Swine flu worse in Mexico than US, but why?

Re: Swine flu worse in Mexico than US, but why?

Interesting article:
Source: http://www.elpais.com/yoperiodista/a...27elpyop_1/Tes

Google translation:
I-SALIN RAFAEL PASCUAL
Story of a doctor affected by the swine flu
A citizen of Mexico Federal District recounts how he was diagnosed with influenza virus and has the environment we live in Mexico City

RAFAEL PASCUAL-SALIN - Distrito Federal - 27/04/2009

In many ways, doctors are in the front ranks of those who fall. Well that's my case with the so-called swine flu. My table, like many, is not the typical approach is offered as influenza (high fever, the general strike, general provision etc). I arrived on Sunday of last week from a trip to teach a PhD at the University of Chiapas, and on Monday I began to feel weakness, drowsiness, and sore throat. On Thursday, I felt much worse.

When I was diagnosed, I felt bad for two reasons: because I am a doctor, and therefore denier of my ills, and because in that period of three days of diagnostic doubts, I had to pass the virus to others. My case was diagnosed as influenza last Thursday by the department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubir?n. In my case, the severity is moderate, it requires no drugs, only general support measures, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (Parecetamol, ibuprofen etc), hydration, and monitoring developments. Outside fever (37.5 FM) and the general attack (pain musuclares and joints) and rhinorrhoea profuse.

The people of Mexico City is, in general, secluded, classes were suspended from elementary to university level. Football matches in the Mexican league is conducted in enclosed stadiums. Bars, dancing places, m?tnines political meetings, etc., have been postponed. As a resident of a neighborhood of upper middle class, I can tell that the atmosphere in this area is quiet. People use masks and were created in a few days before that hygiene standards were not met, such as the use of handkerchiefs and not disposable forms.

I want to remark that, like the earthquakes in 1985, where the solidarity of the citizens of this city was rapid, efficient and caring, these days, people have responded with amazing discipline and civility. Internet has allowed them to inform, educate your neighbors, and acts to limit gain, for example, sales of masks that are gifts.

Enclosed pandemic

In my opinion, pandemics should be treated as true of the plague in the Middle Ages. Enclosed and insulated to the minimum change even within the family. Limiting the coverage and other belongings of the patient. There are no vaccines that protect against the virus today. Elderly, and persons at risk for lung problems, are trying to protect from further limiting access. Now that vaccines are developed by cloning the viral protein chains, hopefully soon teak something to protect populations at risk mentioned, and of course there are nurses, social workers and doctors.

The virus appears to be more aggressive in Mexico in United States of America, apparently by a bias in the way of collecting the samples. Here only severe cases are quantified, and these are the death rates of 8.1%. To give you an idea, the notorious Spanish flu, had a cup of 2.5% of deaths. This is what alarmed the world, but I have the impression that if you take the mild cases (in my house, my wife and sneezes two days already), the severity of pollution, malnutrition in some sectors of the population and the lack certificates of medical services, all of this and other factors may mean that perhaps death is not attributable to the viral strain, but the guest in an environment depauperado.

Re: Swine flu worse in Mexico than US, but why?

Try this

Latest Medical News, Clinical Trials, Guidelines - Today on Medscape

https://www.medscape.com

Today on Medscape : Get the latest medical news, clinical trial coverage, drug updates, journal articles, CME activities & more on Medscape. A free resource for physicians.

Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
In theory, influenza viruses can be transmitted through aerosols, large droplets, or direct contact with secretions (or fomites). These 3
modes are not mutually exclusive. Published findings that support the occurrence of aerosol transmission were reviewed to assess the
importance of this mode of transmission. Published evidence indicates that aerosol transmission of influenza can be an important mode of
transmission, which has obvious implications for pandemic influenza planning and in particular for recommendations about the use of N95
respirators as part of personal protective equipment.
Introduction
Concerns about the likely occurrence of an influenza pandemic in the near future are increasing. The highly pathogenic strains of influenza
A (H5N1) virus circulating in Asia, Europe, and Africa have become the most feared candidates for giving rise to a pandemic strain.
Several authors have stated that large-droplet transmission is the predominant mode by which influenza virus infection is acquired.[1--3] As
a consequence of this opinion, protection against infectious aerosols is often ignored for influenza, including in the context of influenza
pandemic preparedness. For example, the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan and the US Department of Health and Human Services
Pandemic Influenza Plan[4,5] recommend surgical masks, not N95 respirators, as part of personal protective equipment (PPE) for routine
patient care. This position contradicts the knowledge on influenza virus transmission accumulated in the past several decades. Indeed, the
relevant chapters of many reference books, written by recognized authorities, refer to aerosols as an important mode of transmission for
influenza.[6--9]
In preparation for a possible pandemic caused by a highly lethal virus such as influenza A (H5N1), making the assumption that the role of
aerosols in transmission of this virus will be similar to their role in the transmission of known human influenza viruses would seem rational.
Because infection with influenza A (H5N1) virus is associated with high death rates and because healthcare workers cannot as yet be
protected by vaccination, recommending an enhanced level of protection, including the use of N95 respirators as part of PPE, is important.
Following are a brief review of the relevant published findings that support the importance of aerosol transmission of influenza and a brief
discussion on the implications of these findings on pandemic preparedness.
Influenza Virus Aerosols
By definition, aerosols are suspensions in air (or in a gas) of solid or liquid particles, small enough that they remain airborne for prolonged
periods because of their low settling velocity. For spherical particles of unit density, settling times (for a 3-m fall) for specific diameters are
10 s for 100 μm, 4 min for 20 μm, 17 min for 10 μm, and 62 min for 5 μm; particles with a diameter <3 μm essentially do not settle. Settling
times can be further affected by air turbulence.[10,11]
The median diameters at which particles exhibit aerosol behavior also correspond to the sizes at which they are efficiently deposited in the
lower respiratory tract when inhaled. Particles of ≥6-μm diameter are trapped increasingly in the upper respiratory tract;[12] no substantial
deposition in the lower respiratory tract occurs at ≥20 μm.[11,12] Many authors adopt a size cutoff of ≥5 μm for aerosols. This convenient
convention is, however, somewhat arbitrary, because the long settling time and the efficient deposition in the lower respiratory tract are
properties that do not appear abruptly at a specific diameter value. Certainly, particles in the micron or submicron range will behave as
aerosols, and particles >10--20 μm will settle rapidly, will not be deposited in the lower respiratory tract, and are referred to as large
droplets.[10--12]
Coughing or sneezing generates a substantial quantity of particles, a large number of which are <5--10 μm in diameter [reviewed in].[10] In
addition, particles expelled by coughing or sneezing rapidly shrink in size by evaporation, thereby increasing the number of particles that
behave as aerosols. Particles shrunken by evaporation are referred to as droplet nuclei.[10--12] This phenomenon affects particles with a
diameter at emission of ≤20 μm, and complete desiccation would decrease the diameter to a little less than half the initial diameter.[10]
Droplet nuclei are hygroscopic. When exposed to humid air (as in the lungs), they will swell back. One would expect that inhaled
hygroscopic particles would be retained in the lower respiratory tract with greater efficiency, and this hypothesis has been confirmed
experimentally.[11,12] Because aerosols remain airborne, they can be carried over large distances, which may create a potential for longrange
infections. The occurrence of long-range infections is affected by several other factors. These include dilution, the infectious dose,
From Emerging Infectious Diseases
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus
Raymond Tellier
Published: 11/30/2006
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 1 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009
the amount of infectious particles produced, the duration of shedding of the infectious agent, and the persistence of the agent in the
environment.[11] Inferring an absence of aerosols because long-range infections are not frequently observed is incorrect.
Humans acutely infected with influenza A virus have a high virus titer in their respiratory secretions, which will be aerosolized when the
patient sneezes or coughs. The viral titer measured in nasopharyngeal washes culminates on approximately day 2 or 3 after infection and
can reach up to 107 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID50)/mL.[13,14] The persistence of the infectivity of influenza virus in aerosols has
been studied in the laboratory. In experiments that used homogeneous aerosolized influenza virus suspensions (mean diameter 6 μm),
virus infectivity (assessed by in vitro culture) at a fixed relative humidity undergoes an exponential decay; this decay is characterized by
very low death rate constants, provided that the relative humidity was in the low range of 15%--40%.[15,16] These results are consistent with
those of an older study (admittedly performed in a more rudimentary manner) in which infectious influenza viruses in an aerosol could be
demonstrated for up to 24 h by using infection in mice as a detection method, provided that the relative humidity was 17%-24%.[17] In all
these studies, the decay of virus infectivity increased rapidly at relative humidity >40%. The increased survival of influenza virus in
aerosols at low relative humidity has been suggested as a factor that accounts for the seasonality of influenza.[15,16] The sharply increased
decay of infectivity at high humidity has also been observed for other enveloped viruses (e.g., measles virus); in contrast, exactly the
opposite relationship has been shown for some nonenveloped viruses (e.g., poliovirus).[11,15,16]
Experimental Influenza Infection
Experimental infection studies permit the clear separation of the aerosol route of transmission from transmission by large droplets.
Laboratory preparation of homogeneous small particle aerosols free of large droplets is readily achieved.[13,18] Conversely, transmission by
large droplets without accompanying aerosols can be achieved by intranasal drop inoculation.[13]
Influenza infection has been documented by aerosol exposure in the mouse model, the squirrel monkey model, and human volunteers.
[12,13,17--19] Observations made during experimental infections with human volunteers are particularly interesting and relevant. In studies
conducted by Alford and colleagues,[18] volunteers were exposed to carefully titrated aerosolized influenza virus suspensions by inhaling
10 L of aerosol through a face mask. The diameter of the aerosol particles was 1 μm--3 μm. Demonstration of infection in participants in
the study was achieved by recovery of infectious viruses from throat swabs, taken daily, or by seroconversion, i.e., development of
neutralizing antibodies. The use of carefully titrated viral stocks enabled the determination of the minimal infectious dose by aerosol
inoculation. For volunteers who lacked detectable neutralizing antibodies at the onset, the 50% human infectious dose (HID50) was 0.6--
3.0 TCID50, if one assumes a retention of 60% of the inhaled particles[18]. In contrast, the HID50 measured when inoculation was
performed by intranasal drops was 127--320 TCID50.[13] Additional data from experiments conducted with aerosolized influenza virus
(average diameter 1.5 μm) showed that when a dose of 3 TCID50 was inhaled, ≈1 TCID50 only was deposited in the nose.[12] Since the
dose deposited in the nose is largely below the minimal dose required by intranasal inoculation, this would indicate that the preferred site
of infection initiation during aerosol inoculation is the lower respiratory tract. Another relevant observation is that whereas the clinical
symptoms initiated by aerosol inoculation covered the spectrum of symptoms seen in natural infections, the disease observed in study
participants infected experimentally by intranasal drops was milder, with a longer incubation time and usually no involvement of the lower
respiratory tract.[13,20] For safety reasons, this finding led to the adoption of intranasal drop inoculation as the standard procedure in human
experimental infections with influenza virus.[13]
Additional support for the view that the lower respiratory tract (which is most efficiently reached by the aerosol route) is the preferred site of
infection is provided by studies on the use of zanamivir for prophylaxis. In experimental settings, intranasal zanamivir was protective
against experimental inoculation with influenza virus in intranasal drops.[21] However, in studies on prophylaxis of natural infection,
intranasally applied zanamivir was not protective,[22] whereas inhaled zanamivir was protective in one study[23] and a protective effect
approached statistical significance in another study[22]. These experiments and observations strongly support the view that many, possibly
most, natural influenza infections occur by the aerosol route and that the lower respiratory tract may be the preferred site of initiation of the
infection.
Epidemiologic Observations
In natural infections, the postulated modes of transmission have included aerosols, large droplets, and direct contact with secretions or
fomites because the virus can remain infectious on nonporous dry surfaces for ≤48 hours.[24] Because in practice completely ruling out
contributions of a given mode of transmission is often difficult, the relative contribution of each mode is usually difficult to establish by
epidemiologic studies alone. However, a certain number of observations are consistent with and strongly suggestive of an important role
for aerosol transmission in natural infections, for example the "explosive nature and simultaneous onset [of disease] in many persons",[9]
including in nosocomial outbreaks.[25] The often-cited outbreak described by Moser et al. on an airplane with a defective ventilation system
is best accounted for by aerosol transmission.[26] Even more compelling were the observations made at the Livermore Veterans
Administration Hospital during the 1957--58 pandemic. The study group consisted of 209 tuberculous patients confined during their
hospitalization to a building with ceiling-mounted UV lights; 396 tuberculous patients hospitalized in other buildings that lacked these lights
constituted the control group. Although the study group participants remained confined to the building, they were attended to by the same
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 2 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009
personnel as the control group, and there were no restrictions on visits from the community. Thus, it was unavoidable at some point that
attending personnel and visitors would introduce influenza virus in both groups. During the second wave of the pandemic, the control
group and the personnel sustained a robust outbreak of respiratory illness, shown retrospectively by serology to be due to the pandemic
strain influenza A (H2N2), whereas the group in the irradiated building remained symptom free. The seroconversion rate to influenza A
(H2N2) was 19% in the control group, 18% in personnel, but only 2% in the study group.[27,28]
Whereas UV irradiation is highly effective in inactivating viruses in small-particle aerosols, it is ineffective for surface decontamination
because of poor surface penetrations. It is also ineffective for large droplets because the germicidal activity sharply decreases as the
relative humidity increases.[28] Furthermore, because the installation of UV lights was set up in such a way as to decontaminate the upper
air of rooms only, large droplets would not have been exposed to UV, whereas aerosols, carried by thermal air mixing, would have been
exposed.[27,28] So in effect in this study only the aerosol route of infection was blocked, and this step alone achieved near complete
protection.
The converse occurrence, blocking only the large droplet and fomites routes in natural infections, can be inferred from the studies on the
use of zanamivir for prophylaxis described previously. In experimental settings, intranasally applied zanamivir was protective against an
experimental challenge with influenza by intranasal drops.[21] However, in studies on prophylaxis of natural disease, intranasal zanamivir
was not protective,[22] which leads to the conclusion that natural infection can occur efficiently by a route other than large droplets or
fomites. As noted above, inhaled zanamivir was significantly protective.[22,23]
Discussion and Implications for Infection Control during Influenza A (H5) Pandemic
In principle, influenza viruses can be transmitted by 3 routes: aerosols, large droplets, and direct contact with secretions (or with fomites).
These 3 routes are not mutually exclusive and, as noted above, may be difficult to disentangle in natural infections.
For the purpose of deciding on the use of N95 respirators in a pandemic, showing that aerosol transmission occurs at appreciable rates is
sufficient. Evidence supporting aerosol transmission, reviewed above, appears compelling. Despite the evidence cited in support of
aerosol transmission, many guidelines or review articles nevertheless routinely state that "large droplets transmission is thought to be the
main mode of influenza transmission" (or similar statements) without providing supporting evidence from either previously published
studies or empirical findings. Despite extensive searches, I have not found a study that proves the notion that large-droplets transmission
is predominant and that aerosol transmission is negligible (or nonexistent). Reports on many outbreaks suggest that influenza aerosols are
rapidly diluted because long-range infections occur most spectacularly in situations of crowding and poor ventilation.[25,26] However, even if
long-range infections do not readily occur when sufficient ventilation exists, this does not rule out the presence at closer range of infectious
particles in the micron or submicron range, against which surgical masks would offer little protection.[29,30] Many infection control
practitioners have argued that the introduction of large-droplets precautions in institutions has proven sufficient to interrupt influenza
outbreaks and therefore that aerosol transmission appears negligible. This evidence is, unfortunately, inconclusive because of several
confounding or mitigating factors. First, unless precise laboratory diagnosis is obtained, respiratory syncytial virus outbreaks can be
mistaken for influenza outbreaks,[9] which would artificially increase the perceived "effectiveness" of large-droplets precautions against
influenza. Second, serologic studies are often not conducted, and therefore asymptomatic infections are not documented (among
healthcare workers a large fraction of influenza infections are asymptomatic or mistaken for another disease.[31] Third, since we are in an
interpandemic period and the viruses currently circulating have been drifting from related strains for decades, we all have partial immunity
against these viruses, immunity that is further boosted in vaccinated healthcare workers. It has even been argued that after several
decades of circulation the current human influenza viruses are undergoing gradual attenuation.[32] Finally, surgical masks (used in largedroplets
precautions) do not offer reliable protection against aerosols, but they nevertheless have a partially protective effect, which further
confuses the issue.[29,30]
In contrast, the situation with a pandemic strain of influenza A (H5) would become only too clear because no one would have any degree
of immunity against such a virus, vaccines would not be available for months, and these viruses would likely be highly virulent. Even
though efficient human-to-human transmission of the A (H5N1) virus has not yet been observed (by any mode), transmission of influenza
A (H5N1) by aerosols from geese to quails has been demonstrated in the laboratory.[33] Thus, even in the current incarnation of A (H5N1),
infection by the virus can generate aerosols that are infectious for highly susceptible hosts. As far as we know, 1 of the main blocks to
efficient human-to-human transmission of influenza A (H5N1) is the virus's current preference for specific sialic acid receptors. The current
strains still prefer α-2,3-linked sialic acids, which is typical of avian influenza viruses, whereas human influenza viruses bind preferentially
to α-2,6-linked sialic acids.[34--36] In all likelihood, 1 of the mutations required for influenza A (H5N1) to give rise to a pandemic strain would
be to change its receptor affinity to favor the α-2,6-linked sialic acids. For the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic strain of 1918, this change
required only 1 or 2 amino acid substitutions.[36] Once a highly transmissible strain of influenza A (H5) has arisen, it will likely spread in part
by aerosols, like other human influenza viruses.
Recent studies have shown that whereas epithelial cells in the human respiratory tract express predominantly the α-2,6 sialic acid
receptor, cells expressing the α-2,3 receptor were detected only occasionally in the upper respiratory tract; however, measurable
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 3 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009
expression of α-2,3-linked sialic acid receptors was found in some cells in the alveolar epithelium and at the junction of alveolus and
terminal bronchiole.[35] Binding of influenza A (H5N1) virus can be demonstrated in human tissue sections from the respiratory tract in a
distribution corresponding to that of the α-2,3 receptors in the respiratory tract.[34,35] This pattern of virus binding correlates well with
autopsy findings, which show extensive alveolar damage,[34,37] and also correlates well with the observation that recovery of the A (H5N1)
virus is much more difficult from nasal swabs than from throat swabs.[37] Thus, in the respiratory system the current strains of A (H5N1)
appear to infect mostly (perhaps exclusively) the lower respiratory tract. If that is indeed the case, it in turn suggests that human cases of
avian influenza were acquired by exposure to an aerosol, since large droplets would not have delivered the virus to the lower respiratory
tract. (Another hypothesis might be gastrointestinal infection, followed by viremia and dissemination, but not all patients have
gastrointestinal symptoms.[37] Given the strong evidence for aerosol transmission of influenza viruses in general, and the high lethality of
the current strains of avian influenza A (H5N1),[37] recommending the use of N95 respirators, not surgical masks, as part of the protective
equipment seems rational.
Several infection control guidelines for influenza have recently been published, some specifically aimed at the current strains of A (H5N1),
others as part of more comprehensive pandemic plans that address the emergence not only of a pandemic form of A (H5) but also of other
types of pandemic influenza viruses. Even though to date human-to-human transmission of A (H5N1) remains very inefficient, the high
lethality of the infection and potential for mutations call for prudence. The use of N95 respirators is included in the 2004 recommendations
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for healthcare workers who treat patients with known or suspected avian influenza.[38]
The World Health Organization's current (April 2006) guidelines for avian influenza recommend the use of airborne precautions when
possible, including the use of N95 respirators when entering patients' rooms.[39]
Currently, several pandemic plans differ considerably in their recommendations for infection control precautions and PPE. The current
version of the Canadian pandemic plan recommends surgical masks only, disregarding data that support the aerosol transmission of
influenza.[4] The US pandemic plans[5] and the British plans, from both the National Health Service (available from

410 - Page Archived

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?

CONTENT_ID=4121735&chk=Z6kjQY) and the Health Protection Agency
(http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/top...ndemicplan.pdf), acknowledge the contribution of aerosols in
influenza but curiously recommend surgical masks for routine care; the use of N95 respirators is reserved for protection during
"aerosolizing procedures".[5,40] These recommendations fail to recognize that infectious aerosols will also be generated by coughing and
sneezing. The Australian Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (June 2005) recommends N95 respirators for healthcare workers
(http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wc...demic-plan.htm), and in France, the Plan gouvernemental de
pr?vention et de lutte Pand?mie grippale January 2006) recommends FFP2 respirators (equivalent to N95 respirators)
(http://www.splf.org/s/IMG/pdf/plan-grip-janvier06.pdf). Given the scientific evidence that supports the occurrence of aerosol transmission
of influenza, carefully reexamining current recommendations for PPE equipment would appear necessary.
References
1. Bridges CB, Kuehnert MJ, Hall CB. Transmission of influenza: implications for control in health care settings. Clin Infect Dis.
2003;37:1094--101.
2. Bell DM, WHO Writing Group. Nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza, international measures. Emerg Infect Dis.
2006;12:81--7.
3. Garner JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect
Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:53-80.
4. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan (Appendix F). 2004 [cited 2006 Apr 12]. Available from

HTTP Error 404 - Not Found | Erreur HTTP 404 - Non trouvé

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cpip-pclcpi/pdf-cpip-03/cpip-appendix-f.pdf

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pandemic Influenza Plan. [cited 2006 Jul 20]. Available from

Access Denied

http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/

6. Cox NJ, Ziegler T. Influenza viruses. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Pfaller MA, Yolken RH, editors. Manual of clinical
microbiology. 8th ed. Washington: ASM Press; 2003. p. 1360--7.
7. Wright PF, Webster RG. Orthomyxoviruses. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, Griffin DE, Lamb RA, Martin MA, Roizman B, editors. Fields
virology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1533--80.
8. Hayden FG, Palese P. Influenza virus. In: Richman DD, Whitley RJ, Hayden FG, editors. Clinical virology. Washington: ASM Press;
2002. p. 891--920.
9. Treanor JJ. Influenza virus. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas and Bennett's principles and practice of
infectious diseases. 6th ed. New York: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 2060--85.
10. Nicas M, Nazaroff WW, Hubbard A. Toward understanding the risk of secondary airborne infection: emission of respirable
pathogens. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005;2:143--54.
11. Knight V. Viruses as agents of airborne contagion. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1980;353:147--56.
12. Knight V. Airborne transmission and pulmonary deposition of respiratory viruses. In: Hers JF, Winkles KC, editors. Airborne
transmission and airborne infections. VIth International Symposium on Aerobiology. New York: Wiley; 1973. p. 175--82.
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 4 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009
Authors and Disclosures
Raymond Tellier,*?*Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and ?University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
13. Douglas RG. Influenza in man. In: Kilbourne ED, editor. The influenza viruses and influenza. New York: Academic Press; 1975. p.
375--447.
14. Murphy BR, Chalhub EG, Nusinoff SR, Kasel J, Chanock RM. Temperature-sensitive mutants of influenza virus. 3. Further
characterization of the ts-1(E) influenza A recombinant (H3N2) virus in man. J Infect Dis. 1973;128:479--87.
15. Hemmes JH, Winkler KC, Kool SM. Virus survival as a seasonal factor in influenza and poliomyelitis. Nature. 1960;188:430--1.
16. Hemmes JH, Winkler K, Kool SM. Virus survival as a seasonal factor in influenza and poliomyelitis. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek.
1962;28:221--33.
17. Loosli C, Lemon H, Robertson O, Appel E. Experimental air-borne influenza infection. 1. Influence of humidity on survival of virus in
air. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1943;53:205--6.
18. Alford RH, Kasel JA, Gerone PJ, Knight V. Human influenza resulting from aerosol inhalation. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med.
1966;122:800--4.
19. Snyder MH, Stephenson EH, Young H, York CG, Tierney EL, London WT, et al. Infectivity and antigenicity of live avian-human
influenza A reassortant virus: comparison of intranasal and aerosol routes in squirrel monkeys. J Infect Dis. 1986;154:709--11.
20. Little JW, Douglas RG Jr, Hall WJ, Roth FK. Attenuated influenza produced by experimental intranasal inoculation. J Med Virol.
1979;3:177--88.
21. Calfee DP, Peng AW, Hussey EK, Lobo M, Hayden FG. Safety and efficacy of once daily intranasal zanamivir in preventing
experimental human influenza A infection. Antivir Ther. 1999;4:143--9.
22. Kaiser L, Henry D, Flack NP, Keene O, Hayden FG. Short-term treatment with zanamivir to prevent influenza: results of a placebocontrolled
study. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:587--9.
23. Hayden FG, Gubareva LV, Monto AS, Klein TC, Elliot MJ, Hammond JM, et al. Inhaled zanamivir for the prevention of influenza in
families. Zanamivir Family Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1282-9.
24. Bean B, Moore BM, Sterner B, Peterson LR, Gerding DN, Balfour HH Jr. Survival of influenza viruses on environmental surfaces. J
Infect Dis. 1982;146:47--51.
25. Salgado CD, Farr BM, Hall KK, Hayden FG. Influenza in the acute hospital setting. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2:145--55.
26. Moser MR, Bender TR, Margolis HS, Noble GR, Kendal AP, Ritter DG. An outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airliner. Am J
Epidemiol. 1979;110:1--6.
27. McLean RL. Discussion after paper: the mechanism of spread of Asian influenza. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1961;83:36--8.
28. Riley RL. Airborne infection. Am J Med. 1974;57:466--75.
29. Qian Y, Willeke K, Grinshpun SA, Donnelly J, Coffey CC. Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial
and inert particles. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;59:128--32.
30. Weber A, Willeke K, Marchioni R, Myojo T, McKay R, Donnelly J, et al. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks
used in the health care industry. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21:167--73.
31. Elder AG, O'Donnell B, McCruden EA, Symington IS, Carman WF. Incidence and recall of influenza in a cohort of Glasgow
healthcare workers during the 19934 epidemic: results of serum testing and questionnaire. BMJ. 1996;313:1241--2.
32. de la Barrera CA, Reyes-Teran G. Influenza: forecast for a pandemic. Arch Med Res. 2005;36:628--36.
33. Webster RG, Guan Y, Peiris M, Walker D, Krauss S, Zhou NN, et al. Characterization of H5N1 influenza viruses that continue to
circulate in geese in southeastern China. J Virol. 2002;76:118-26.
34. van Riel D, Munster VJ, de Wit E, Rimmelzwaan GF, Fouchier RA, Osterhaus AD, et al. H5N1 virus attachment to lower respiratory
tract. Science. 2006;312:399.
35. Shinya K, Ebina M, Yamada S, Ono M, Kasai N, Kawaoka Y. Avian flu: influenza virus receptors in the human airway. Nature.
2006;440:435--6.
36. Stevens J, Blixt O, Glaser L, Taubenberger JK, Palese P, Paulson JC, et al. Glycan microarray analysis of the hemagglutinins from
modern and pandemic influenza viruses reveals different receptor specificities. J Mol Biol. 2006;355:1143--55.
37. Beigel JH, Farrar J, Han AM, Hayden FG, Hyer R, de Jong MD, et al. Avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans. N Engl J Med.
2005;353:1374--85.
38. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim recommendations for infection control in health care facilities caring for
patients with known or suspected avian influenza. 2004 [cited 2006 Apr 12]. Available from

Bird Flu

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/professional/pdf/infectcontrol.pdf

This page provides links to the latest H5N1 bird flu information

39. World Health Organization. Avian influenza, including influenza A(H5N1) in humans: WHO interim infection control guidelines for
health care facilities. 2006 [cited 2006 Jul 20]. Available from http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres...88D-4316-91DF-
5553E7B1DBCD/0/InfectionControlAIinhumansWHOInterimGuidelinesfor2 .pdf
40. Health Protection Agency. Guidance for pandemic influenza: infection control in hospitals and primary care settings. Oct 2005 [cited
2006 Jul 20].Available from http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/12/17/54/04121754.pdf
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 5 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Martin Petric for his helpful review of the manuscript.
Reprint Address
Raymond Tellier, Division of Microbiology,The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada; email:
raymond.tellier@sickkids.ca
Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2006;12(11):1657-1662. ? 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Disclosure: Dr. Tellier is a microbiologist for the Hospital for Sick Children; senior associate scientist, Research Institute, Hospital for Sick
Children; and associate professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto.
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus (printer-friendly) Page 6 of 6
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_print 4/28/2009

Announcement

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment: