4.5 Article

Immunosuppressed patients with pandemic influenza A 2009 (H1N1) virus infection

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-011-1346-3

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Programa de Investigacion Sobre Gripe A/H1N1 [GR09/0014]
  2. European Development Regional Fund
  3. Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases [REIPI RD06/0008]
  4. Institut d'Investigacio Biomedica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this paper was to prospectively characterize the clinical manifestations and outcomes of confirmed influenza A 2009 (H1N1) virus infection in immunosuppressed patients with hospital admission and compare them with those of a general population. A multicenter prospective cohort study was carried out. All adult patients admitted to 13 hospitals in Spain with confirmed influenza A 2009 (H1N1) virus infection from June 12, 2009 to November 11, 2009 were included. Risk factors for complicated influenza infection were studied in immunosuppressed patients. Overall, 559 patients were included, of which 56 were immunosuppressed, nine with solid or hematological malignancies, 18 with solid-organ transplant recipients, 13 with corticosteroid therapy, and six with other types of immunosuppression. Clinical findings at diagnosis were similar in both groups. Nineteen immunosuppressed patients had pneumonia (33.9%). Immunosuppressed patients with pandemic influenza had bacterial co-infection more frequently (17.9% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.02), specifically, gram-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus aureus infections. Mortality was higher in immunosuppressed patients (7.1% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.05). The only modifiable risk factor of complicated influenza A 2009 (H1N1) was delayed antiviral therapy. In immunosuppressed patients, influenza A 2009 (H1N1) virus infection has higher mortality than in non-immunosuppressed individuals. Bacterial co-infection is common in complicated cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available