Journal of Infection
Volume 61, Issue 4 , Pages 284-288, October 2010

Household transmission of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus in Osaka, Japan in May 2009

  • N. Komiya

      Affiliations

    • Field Epidemiology Training Program, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Fax: +81 3 5285 1233.
  • ,
  • Y. Gu

      Affiliations

    • Field Epidemiology Training Program, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
  • ,
  • H. Kamiya

      Affiliations

    • Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
  • ,
  • Y. Yahata

      Affiliations

    • Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
  • ,
  • Y. Yasui

      Affiliations

    • Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
  • ,
  • K. Taniguchi

      Affiliations

    • Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan
  • ,
  • N. Okabe

      Affiliations

    • Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID), 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8640, Japan

Accepted 18 June 2010. published online 09 August 2010.

Summary 

Objective

To assess household transmission of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) and effectiveness of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of antiviral drugs among household contacts of patients during the first pandemic influenza A (H1N1) outbreak in Osaka, Japan in May 2009.

Methods

Active surveillance of patients and their families was conducted. Public Health Center staff visited each home with an infected patient and advised every household member with regard to precautionary measures, and PEP was provided to household contacts to prevent secondary infection. We analyzed the effectiveness of PEP and characteristics of secondary infection.

Results

The secondary attack rate (SAR) among household contacts was 3.7%. The SAR among household contacts without PEP was 26.1%. However, the SAR among those with PEP was 0.6%. Only two of 331 household contacts with PEP became infected. One of the two was infected with an oseltamivir-resistant strain. Analysis of SAR by age group showed that those under 20 years of age were at higher risk than those over 20 (relative risk [RR] = 7.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.24–27.8). Significant differences with respect to sex, number of household contacts, and use of antiviral medications in the index cases were not observed.

Conclusions

Our present results indicate that PEP is effective for preventing secondary H1N1 infection among household contacts.

Keywords: Pandemic, Influenza, Household, Prophylaxis, Secondary attack rate

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0163-4453(10)00202-1

doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2010.06.019

Journal of Infection
Volume 61, Issue 4 , Pages 284-288, October 2010