Summary Background The novel influenza A H7N9 virus emerged recently in mainland China, whereas the influenza A H5N1 virus has infected people in China since 2003. Both infections are thought to be ...mainly zoonotic. We aimed to compare the epidemiological characteristics of the complete series of laboratory-confirmed cases of both viruses in mainland China so far. Methods An integrated database was constructed with information about demographic, epidemiological, and clinical variables of laboratory-confirmed cases of H7N9 (130 patients) and H5N1 (43 patients) that were reported to the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention until May 24, 2013. We described disease occurrence by age, sex, and geography, and estimated key epidemiological variables. We used survival analysis techniques to estimate the following distributions: infection to onset, onset to admission, onset to laboratory confirmation, admission to death, and admission to discharge. Findings The median age of the 130 individuals with confirmed infection with H7N9 was 62 years and of the 43 with H5N1 was 26 years. In urban areas, 74% of cases of both viruses were in men, whereas in rural areas the proportions of the viruses in men were 62% for H7N9 and 33% for H5N1. 75% of patients infected with H7N9 and 71% of those with H5N1 reported recent exposure to poultry. The mean incubation period of H7N9 was 3·1 days and of H5N1 was 3·3 days. On average, 21 contacts were traced for each case of H7N9 in urban areas and 18 in rural areas, compared with 90 and 63 for H5N1. The fatality risk on admission to hospital was 36% (95% CI 26–45) for H7N9 and 70% (56–83%) for H5N1. Interpretation The sex ratios in urban compared with rural cases are consistent with exposure to poultry driving the risk of infection—a higher risk in men was only recorded in urban areas but not in rural areas, and the increased risk for men was of a similar magnitude for H7N9 and H5N1. However, the difference in susceptibility to serious illness with the two different viruses remains unexplained, since most cases of H7N9 were in older adults whereas most cases of H5N1 were in younger people. A limitation of our study is that we compared laboratory-confirmed cases of H7N9 and H5N1 infection, and some infections might not have been ascertained. Funding Ministry of Science and Technology, China; Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Disease and University Grants Committee, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; and the US National Institutes of Health.
Summary Avian influenza A H5N1 viruses have caused many, typically severe, human infections since the first human case was reported in 1997. However, no comprehensive epidemiological analysis of ...global human cases of H5N1 from 1997 to 2015 exists. Moreover, few studies have examined in detail the changing epidemiology of human H5N1 cases in Egypt, especially given the outbreaks since November, 2014, which have the highest number of cases ever reported worldwide in a similar period. Data on individual patients were collated from different sources using a systematic approach to describe the global epidemiology of 907 human H5N1 cases between May, 1997, and April, 2015. The number of affected countries rose between 2003 and 2008, with expansion from east and southeast Asia, then to west Asia and Africa. Most cases (67·2%) occurred from December to March, and the overall case-fatality risk was 483 (53·5%) of 903 cases which varied across geographical regions. Although the incidence in Egypt has increased dramatically since November, 2014, compared with the cases beforehand, there were no significant differences in the fatality risk, history of exposure to poultry, history of patient contact, and time from onset to hospital admission in the recent cases.
Summary Background Characterisation of the severity profile of human infections with influenza viruses of animal origin is a part of pandemic risk assessment, and an important part of the assessment ...of disease epidemiology. Our objective was to assess the clinical severity of human infections with avian influenza A H7N9 virus, which emerged in China in early 2013. Methods We obtained information about laboratory-confirmed cases of avian influenza A H7N9 virus infection reported as of May 28, 2013, from an integrated database built by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We estimated the risk of fatality, mechanical ventilation, and admission to the intensive care unit for patients who required hospital admission for medical reasons. We also used information about laboratory-confirmed cases detected through sentinel influenza-like illness surveillance to estimate the symptomatic case fatality risk. Findings Of 123 patients with laboratory-confirmed avian influenza A H7N9 virus infection who were admitted to hospital, 37 (30%) had died and 69 (56%) had recovered by May 28, 2013. After we accounted for incomplete data for 17 patients who were still in hospital, we estimated the fatality risk for all ages to be 36% (95% CI 26–45) on admission to hospital. Risks of mechanical ventilation or fatality (69%, 95% CI 60–77) and of admission to an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or fatality (83%, 76–90) were high. With assumptions about coverage of the sentinel surveillance network and health-care-seeking behaviour for patients with influenza-like illness associated with influenza A H7N9 virus infection, and pro-rata extrapolation, we estimated that the symptomatic case fatality risk could be between 160 (63–460) and 2800 (1000–9400) per 100 000 symptomatic cases. Interpretation Human infections with avian influenza A H7N9 virus seem to be less serious than has been previously reported. Many mild cases might already have occurred. Continued vigilance and sustained intensive control efforts are needed to minimise the risk of human infection. Funding Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology; Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Disease; Hong Kong University Grants Committee; China–US Collaborative Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases; Harvard Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics; US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and the US National Institutes of Health.
PDF
