Characterizing the Epidemiology of the 2009 Influenza A/H1N1 Pandemic in Mexico


Background:
Mexico's local and national authorities initiated an intense public

health response during the early stages of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic. In this

study we analyzed the epidemiological patterns of the pandemic during

April–December 2009 in Mexico and evaluated the impact of nonmedical

interventions, school cycles, and demographic factors on influenza

transmission.

Methods and Findings:

We used influenza surveillance data compiled by the Mexican Institute for

Social Security, representing 40% of the population, to study

patterns in influenza-like illness (ILIs) hospitalizations, deaths, and

case-fatality rate by pandemic wave and geographical region. We also

estimated the reproduction number (R) on the basis of the growth rate of

daily cases, and used a transmission model to evaluate the effectiveness of

mitigation strategies initiated during the spring pandemic wave. A total of

117,626 ILI cases were identified during April–December 2009, of which

30.6% were tested for influenza, and 23.3% were positive for

the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic virus. A three-wave pandemic profile was

identified, with an initial wave in April–May (Mexico City area), a

second wave in June–July (southeastern states), and a geographically

widespread third wave in August–December. The median age of laboratory

confirmed ILI cases was ∼18 years overall and increased to ∼31 years

during autumn (p<0.0001). The case-fatality ratio among

ILI cases was 1.2% overall, and highest (5.5%) among people

over 60 years. The regional R estimates were 1.8–2.1, 1.6–1.9,

and 1.2–1.3 for the spring, summer, and fall waves, respectively. We

estimate that the 18-day period of mandatory school closures and other

social distancing measures implemented in the greater Mexico City area was

associated with a 29%–37% reduction in influenza

transmission in spring 2009. In addition, an increase in R was observed in

late May and early June in the southeast states, after mandatory school

suspension resumed and before summer vacation started. State-specific fall

pandemic waves began 2–5 weeks after school reopened for the fall

term, coinciding with an age shift in influenza cases.

Conclusions:
We documented three spatially heterogeneous waves of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic

virus in Mexico, which were characterized by a relatively young age

distribution of cases. Our study highlights the importance of school cycles

on the transmission dynamics of this pandemic influenza strain and suggests

that school closure and other mitigation measures could be useful to

mitigate future influenza pandemics.

:

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary


Published in the journal: . PLoS Med 8(5): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000436
Category: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000436

Summary

Background:
Mexico's local and national authorities initiated an intense public

health response during the early stages of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic. In this

study we analyzed the epidemiological patterns of the pandemic during

April–December 2009 in Mexico and evaluated the impact of nonmedical

interventions, school cycles, and demographic factors on influenza

transmission.

Methods and Findings:

We used influenza surveillance data compiled by the Mexican Institute for

Social Security, representing 40% of the population, to study

patterns in influenza-like illness (ILIs) hospitalizations, deaths, and

case-fatality rate by pandemic wave and geographical region. We also

estimated the reproduction number (R) on the basis of the growth rate of

daily cases, and used a transmission model to evaluate the effectiveness of

mitigation strategies initiated during the spring pandemic wave. A total of

117,626 ILI cases were identified during April–December 2009, of which

30.6% were tested for influenza, and 23.3% were positive for

the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic virus. A three-wave pandemic profile was

identified, with an initial wave in April–May (Mexico City area), a

second wave in June–July (southeastern states), and a geographically

widespread third wave in August–December. The median age of laboratory

confirmed ILI cases was ∼18 years overall and increased to ∼31 years

during autumn (p<0.0001). The case-fatality ratio among

ILI cases was 1.2% overall, and highest (5.5%) among people

over 60 years. The regional R estimates were 1.8–2.1, 1.6–1.9,

and 1.2–1.3 for the spring, summer, and fall waves, respectively. We

estimate that the 18-day period of mandatory school closures and other

social distancing measures implemented in the greater Mexico City area was

associated with a 29%–37% reduction in influenza

transmission in spring 2009. In addition, an increase in R was observed in

late May and early June in the southeast states, after mandatory school

suspension resumed and before summer vacation started. State-specific fall

pandemic waves began 2–5 weeks after school reopened for the fall

term, coinciding with an age shift in influenza cases.

Conclusions:
We documented three spatially heterogeneous waves of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic

virus in Mexico, which were characterized by a relatively young age

distribution of cases. Our study highlights the importance of school cycles

on the transmission dynamics of this pandemic influenza strain and suggests

that school closure and other mitigation measures could be useful to

mitigate future influenza pandemics.

:

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Introduction

In late March and early April 2009, reports of respiratory hospitalizations and deaths among young adults in Mexico alerted local health officials to the occurrence of atypical rates of respiratory illness at a time when influenza was not expected to reach epidemic levels [1][3]. Infections with novel swine-origin influenza A/H1N1 virus were confirmed in California, (United States), on April 21 [4] and in Mexico on April 23 [5]. The Ministry of Health cancelled educational activities in the greater Mexico City area on April 24 and expanded these measures to the rest of the country on April 27 [6]. Additional social distancing interventions were implemented in the greater Mexico City area, including the closure of movie theaters and restaurants and the cancellation of large public gatherings (Table 1) [6]. Schools reopened on May 11 and remained in session until the scheduled summer vacation period, which began in July 2009. Whether these intense interventions were successful in reducing disease transmission has yet to be evaluated, which is important for the control of future pandemics [7].

Tab. 1.

Increasing our understanding of the age and transmission patterns of the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic at various geographic scales is crucial for designing more efficient public health interventions against future influenza pandemics. Spatio-temporal variations in influenza transmission can result from variation in population contact rates linked to school cycles or intervention strategies, as well as the timing of a virus's introduction relative to climatic conditions and prior population immunity (e.g., [8],[9]). While variation in the transmission potential and the timing of the spring waves of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic have been reported in several countries (e.g., [10][16]), there have been no studies thus far concentrating on recurrent pandemic waves in Mexico, one of the countries affected earliest by the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic. Here, we analyze the age- and state-specific incidence of influenza morbidity and mortality in 32 Mexican States, on the basis of reports to the Mexican Institute for Social Security (IMSS), a private medical system that covers 40% of the Mexican population. We also quantify the association between local influenza transmission rates, school cycles, and demographic factors.

Methods

Epidemiological and Population Data

We relied on the epidemiological surveillance system of IMSS, described in detail by Echevarria-Zuno et al. [17]. IMSS is a tripartite Mexican health system covering workers in the private sector and their families, a group that comprises roughly 40% of the Mexican population (107 million individuals), with a network of 1,099 primary health care units and 259 hospitals nationwide. Overall, the age distribution of the population affiliated with IMSS is representative of the general population of Mexico (chi-square test, p = 0.18) (Text S1, figure A) [18]. The male-to-female ratio among the population affiliated with IMSS (47:53) is similar to that of the general population (49:51).

Active surveillance for severe pneumonia started at all IMSS hospitals after a first epidemiological alert was issued on April 17, 2009. On April 28 the surveillance system was expanded to include influenza-like illness (ILI) patients visiting primary health care units and hospitals as well as influenza-related deaths. Patient information was entered into an online surveillance system by hospital or clinic epidemiologists. ILI was defined as a combination of cough, headache, and fever (except for persons over 65 y) with one or more of the following symptoms: sore throat, rhinorrhea, arthralgias, myalgia, prostration, thoracic pain, abdominal pain, nasal congestion, diarrhea, and irritability (for infants only) [17]. Respiratory swabs were obtained for about a third of cases with constant sampling intensity across states, time, and age groups (Text S1, figures B and C and table A). Swabs were tested for A/H1N1 influenza virus by real-time reverse transcription PCR [19] by the Instituto de Diagnóstico y Referencia Epidemiológica (InDRE) until May 25, 2009, after which point samples were analyzed by La Raza, an IMSS laboratory certified by InDRE [17].

We obtained patient age, date of symptom onset, disease outcome (inpatient, outpatient, and death), and reporting state (including 31 states plus the Federal District, which we collectively refer to as “32 states” for simplicity) for ILI and laboratory-confirmed A/H1N1 pandemic influenza cases reported between April 1 and December 31, 2009. We also obtained population data by state and age group for all persons affiliated with IMSS in 2009 to calculate incidence rates.

Spatial Distribution of Pandemic Waves

We compiled state- and age-specific time series of incident ILI and A/H1N1 pandemic influenza cases by day of symptom onset to analyze the geographic spread of the pandemic across Mexico. We defined three temporally distinct pandemic waves in the spring (April 1–May 20), summer (May 21–August 1), and fall (August 2–December 31) of 2009 on the basis of patterns in national A/H1N1 influenza incidence time series (Figure 1). For each state and pandemic wave, we recorded the cumulative number of cases, cumulative incidence rate, and peak date, defined as the day with the maximum number of new cases.

Fig. 1.
For visualization purposes, the time series are log-transformed.

We also explored geographic variation in the timing of pandemic onset across states and its association with the start of the fall school term, population size, population density, and distance from Mexico City. For each pandemic wave and Mexican state, the onset day was defined as the first day of the period of monotonously increasing cases leading up to the peak of A/H1N1 cases, as in [20].

Age Distribution of Influenza Cases and Deaths

We examined the age distribution of ILI and A/H1N1 pandemic influenza cases by geographic region and over time, using weekly rather than daily case time series in order to avoid low case counts at the beginning and end of each pandemic wave. We also estimated age-specific measures of disease severity including the case-fatality ratio (CFR  =  deaths/cases, where numerators and denominators can be based on ILI or laboratory-confirmed cases).

Estimation of Transmission Potential

We estimated the reproduction number, R, for each pandemic wave and geographic region of Mexico (north, central, and southeast). We used a simple method that relies on the estimation of the growth rate by fitting an exponential function to the early ascending phase of daily A/H1N1 pandemic cases, where the epidemic curve is based on symptoms onset (Text S1 and [20][23]). The early ascending phase was determined as the period between the day of pandemic onset (as defined above) and the midpoint between the onset and peak days, for each regional pandemic wave. We assumed a mean generation interval of 3 and 4 d, which are within the range of mean estimates for the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic [11],[13],[24],[25].

We assessed the sensitivity of our estimates to small variations in the definition of the ascending phase used to estimate the exponential growth rate (±4 d). Because variability in daily testing rates could affect R estimates derived from A/H1N1 time series, particularly during the early phase of the spring wave, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using ILI time series.

Impact of School Closures during the 2009 Spring Wave

School activities have been linked with increased influenza transmission rates in both pandemic and interpandemic periods [26][29]. We assessed the effectiveness of mandatory school closures and other social distancing measures implemented during April 24–May 11, 2009 in the central region of Mexico in reducing influenza transmission rates. We fitted a mathematical model of influenza transmission to daily case data (Text S1). This approach allows estimation of separate influenza transmission rates for the periods before and during intervention and explicitly accounts for the depletion of susceptible individuals.

In addition, to analyze changes in the age distribution of cases with school activity periods, we computed the daily ratio of incident A/H1N1 pandemic cases among the student population (5–20 y) to cases among other age groups.

Results

General Description of the Three Pandemic Waves in Mexico

A total of 117,626 ILI cases were reported by IMSS from April 1 to December 31, 2009, of which 36,044 were laboratory tested (30.6%) and 27,440 (23.3%) were confirmed with A/H1N1 pandemic influenza. A total of 1,370 ILI deaths (3.6 per 100,000) were reported to the surveillance system, of which 585 (1.5 per 100,000) were confirmed with A/H1N1 pandemic influenza. There was no significant trend in testing rates by geographic region or age group, and testing remained constant over time, except for a rapid increase during the first 2–3 wk of the pandemic (Text S1 and figures B–E therein).

The spatial-temporal distribution of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza and ILI cases reveal a three-wave pattern in the spring, summer, and fall of 2009 with substantial geographical clustering (Figures 13). The spring pandemic wave in April–May 2009 was mainly confined to the greater Mexico City area and other central states. The summer wave in June 2009 was limited to southern states, and ended soon after the start of the summer school vacation period on July 3, 2009. A third wave of widespread activity began in August 2009, coinciding with the return of students from summer vacations, and disease activity persisted until December 2009 throughout Mexico.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

The average cumulative incidence rate of pandemic A/H1N1 was 16.6 per 100,000 across the 32 states (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.2–17.0) in spring-summer and 55.7 per 100,000 (95% CI 55.0–56.5) in the fall. Most states experienced highest disease rates in the fall, except for five southeastern states (Figure 3). Similar spatial and temporal patterns were observed in hospitalization and mortality time series (Text S1, figure F).

Age Patterns of Cases and Disease Severity

The median age of A/H1N1 cases was 18 y (range, 0–99 y). H1N1 morbidity rate was highest among children 5–14 y (115.7 per 100,000) and lowest among seniors 60 y and older (9.2 per 100,000, Table 2; Text S1, figure G). The age-specific risk of severe disease was J-shaped, with highest case-fatality and case-hospitalization rates in people older than 60 y, and relatively high rates in infants (Table 3). The overall CFR was estimated at 1.2% (95% CI 1.1–1.2) on the basis of ILI cases and deaths and 5% (95% CI 4.7–5.3) on the basis of laboratory-confirmed A/H1N1 cases and deaths. The ILI CFR varied geographically and was estimated at 0.5% (95% CI 0.4–0.5) in the southeastern region, 1.0% (95% CI 0.9–1.1) in the northern region, and 1.9% (95% CI 1.8–2.1) in the central region.

Tab. 2.
SD, standard deviation.

Tab. 3.
Per 100,000 people affiliated to IMSS.

Cumulative rates of A/H1N1 followed a similar age profile across all regions, with peak morbidity rates in the age range of 0–14 y and a consistent drop in morbidity rates after age 30 (Table 2). There was a trend towards increasing age as the fall wave progressed (September 9–December 31; regression against time R2 = 0.94, p<0.0001), with the median age reaching ∼31 y in December 2009 (Text S1, figure H). There was a similar trend in ILI cases (R2 = 0.94, p<0.0001), laboratory-confirmed hospitalized cases (R2 = 0.62, p = 0.0002), and laboratory-confirmed deaths (R2 = 0.26, p = 0.04).

Demographic Factors and Variation in Timing and Magnitude of the Pandemic

Next we explored whether demographic factors may partly explain the observed variation in timing of onset and magnitude of the three pandemic pandemic waves across the 32 Mexican states. First, we tested the association between the incidences of successive waves, which could reflect the gradual build-up of immunity (and thus, negative association) or the impact of baseline sociodemographic factors (positive association). Cumulative incidence rates had a weak positive correlation between spring and fall (Spearman rho for A/H1N1 rates  =  0.4, p = 0.046), but there was no significant correlation between the summer wave and the spring or fall waves (p>0.16).

The total morbidity burden of the pandemic, measured as the cumulative A/H1N1 incidence rate during April–December 2009, was negatively correlated with population size (Spearman rho = −0.58, p<0.001, Text S1 and figure I therein). We found a similar correlation with ILI rates and rates of IMSS-affiliated individuals tested for influenza (Spearman rho = −0.4, p = 0.02, and rho = −0.61, p<0.001, respectively) and the association remained after adjustment for population structure. These findings suggest that low population areas reported higher pandemic morbidity rates than large population centers and that the association was not an artifact of testing practices or population age structure. In contrast, we did not find any association between pandemic morbidity rates and population density. Further, rates of hospitalization and death were not correlated with population size or density (p>0.15).

Population size was also associated with the onset of the fall pandemic wave, with earlier onset occurring in more populous states (Spearman rho = −0.60, p = 0.003; Text S1, figure J); however, there was no association between onset and population density (rho = −0.032, p = 0.13), distance from Mexico City (rho = 0.02, p = 0.92), or the onset of earlier waves (Text S1).

Trends in Reproduction Number (R) and Impact of School Closure

We estimated the mean R for the spring, summer, and fall waves in three geographic regions based on confirmed H1N1 cases (Table 4; Text S1, figure K). Assuming a mean generation interval of 3 (and 4) d, the mean R was estimated to be 1.8 (2.1) for the spring wave in the central region prior to the national school closure period, 1.6 (1.9) for the summer wave in the southeast region, and 1.2 (1.3) for the fall wave in both central and northern regions. R estimates obtained from ILI cases were 13%–17% lower than those obtained from confirmed cases for the spring and summer waves, while there was no difference for the fall wave. There was little variation in R estimates when we increased or shortened the growth rate period by 4 d (difference of 0.1–0.2 for the spring and summer waves and 0.1 or less for the fall wave). An upper bound for R is provided in Text S1, table B, with the extreme case of a fixed generation interval, and suggests that R remained below 2.5 throughout the pandemic in Mexico.

Tab. 4.

We identified significant changes in the R during the spring wave according to school activity periods (Figure 4A and 4B). Focusing on central states affected by a substantial spring wave, we estimate that R increased from 1.3 (95% CI 1.2–1.5) to 2.2 (95% CI 1.4, 3.1) after the end of the spring break vacation period. A decrease in R from 2.2 (95% CI 1.4–3.1) to 1.0 (95% CI 0.94–1.06) coincided with the suspension of educational activities and the implementation of other social distancing measures enforced between April 24 and May 11, 2009. To explicitly account for the effects of depletion of susceptible individuals, we fitted a transmission model to daily influenza H1N1 case data and quantified the relative change in mean transmission rate during the intervention period. We estimated that the transmission rate was reduced by 29.6% (95% CI 28.9%–30.2%) during the intervention period (Figure 5). Our model gave a good fit to the spring epidemic curve overall, although it yielded a slightly higher number of cases than observed until the last week of April (chi-square test, bins  =  41, df = 37, p = 0.22, Figure 5). As a sensitivity analysis, we also fitted the model to ILI cases and found a reduction of 36.2% (95% CI 35.9%–36.5%) associated with social distancing measures.

Trends in influenza pandemic patterns and school activities.
Fig. 4. Trends in influenza pandemic patterns and school activities.

Fig. 5.

To further test the impact of school cycles, we monitored trends in the ratio of incident student to nonstudent influenza A/H1N1 cases. At the national scale, this ratio was low during the summer vacations and increased sharply following the start of school activities in August (Wilcoxon test, p<0.001, Figure 6). At the state level, the ratio of student to nonstudent cases peaked 25 wk after schools reopened in the fall of 2009 (Text S1, figures LM).

Fig. 6.

Discussion

This is, to our knowledge, the first study to explore spatio-temporal variation in the dynamics and age patterns of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic in Mexico, relying on a large sample of laboratory-confirmed and ILI data collected by a private medical system representing a population of over 100 million people. Our findings support the effectiveness of early mitigation efforts in the greater Mexico City area in the spring of 2009, including mandatory school closures and cancellation of large public gatherings. In addition, the onset of the fall pandemic wave in Mexico coincided with the start of the fall term in schools and universities, reinforcing the importance of school cycles in the transmission of pandemic influenza. Our data also reveal substantial geographical variation in pandemic patterns across Mexico, in part related to population size, with three consecutive waves of varying amplitude occurring over an 8-mo period. In line with previous studies [30][32], we note that the age distribution of pandemic influenza morbidity was highly skewed towards younger age groups (median 18 y), while the risk of severe disease was skewed towards older age groups. Of note was the particularly high CFR reported in these Mexican data (CFR≈1% based on the ratio of ILI deaths to ILI cases).

Our transmission model fitted to daily case data suggests that the 18-d period of mandatory school closure and cancellation of public gathering in the greater Mexico area was associated with a 29%37% reduction in the transmission of pandemic influenza. Overall, our estimates are in agreement with a recent study suggesting an ∼25% reduction in A/H1N1 transmission following secondary schools closures in Hong Kong from June 11 to July 10, 2009 [33]. Similarly, a European study of variation in contact rate patterns suggested a 13%40% reduction in reproduction number with holiday periods in Belgium, Great Britain, and The Netherlands [34]. In our data, the resurgence of influenza activity within 25 wk of the beginning of fall term in the 32 Mexican states, together with a rapid change in the age distribution of cases around this time, further suggests the importance of school cycles for pandemic influenza transmission. Accordingly, previous studies have shown a temporal association between school cycles and the onsets of the fall 1957 and 2009 pandemic waves in the US [28],[35],[36].

While past studies have concentrated on R estimates for the spring wave in Mexico and other countries, this is the first study, to our knowledge, to provide estimates for all three pandemic waves in any country. Our estimates were highest for the spring wave (R≈1.82.1), declined in the summer (R≈1.61.9), and were lowest in the fall (R≈1.21.3). The significantly lower fall estimates may be explained by higher levels of herd immunity and preventive measures put in place in preparation for the start of school term. These included cleaning and disinfection of schools, promotion of hand hygiene, and screening and management of incident ILI cases among students and school staff.

Our R estimates were robust to small variation in the definition of the epidemic ascending phase and the use of confirmed H1N1 or ILI cases, which rules out potential biases due to testing practices. Overall our spring R estimates are in line with previous studies focusing on the early pandemic phase in Mexico, with estimates ranging between 1.42.4 [11],[37],[38]. In other countries, R was estimated at 1.22.4 for community-based settings in Japan [39], New Zealand [40], Australia [41], Peru [42], Chile [43], Ontario, Canada [44], and the US [45], while higher estimates in the range 2.3–3.3 were obtained during school outbreaks [13],[14],[46]. The variability in published R estimates of the first wave of the 2009 pandemic could be attributed to differences in control strategies, school activity periods, travel patterns, and climatic conditions [8],[9], which should be more fully investigated.

The number and intensity of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic waves varied substantially across regions of the world. While Mexico, the US, and the UK experienced a “herald” pandemic wave in the spring of 2009 followed by one or more waves during the summer and fall 2009 [10],[12],[47], a number of countries, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, have experienced only a single pandemic wave in 2009, including Chile [48], Argentina [49], Australia [50],[51], and New Zealand [50]. Other countries in Europe also experienced a single main wave in the fall of 2009 [16], followed by a recrudescence of H1N1 activity more than one year later in winter 2010–2011. Our detailed analysis of 2009 pandemic patterns in Mexican states suggests that all of these configurations were observed within Mexico. Similarly, past influenza pandemics have exhibited multiple waves over short periods of time, as reported for the 1918 pandemic in Mexico [22] and elsewhere [52][54].

For reasons that remain unclear, there are substantial spatial variations in the seasonality of influenza epidemics across Mexican regions in interpandemic years, which may have played a role in the geographical asynchrony of the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic. Interpandemic influenza activity has strong winter seasonality in northern and central Mexico [1], while influenza has been detected between December and July in the tropical southeast [55]. It is perhaps not surprising that the Southeast region experienced a large-scale A/H1N1 pandemic wave in summer 2009 and a relatively minor wave in the fall. While absolute humidity has been found to be associated with the onset of interpandemic and pandemic influenza activity in the US [9],[56], we did not identify a correlation with the three-wave pandemic profile in Mexico (Text S1) [56]. Further analysis of the environmental or social factors influencing the transmission of interpandemic and pandemic influenza is warranted in order to fully explain influenza seasonality patterns [57].

We found that spatial variation in the timing and magnitude of the three A/H1N1 pandemic waves across Mexican states was partly linked to population size. Influenza spread in Mexico was driven by large population centers, reminiscent of seasonal influenza in the US [58] and the 1918 pandemic in England and Wales [20],[59]. We found significant spatial heterogeneity in the distribution of incidence rates across states, with lowest incidence rates observed in large population centers. A similar protective effect of large population centers was evidenced in the context of the 1918 pandemic in England and Wales [20]. These results could be explained by local differences in health care seeking behavior or in the effectiveness of social distancing measures [60].

Our large dataset allowed estimation of pandemic disease severity for relatively fine age groups, which could help identify priority age groups for vaccination and treatment in future pandemics. Although it may not be possible to extrapolate findings from this pandemic to the next influenza pandemic, the last four pandemics have been characterized by significant excess mortality among young adults as well as significant sparing of older populations [52]. Our case-based severity estimates derived from hospitalization and death reports were highest among people older than 60 y, and they were substantially higher than in other countries [32],[61][64]. In particular, our CFR based on ILI visits was estimated at 3% during the spring wave, 0.5% during the summer wave, and 1.2% during the fall wave, while our ILI-based hospitalization rate was around 10%. This is one to two orders of magnitude higher than estimates reported in several studies [61],[62],[64] and similar to estimates based on hospitalization cases series in the spring of 2009 in California and Argentina [63],[65]. Our high case-based severity estimates likely reflect a bias of the Mexican IMSS influenza surveillance system towards the higher levels of the severity pyramid [62]. As a sensitivity analysis, and for comparison with previous studies, we estimated CFR using 2009 A/H1N1 serological attack rates as denominator. Because of the lack of serological estimates from Mexico, we used age-specific serological data from the UK reported for the two waves of the pandemic there (May 2009 to April 2010) [66]. Using UK data as denominator suggests that the age-adjusted CFR could be in the order of ∼0.01% in Mexico with a pattern of increasing severity with age. This estimate is two orders of magnitude lower than our CFR based on ILI cases and is in close agreement with estimates from other countries [61],[62],[64]. Further studies comparing excess mortality rates derived from vital statistics for different countries and influenza seasons may shed more light on the relative severity of this pandemic.

Several caveats are worth noting in our analysis of the 2009 pandemic in Mexico. We used data on ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza cases reported to the Mexican Institute for Social Security network in 32 states, and there may be sampling variation between states. However, about one-third of all ILI cases were consistently tested for influenza in all regions and throughout the main pandemic period (except for the early spring), and we did not see any evidence of weaker disease surveillance in smaller states (Text S1). On the contrary, states with lower population sizes reported more cases proportionally than larger states. The reduction in R observed during the social distancing period occurred during a period of increasing testing rates (Figure 4C). One would expect that increasing testing rates would lead to overestimation of the growth rate in H1N1 cases and may in turn result in overestimation of the impact of social distancing. Nevertheless, our sensitivity analyses based on ILI data gave similar results, and we do not think likely that spatial or temporal differences in ILI rates and health-seeking behavior may bias these analyses. We cannot rule out, however, the impact of other factors on R estimates, including a reduction in the delay from symptom onset to hospital admission in the spring, potentially reducing the effective infectious period (Figure 4D) [17], and the use of 1.2 million doses of oseltamivir for influenza treatment around the time of school closure.

In conclusion, our work suggests that intervention measures initiated in Mexico early in the pandemic period in April–May 2009 were effective in temporarily reducing disease transmission and that the start of the fall school term in August 2009 may have facilitated the onset of a widespread pandemic wave. It will be interesting to formally compare the Mexican experience with that of other locations that applied similar measures, such as Hong Kong [33]. The heterogeneous Mexican experience also suggests that it will be relatively difficult to predict the local impact and transmission dynamics of future influenza pandemics globally. We suggest that population size and school cycles can account for some of the observed variability and should be integrated into future pandemic planning scenarios. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that several post-1918 pandemic waves were associated with substantial health impact in the Americas [22],[67] and that the majority of influenza deaths associated with the 1889 pandemic in London occurred 2 y after the initial wave [68]. Therefore, we must remain vigilant and continue to monitor the circulation and health burden of the A/H1N1 pandemic virus in the coming years [69].

Supporting Information

Attachment 1

Attachment 2


Zdroje

1. Chowell

G

Bertozzi

SM

Colchero

MA

Lopez-Gatell

H

Alpuche-Aranda

C

2009

Severe respiratory disease concurrent with the circulation of

H1N1 influenza.

N Engl J Med

361

674

679

2. Perez-Padilla

R

de la Rosa-Zamboni

D

Ponce de Leon

S

Hernandez

M

Quinones-Falconi

F

2009

Pneumonia and respiratory failure from swine-origin influenza A

(H1N1) in Mexico.

N Engl J Med

361

680

689

3. Gomez-Gomez

A

Magana-Aquino

M

Garcia-Sepulveda

C

Ochoa-Perez

UR

Falcon-Escobedo

R

2010

Severe pneumonia associated with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 outbreak,

San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Emerg Infect Dis

16

27

34

4. 2009

Swine influenza A (H1N1) infection in two children--Southern

California, March-April 2009.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

58

400

402

5. 2009

Outbreak of swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection -

Mexico, March-April 2009.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

58

467

470

6. Cordova-Villalobos

JA

Sarti

E

Arzoz-Padres

J

Manuell-Lee

G

Mendez

JR

2009

The influenza A(H1N1) epidemic in Mexico. Lessons

learned.

Health Res Policy Syst

7

21

7. Bootsma

MC

Ferguson

NM

2007

The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza

pandemic in U.S. cities.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

104

7588

7593

8. Shaman

J

Kohn

M

2009

Absolute humidity modulates influenza survival, transmission, and

seasonality.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

106

3243

3248

9. Shaman

J

Pitzer

VE

Viboud

C

Grenfell

BT

Lipsitch

M

2010

Absolute humidity and the seasonal onset of influenza in the

continental United States.

PLoS Biol

8

e1000316

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316

10. 2010

H1N1 Flu.

Atlanta (Georgia)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

11. Fraser

C

Donnelly

CA

Cauchemez

S

Hanage

WP

Van Kerkhove

MD

2009

Pandemic potential of a strain of influenza A (H1N1): early

findings.

Science

324

1557

1561

12. Ghani

AC

Baguelin

M

Griffin

J

Flasche

S

Pebody

R

2009

The early transmission dynamics of H1N1pdm influenza in the

United Kingdom.

PLoS Curr Influenza

doi:10.1371/currents.RRN1130

RRN1130

13. Yang

Y

Sugimoto

JD

Halloran

ME

Basta

NE

Chao

DL

2009

The transmissibility and control of pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

virus.

Science

326

729

733

14. Nishiura

H

Castillo-Chavez

C

Safan

M

Chowell

G

2009

Transmission potential of the new influenza A(H1N1) virus and its

age-specificity in Japan.

Euro Surveill

14

15. Laguna-Torres

VA

Gomez

J

Aguilar

PV

Ampuero

JS

Munayco

C

2010

Changes in the viral distribution pattern after the appearance of

the novel influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) virus in influenza-like illness patients

in Peru.

PLoS One

5

e11719

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011719

16. Valdivia

A

Lopez-Alcalde

J

Vicente

M

Pichiule

M

Ruiz

M

2010

Monitoring influenza activity in Europe with Google Flu Trends:

comparison with the findings of sentinel physician networks - results for

2009-10.

Euro Surveill

15

17. Echevarria-Zuno

S

Mejia-Arangure

JM

Mar-Obeso

AJ

Grajales-Muniz

C

Robles-Perez

E

2009

Infection and death from influenza A H1N1 virus in Mexico: a

retrospective analysis.

Lancet

374

2072

2079

18. CONAPO

2010

Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Poblacion, Mexico

19. 2009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Serum cross-reactive

antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with

seasonal influenza vaccine.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

58

521

524

20. Chowell

G

Bettencourt

LM

Johnson

N

Alonso

WJ

Viboud

C

2008

The 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in England and Wales: spatial

patterns in transmissibility and mortality impact.

Proc Biol Sci

275

501

509

21. Wallinga

J

Lipsitch

M

2007

How generation intervals shape the relationship between growth

rates and reproductive numbers.

Proc Biol Sci

274

599

604

22. Chowell

G

Viboud

C

Simonsen

L

Miller

MA

Acuna-Soto

R

2010

Mortality patterns associated with the 1918 influenza pandemic in

Mexico: evidence for a spring herald wave and lack of preexisting immunity

in older populations.

J Infect Dis

202

567

575

23. Chowell

G

Nishiura

H

Bettencourt

LM

2007

Comparative estimation of the reproduction number for pandemic

influenza from daily case notification data.

J R Soc Interface

4

155

166

24. Cauchemez

S

Donnelly

CA

Reed

C

Ghani

AC

Fraser

C

2009

Household transmission of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus

in the United States.

N Engl J Med

361

2619

2627

25. Cowling

BJ

Chan

KH

Fang

VJ

Lau

LL

So

HC

2010

Comparative epidemiology of pandemic and seasonal influenza A in

households.

N Engl J Med

362

2175

2184

26. Monto

AS

Koopman

JS

Longini

IM

Jr

1985

Tecumseh study of illness. XIII. Influenza infection and disease,

1976-1981.

Am J Epidemiol

121

811

822

27. Cauchemez

S

Ferguson

NM

Wachtel

C

Tegnell

A

Saour

G

2009

Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic.

Lancet Infect Dis

9

473

481

28. Chao

DL

Elizabeth Halloran

M

Longini

IM

Jr

2010

School opening dates predict pandemic influenza A(H1N1) outbreaks

in the United States.

J Infect Dis

202

877

880

29. Cauchemez

S

Valleron

AJ

Boelle

PY

Flahault

A

Ferguson

NM

2008

Estimating the impact of school closure on influenza transmission

from Sentinel data.

Nature

452

750

754

30. Gomez

J

Munayco

C

Arrasco

J

Suarez

L

Laguna-Torres

V

2009

Pandemic influenza in a southern hemisphere setting: the

experience in Peru from May to September, 2009.

Euro Surveill

14

31. Nishiura

H

2010

Case fatality ratio of pandemic influenza.

Lancet Infect Dis

10

443

444

32. Baker

MG

Wilson

N

Huang

QS

Paine

S

Lopez

L

2009

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v in New Zealand: the experience from

April to August 2009.

Euro Surveill

14

33. Wu

JT

Cowling

BJ

Lau

EH

Ip

DK

Ho

LM

2010

School closure and mitigation of pandemic (H1N1) 2009, Hong

Kong.

Emerg Infect Dis

16

538

541

34. Hens

N

Ayele

GM

Goeyvaerts

N

Aerts

M

Mossong

J

2009

Estimating the impact of school closure on social mixing

behaviour and the transmission of close contact infections in eight European

countries.

BMC Infect Dis

9

187

35. Langmuir

AD

Pizzi

M

Trotter

WY

Dunn

FL

1958

[Asian influenza surveillance.].

Public Health Rep

73

114

120

36. Dunn

FL

Carey

DE

Cohen

A

Martin

JD

1959

Epidemiologic studies of Asian influenza in a Louisiana

parish.

Am J Hyg

70

351

371

37. Pourbohloul

B

Ahued

A

Davoudi

B

Meza

R

Meyers

LA

2009

Initial human transmission dynamics of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009

virus in North America.

Influenza Other Respi Viruses

3

215

222

38. Boelle

PY

Bernillon

P

Desenclos

JC

2009

A preliminary estimation of the reproduction ratio for new

influenza A(H1N1) from the outbreak in Mexico, March-April

2009.

Euro Surveill

14

39. Nishiura

H

Chowell

G

Safan

M

Castillo-Chavez

C

2010

Pros and cons of estimating the reproduction number from early

epidemic growth rate of influenza A (H1N1) 2009.

Theor Biol Med Model

7

1

40. Paine

S

Mercer

GN

Kelly

PM

Bandaranayake

D

Baker

MG

2010

Transmissibility of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in New

Zealand: effective reproduction number and influence of age, ethnicity and

importations.

Euro Surveill

15

41. McBryde

E

Bergeri

I

van Gemert

C

Rotty

J

Headley

E

2009

Early transmission characteristics of influenza A(H1N1)v in

Australia: Victorian state, 16 May - 3 June 2009.

Euro Surveill

14

42. Munayco

CV

Gomez

J

Laguna-Torres

VA

Arrasco

J

Kochel

TJ

2009

Epidemiological and transmissibility analysis of influenza

A(H1N1)v in a southern hemisphere setting: Peru.

Euro Surveill

14

43. Pedroni

E

Garcia

M

Espinola

V

Guerrero

A

Gonzalez

C

2010

Outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1), Los Lagos, Chile,

April-June 2009.

Euro Surveill

15

44. Tuite

AR

Greer

AL

Whelan

M

Winter

AL

Lee

B

2010

Estimated epidemiologic parameters and morbidity associated with

pandemic H1N1 influenza.

CMAJ

182

131

136

45. White

LF

Wallinga

J

Finelli

L

Reed

C

Riley

S

2009

Estimation of the reproductive number and the serial interval in

early phase of the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic in the

USA.

Influenza Other Respi Viruses

3

267

276

46. Lessler

J

Reich

NG

Cummings

DA

Nair

HP

Jordan

HT

2009

Outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) at a New York City

school.

N Engl J Med

361

2628

2636

47. 2009

Current situation of the 2009 H1N1pdm influenza pandemic in

Mexico [in Spanish].

Mexico City

Secretaria de Salud

48. 2010

Situacion de influenza A(H1N1) - reporte

01/26/2010.

Santiago (Chile)

Ministerio de Salud de Chile

49. 2010

Situacion de influenza A(H1N1) - parte 87.

Buenos Aires

Ministerio de Salud de Argentina

50. Webb

SA

Pettilä

A

Seppelt

I

Bellomo

R

2009

Critical care services and 2009 H1N1 influenza in Australia and

New Zealand.

N Engl J Med

361

1925

34

51. Bishop

JF

Murnane

MP

Owen

R

2009

Australia's winter with the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

virus.

N Engl J Med

361

2591

2594

52. Miller

MA

Viboud

C

Balinska

M

Simonsen

L

2009

The signature features of influenza pandemics--implications for

policy.

N Engl J Med

360

2595

2598

53. Chowell

G

Ammon

CE

Hengartner

NW

Hyman

JM

2006

Estimation of the reproductive number of the Spanish flu epidemic

in Geneva, Switzerland.

Vaccine

24

6747

6750

54. Andreasen

V

Viboud

C

Simonsen

L

2008

Epidemiologic characterization of the 1918 influenza pandemic

summer wave in Copenhagen: implications for pandemic control

strategies.

J Infect Dis

197

270

278

55. Ayora-Talavera

G

Gongora-Biachi

RA

Lopez-Martinez

I

Moguel-Rodriguez

W

Perez-Carrillo

H

2002

Detection of human influenza virus in Yucatan,

Mexico.

Rev Invest Clin

54

410

414

56. Shaman

J

Goldstein

E

Lipsitch

M

2011

Absolute humidity and pandemic versus epidemic

influenza.

Am J Epidemiol

173

127

135

57. Lipsitch

M

Viboud

C

2009

Influenza seasonality: lifting the fog.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

106

3645

3646

58. Viboud

C

Bjornstad

ON

Smith

DL

Simonsen

L

Miller

MA

2006

Synchrony, waves, and spatial hierarchies in the spread of

influenza.

Science

312

447

451

59. Eggo RM, Cauchemez S, Ferguson NM Spatial dynamics of the 1918

influenza pandemic in England, Wales and the United States.

J R Soc Interface

8

233

243

60. Nishiura

H

Chowell

G

2008

Rurality and pandemic influenza: geographic heterogeneity in the

risks of infection and death in Kanagawa, Japan (1918-1919).

N Z Med J

121

18

27

61. Reed

C

Angulo

FJ

Swerdlow

DL

Lipsitch

M

Meltzer

MI

2009

Estimates of the prevalence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United

States, April-July 2009.

Emerg Infect Dis

15

2004

2007

62. Presanis

AM

De Angelis

D

Hagy

A

Reed

C

Riley

S

2009

The severity of pandemic H1N1 influenza in the United States,

from April to July 2009: a Bayesian analysis.

PLoS Med

6

e1000207

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000207

63. Libster

R

Bugna

J

Coviello

S

Hijano

DR

Dunaiewsky

M

2010

Pediatric hospitalizations associated with 2009 pandemic

influenza A (H1N1) in Argentina.

N Engl J Med

362

45

55

64. Wu

JT

Ma

ES

Lee

CK

Chu

DK

Ho

PL

2010

The infection attack rate and severity of 2009 pandemic H1N1

influenza in Hong Kong.

Clin Infect Dis

51

1184

1191

65. Louie

JK

Acosta

M

Winter

K

Jean

C

Gavali

S

2009

Factors associated with death or hospitalization due to pandemic

2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection in California.

JAMA

302

1896

1902

66. Hardelid

P

Andrews

N

Hoschler

K

Stanford

E

Baguelin

M

2010

Assessment of baseline age-specific antibody prevalence and

incidence of infection to novel influenza AH1N1 2009.

Health Technol Assess

14

115

192

67. Olson

DR

Simonsen

L

Edelson

PJ

Morse

SS

2005

Epidemiological evidence of an early wave of the 1918 influenza

pandemic in New York City.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

102

11059

11063

68. Valleron

AJ

Cori

A

Valtat

S

Meurisse

S

Carrat

F

2010

Transmissibility and geographic spread of the 1889 influenza

pandemic.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

107

8778

8781

69. World Health Organization (WHO)

2010

Aug

10

H1N1 in post-pandemic period.

Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2010/h1n1_vpc_20100810/en/index.html.

Štítky
Interní lékařství

Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2011 Číslo 5

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Kurzy

Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova

Léčba bolesti v ordinaci praktického lékaře
nový kurz
Autoři: MUDr. PhDr. Zdeňka Nováková, Ph.D.

Revmatoidní artritida: včas a k cíli
Autoři: MUDr. Heřman Mann

Jistoty a nástrahy antikoagulační léčby aneb kardiolog - neurolog - farmakolog - nefrolog - právník diskutují
Autoři: doc. MUDr. Štěpán Havránek, Ph.D., prof. MUDr. Roman Herzig, Ph.D., doc. MUDr. Karel Urbánek, Ph.D., prim. MUDr. Jan Vachek, MUDr. et Mgr. Jolana Těšínová, Ph.D.

Léčba akutní pooperační bolesti
Autoři: doc. MUDr. Jiří Málek, CSc.

Nové antipsychotikum kariprazin v léčbě schizofrenie
Autoři: prof. MUDr. Cyril Höschl, DrSc., FRCPsych.

Všechny kurzy
Kurzy Doporučená témata Časopisy
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se