tract infection (LRI). Results A total of 4509 and 4543 subjects participated in the pre- and post-season surveys, respectively. The standardized seroprevalence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza increased from 22·1% pre-season to 24·3% post-season ( P < 0·001). Significant elevation in seroprevalence appeared in the ≥60 years age-group ( P < 0·001), but not in others. The 2010/2011 trivalent vaccine contributed to the higher post-seasonal seroprevalence in unvaccinated individuals ( P = 0·024), but not in those vaccinated with monovalent pandemic vaccine ( P = 0·205), as well as in those without prior immunity versus those with immunity. The adjusted effectiveness of the 2010/2011 trivalent vaccine was 79% protection against ILI (95% CI, 61-89%) and 95% against LRI (95% CI: 59-99%). Conclusions A slight increase in herd immunity against pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza was observed in Beijing, China, during the 2010/2011 season. Prior vaccination and immunity had a suppressive impact on immune response toward this novel influenza virus, elicited by 2010/2011 trivalent vaccine. This trivalent vaccine conferred good protection against ILI and LRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Please cite this paper as: MacIntyre et al. (2011) A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2010.00198.x. We compared the efficacy of medical masks, N95 respirators (fit tested and non fit tested), in health care workers (HCWs). A cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 1441 HCWs in 15 Beijing hospitals was performed during the 2008/2009 winter. Participants wore masks or respirators during the entire work shift for 4 weeks. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection and influenza. A convenience no-mask/respirator group of 481 health workers from nine hospitals was compared. The rates of CRI (3·9% versus 6·7%), ILI (0·3% versus 0·6%), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus (1·4% versus 2·6%) and influenza (0·3% versus 1%) infection were consistently lower for the N95 group compared to medical masks. By intention-to-treat analysis, when P values were adjusted for clustering, non-fit-tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than medical masks against CRI, but no other outcomes were significant. The rates of all outcomes were higher in the convenience no-mask group compared to the intervention arms. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the N95 arms with and without fit testing. Rates of fit test failure were low. In a post hoc analysis adjusted for potential confounders, N95 masks and hospital level were significant, but medical masks, vaccination, handwashing and high-risk procedures were not. Rates of infection in the medical mask group were double that in the N95 group. A benefit of respirators is suggested but would need to be confirmed by a larger trial, as this study may have been underpowered. The finding on fit testing is specific to the type of respirator used in the study and cannot be generalized to other respirators. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: ACTRN12609000257268 (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]