Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 15 July 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2897
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2897
Pretty well, and it has served as an important rehearsal for a more lethal pandemic
News headlines this week have certainly raised anxiety over the influenza A/H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic in the United Kingdom, with reports of 17 deaths to date since the national epidemic started in late April, and one of the dead being a 6 year old girl with apparently no pre-existing medical conditions. NHS Direct telephone lines have been swamped in recent days as the epidemic continues to expand and mortality rises.
How serious is the UK epidemic, and what are the likely trends over the coming months as autumn arrives? General practice consultation rates in England for patients presenting with flu-like illness have increased and are now above the threshold for normal seasonal flu activity. The 5-14 year olds remain the age group predominantly affected, with London and the West Midlands being the worst affected regions. Mortality among clinical cases with confirmed influenza A/H1N1 infection is currently between 1 per 200 and 1 per 400. This is a higher figure than that typically seen with seasonal flu, but the true figure per case of infection will be much lower because of a high prevalence of mild symptoms not captured in the current reporting system. Many biases affect these estimates, as reported in the linked article by Garske and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2840).1 More detailed retrospective household studies are needed now, with serology to ascertain infection and morbidity. These are planned to take place in the coming months.
The most surprising feature of the UK epidemic is its continued growth through June and July, when seasonal flu normally drops to very low levels. This is apparent not only in the UK, but also in the United States and Canada. The high numbers of cases in these countries, relative to other regions (except South America—the epidemic is believed to have originated in Mexico2), probably says more about the efficiency of public health reporting systems and diagnostic capabilities than regional differences in transmission. At present, 135 countries have reported confirmed cases of swine flu; many more probably have epidemic spread but lack reporting systems to capture incidence, morbidity, and mortality.
The reasons for epidemic expansion in the summer months in northern hemisphere countries are not well understood. The observed trends may change views about the relative importance of herd immunity and seasonal factors such as humidity, temperature, and human behaviour as determinants of the incidence of flu. The high susceptibility of human communities to the new virus may imply that seasonal fluctuations in transmission are insufficient, in a fully naive population, to drive the reproductive number (average number of secondary cases generated by one primary case3) below unity in value, as normally happens in a partially susceptible population exposed to a virus closely related to that circulating in the previous year. The onset of school holidays in the northern hemisphere should decrease transmission markedly, but the epidemic is likely to be sustained over August before it starts to expand vigorously again in the autumn, as children reassemble for school. Health services may well be stretched in the UK, as will the economy, owing to high rates of absenteeism from work.
How well prepared was the UK for this current outbreak, given the intense planning that previously took place for the management of a pandemic of the much more lethal, but much less transmissible, H5N1 bird flu virus? Government machinery swept into action quickly in late April, and the assembly of advisory groups for COBR (Cabinet Office Briefing Room) meetings with ministers and civil servants worked well. The UK was well placed in terms of stocks of antiviral drugs and with respect to pre-orders of a vaccine specific to an emergent pandemic flu strain. Supplies of the vaccine will be available in early autumn, and the government aims to vaccinate most of the population. Plans are currently being drawn up to determine the priorities for immunisation as stocks build up in the autumn months.
Antiviral drugs were used to good effect in the early phase of the UK epidemic as prophylaxis, in a containment strategy targeted at contacts within households, schools, and work settings. Retrospective analyses tentatively suggest that this strategy slowed transmission, but as suggested by previous mathematical analyses of flu spread, this delayed epidemic growth only by a few weeks.4 Now the strategy has shifted to the treatment of cases and those most at risk of serious morbidity from infection after contact with a case. This change in treatment strategy is sensible and conserves the supply of antiviral drugs for those most in need as the epidemic expands in the coming months.
What could be improved? In common with other countries pandemic plans, those in the UK lacked detail in many areas. These included the logistics of drug delivery, how to ensure and monitor good compliance to the prescribed antiviral treatment course, the provision of sufficient diagnostic services, data capture and reporting in primary and secondary care settings and on a national scale, monitoring viral evolution, clinical case definition, and the setting of priorities for treatment plus vaccination. Technologies to help in protection and containment such as face masks and rapid diagnostic tools did not receive high priority in planning, but these tools would be of great value within healthcare settings in rapidly expanding flu epidemics.5
In the early stages, some media websites provided much more useful information to the public in tracking the unfolding epidemic than official government sites. This has now been rectified. The UK performed much better than most, particularly the US, where in the early stages of epidemic growth, case information on attack rates and morbidity was released slowly, despite high case numbers. UK scientists, in collaboration with Mexican colleagues, were the first to publish epidemiological analyses of the emerging epidemic.2
The UKs plan to capture details of the first 100 cases to inform policy formulation worked in part. Guidelines for use in clinical settings on the information that needs to be gathered and on the procedures needed to follow up cases and contacts, to obtain viral isolates and serum or saliva, and to track the course of viraemia in treated and untreated patients all need to be improved. The Health Protection Agency has performed sterling work under a rapidly expanding case load. However, improvements could be made to ensure better communication between groups within the agency; better and more rapid access to data; and better use and integration of resources from universities, which have much scientific, epidemiological, and clinical expertise, plus access to facilities. Use of such academic resources could greatly facilitate rapid epidemiological analyses, through developing clear criteria for clinical case definition, defining guidelines for when to use antiviral drugs, and monitoring viral evolution—especially in the context of drug resistance and varied compliance to prescribed drug regimens.
Overall, much has been learnt in the past few months from what, thankfully, still seems to be mild flu in most of those infected. In many ways, the emergence of influenza A/H1N1 has served as an important rehearsal worldwide for a future and perhaps much more lethal pandemic. A thorough and frank "lessons learnt" exercise must be performed once the epidemic wanes.
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2897
Roy M Anderson, Rector of Imperial College London and Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology
1 Faculty Building, South Kensington Campus, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ
roy.anderson{at}imperial.ac.uk
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
Read all Rapid Responses