scholarly journals Physicians’ recommendations to their patients concerning a novel pandemic vaccine: a cross-sectional survey of the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic in Japan

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 320-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Inoue ◽  
Kenji Matsui

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e0135666
Author(s):  
Christel E. van Dijk ◽  
Mariette Hooiveld ◽  
Anne Jentink ◽  
Leslie D. Isken ◽  
Aura Timen ◽  
...  


BMJ ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 339 (oct27 1) ◽  
pp. b4164-b4164 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. T F Lau ◽  
N. C Y Yeung ◽  
K C Choi ◽  
M. Y M Cheng ◽  
H Y Tsui ◽  
...  


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Meilicke ◽  
Klaus Riedmann ◽  
Walter Biederbick ◽  
Ute Müller ◽  
Traugott Wierer ◽  
...  




2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Strong ◽  
J Burrows ◽  
E Stedman ◽  
P Redgrave

During the containment phase of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, mass treatment and prophylaxis with oseltamivir was used to control an outbreak of pandemic influenza in a primary school in Sheffield, United Kingdom, where ten cases of pandemic influenza had been laboratory confirmed over a three day period in June 2009. A subsequent cross-sectional survey showed that 51 of 297 (17%) pupils and 10 of 58 (17%) reported an influenza-like illness. The most common symptoms were headache, cough, fever, tiredness, sore throat and nausea. Fifty-three staff and 273 pupils took oseltamivir for treatment or prophylaxis. Of this group, 41% (113/273) of pupils and 47% (25/53) of staff reported adverse effects. Overall, 14% (37/273) of pupils and 20% (11/53) of staff did not complete the course of oseltamivir, primarily due to adverse effects. Nausea, vomiting and rash were statistically significantly associated with failing to complete the course of oseltamivir. Given the potential for side effects from oseltamivir, particularly among those without influenza who receive the drug for prophylaxis, our findings have two important implications. Firstly, the benefits of mass treatment in an outbreak setting must clearly be greater than the benefits of targeted treatment. Secondly, any large scale regional or state level system for distribution of antiviral drugs for treatment should ideally include a robust quantification of an individual’s probability of infection with influenza virus in order to avoid unnecessary treatment.





2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (30) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Kitching ◽  
A Roche ◽  
S Balasegaram ◽  
R Heathcock ◽  
H Maguire

This report describes the results of a cross-sectional anonymised online survey on adherence to, and side effects from oseltamivir when offered for prophylaxis, among pupils from one primary and two secondary schools with confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v in London in April-May 2009. Of 103 respondents (response rate 40%), 95 were estimated to have been offered oseltamivir for prophylaxis, of whom 85 (89%) actually took any. Less than half (48%) of primary schoolchildren completed a full course, compared to three-quarters (76%) of secondary schoolchildren. More than half (53%) of all schoolchildren taking prophylactic oseltamivir reported one or more side effects. Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 40% of children and 18% reported a mild neuropsychiatric side effect. The results confirmed anecdotal evidence of poor adherence, provided timely information with which to assist decision-making, and formed part of the body of growing evidence that contributed to policy changes to restrict widespread use of prophylaxis for school contacts of confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1)v.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document