Patient-oriented pandemic influenza research

Compassionate drug (mis)use during pandemics: lessons for COVID-19 from 2009

BACKGROUND

New emerging infections have no known treatment. Assessing potential drugs for safety and efficacy enables clinicians to make evidence-based treatment decisions and contributes to overall outbreak control. However, it is difficult to launch clinical trials in the unpredictable environment of an outbreak. We conducted a bibliometric systematic review for the 2009 influenza pandemic to determine the speed and quality of evidence generation for treatments. This informs approaches to high-quality evidence generation in this and future pandemics.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for all clinical data (including clinical trial, observational and case series) describing treatment for patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and ClinicalTrials.gov for research that aimed to enrol patients with the disease.

RESULTS

Thirty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine treatment courses for patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 were detailed in 160 publications. Most were retrospective observational studies or case series. Five hundred ninety-two patients received treatment (or placebo) as participants in a registered interventional clinical trial with results publicly available. None of these registered trial results was available during the timeframe of the pandemic, and the median date of publication was 213 days after the Public Health Emergency of International Concern ended.

CONCLUSION

Patients were frequently treated for pandemic influenza with drugs not registered for this indication, but rarely under circumstances of high-quality data capture. The result was a reliance on use under compassionate circumstances, resulting in continued uncertainty regarding the potential benefits and harms of anti-viral treatment. Rapid scaling of clinical trials is critical for generating a quality evidence base during pandemics.

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of regular paracetamol on influenza infection

Background and objective

Anti‐pyretic treatment is recommended in the management of influenza infection. In animal models anti‐pyretic treatment increases mortality from influenza. We investigated the effects of paracetamol on viral and clinical outcomes in adults with influenza infection.

Methods

This is a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of adults aged 18–65 years with influenza‐like illness and positive influenza rapid antigen test. Treatments were 1 g paracetamol four times a day, or matching placebo, for 5 days. Pernasal swabs were taken for influenza quantitative RT‐PCR at Baseline and Days 1, 2 and 5. Temperature and symptom scores were recorded for 5–14 days or time of resolution respectively. The primary outcome variable was area under the curve (AUC) for quantitative PCR log₁₀ viral load from Baseline to Day 5.

Results

A total of 80 participants were randomized: no one was lost to follow up, and one withdrew after 4 days. There were 22 and 24 participants who were influenza PCR‐positive in placebo and in paracetamol groups respectively. Mean (SD) AUC PCR log₁₀ viral load was 4.40 (0.91) in placebo and 4.64 (0.88) in paracetamol; difference was −0.24, 95% CI: −0.78 to 0.29, P = 0.36. In all participants there were no differences in symptom scores, temperature, time to resolution of illness and health status, with no interaction between randomized treatment and whether influenza was detected by PCR.

Conclusion

Regular paracetamol had no effect on viral shedding, temperature or clinical symptoms in patients with PCR‐confirmed influenza. There remains an insufficient evidence base for paracetamol use in influenza infection.

Clinical trial registration: ACTRN12611000497909 at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Pandemic response lessons from influenza H1N1 2009 in Asia

During April 2009, a novel H1N1 influenza A virus strain was identified in Mexico and the USA. Within weeks the virus had spread globally and the first pandemic of the 21st Century had been declared. It is unlikely to be the last and it is crucial that real lessons are learned from the experience. Asia is considered a hot spot for the emergence of new pathogens including past influenza pandemics. On this occasion while preparing for an avian, highly virulent influenza virus (H5N1 like) originating in Asia in fact the pandemic originated from swine, and was less virulent. This discrepancy between what was planned for and what emerged created its own challenges. The H1N1 pandemic has tested national health-care infrastructures and exposed shortcomings in our preparedness as a region. Key health challenges include communication throughout the region, surge capacity, access to reliable information and access to quality care, health-care worker skills, quality, density and distribution, access to essential medicines and lack of organizational infrastructure for emergency response. Despite years of preparation the public health and clinical research community were not ready to respond and opportunities for an immediate research response were missed. Despite warm words and pledges efforts to engage the international community to ensure equitable sharing of limited resources such as antivirals and vaccines fell short and stockpiles in the main remained in the rich world. This manuscript with authors from across the region describes some of the major challenges faced by Asia in response to the pandemic and draws lessons for the future.

Anatomy of the epidemiological literature on the 2003 SARS outbreaks in Hong Kong and Toronto: a time-stratified review

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, especially those of a global nature, require rapid epidemiological analysis and information dissemination. The final products of those activities usually comprise internal memoranda and briefs within public health authorities and original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Using the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic as an example, we conducted a comprehensive time-stratified review of the published literature to describe the different types of epidemiological outputs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We identified and analyzed all published articles on the epidemiology of the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong or Toronto. The analysis was stratified by study design, research domain, data collection, and analytical technique. We compared the SARS-case and matched-control non-SARS articles published according to the timeline of submission, acceptance, and publication. The impact factors of the publishing journals were examined according to the time of publication of SARS articles, and the numbers of citations received by SARS-case and matched-control articles submitted during and after the epidemic were compared. Descriptive, analytical, theoretical, and experimental epidemiology concerned, respectively, 54%, 30%, 11%, and 6% of the studies. Only 22% of the studies were submitted, 8% accepted, and 7% published during the epidemic. The submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic period were significantly shorter than the corresponding intervals of matched-control non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). The differences of median submission-to-acceptance intervals and median acceptance-to-publication intervals between SARS articles and their corresponding control articles were 106.5 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.0-140.1) and 63.5 d (95% CI 18.0-94.1), respectively. The median numbers of citations of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic and over the 2 y thereafter were 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0-52.0) and 8 (IQR 3.2-21.8), respectively, significantly higher than the median numbers of control article citations (15, IQR 8.5-16.5, p<0.05, and 7, IQR 3.0-12.0, p<0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of the epidemiological articles on SARS were submitted after the epidemic had ended, although the corresponding studies had relevance to public health authorities during the epidemic. To minimize the lag between research and the exigency of public health practice in the future, researchers should consider adopting common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments to improve timeliness, and thus, relevance, in addition to standardizing comparability across studies. To facilitate information dissemination, journal managers should reengineer their fast-track channels, which should be adapted to the purpose of an emerging outbreak, taking into account the requirement of high standards of quality for scientific journals and competition with other online resources.