4.6 Article

Infection Fatality Risk of the Pandemic A(H1N1)2009 Virus in Hong Kong

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 177, 期 8, 页码 834-840

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws314

关键词

death; human influenza; severity

资金

  1. Harvard Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences [U54 GM088558]
  2. Area of Excellence Scheme of The University of Hong Kong Grants Committee [AoE/M-12/06]
  3. US National Institutes of Health [1K01AI101010-01]
  4. Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST) Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology (PRESTO) Program
  5. Crucell N.V.
  6. MedImmune, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One measure of the severity of a pandemic influenza outbreak at the individual level is the risk of death among people infected by the new virus. However, there are complications in estimating both the numerator and denominator. Regarding the numerator, statistical estimates of the excess deaths associated with influenza virus infections tend to exceed the number of deaths associated with laboratory-confirmed infection. Regarding the denominator, few infections are laboratory confirmed, while differences in case definitions and approaches to case ascertainment can lead to wide variation in case fatality risk estimates. Serological surveillance can be used to estimate the cumulative incidence of infection as a denominator that is more comparable across studies. We estimated that the first wave of the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus in 2009 was associated with approximately 232 (95 confidence interval: 136, 328) excess deaths of all ages in Hong Kong, mainly among the elderly. The point estimates of the risk of death on a per-infection basis increased substantially with age, from below 1 per 100,000 infections in children to 1,099 per 100,000 infections in those 6069 years of age. Substantial variation in the age-specific infection fatality risk complicates comparison of the severity of different influenza strains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据