Giuseppe
Emeritus
Adverse drug effects following oseltamivir mass treatment and prophylaxis in a school outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in June 2009, Sheffield, United Kingdom (Euro Surveill., abstract, edited)
[Source: EuroSurveillance.org, <cite cite="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19565">Eurosurveillance - View Article</cite>. Abstract, Edited.]
Eurosurveillance, Volume 15, Issue 19, 13 May 2010
Research articles
Adverse drug effects following oseltamivir mass treatment and prophylaxis in a school outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in June 2009, Sheffield, United Kingdom
M Strong 1, J Burrows 1, E Stedman 2, P Redgrave 3
1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
2. Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
3. NHS Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Citation style for this article: Strong M, Burrows J, Stedman E, Redgrave P. Adverse drug effects following oseltamivir mass treatment and prophylaxis in a school outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in June 2009, Sheffield, United Kingdom . Euro Surveill. 2010;15(19)
ii=19565. Available online: (LINK)
Date of submission: 04 December 2009
During the containment phase of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, mass treatment and prophylaxis with oseltamivir was used to control an outbreak of pandemic influenza in a primary school in Sheffield, United Kingdom, where ten cases of pandemic influenza had been laboratory confirmed over a three day period in June 2009. A subsequent cross-sectional survey showed that 51 of 297 (17%) pupils and 10 of 58 (17%) reported an influenza-like illness. The most common symptoms were headache, cough, fever, tiredness, sore throat and nausea. Fifty-three staff and 273 pupils took oseltamivir for treatment or prophylaxis. Of this group, 41% (113/273) of pupils and 47% (25/53) of staff reported adverse effects. Overall, 14% (37/273) of pupils and 20% (11/53) of staff did not complete the course of oseltamivir, primarily due to adverse effects. Nausea, vomiting and rash were statistically significantly associated with failing to complete the course of oseltamivir. Given the potential for side effects from oseltamivir, particularly among those without influenza who receive the drug for prophylaxis, our findings have two important implications. Firstly, the benefits of mass treatment in an outbreak setting must clearly be greater than the benefits of targeted treatment. Secondly, any large scale regional or state level system for distribution of antiviral drugs for treatment should ideally include a robust quantification of an individual?s probability of infection with influenza virus in order to avoid unnecessary treatment.
-
-----
[Source: EuroSurveillance.org, <cite cite="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19565">Eurosurveillance - View Article</cite>. Abstract, Edited.]
Eurosurveillance, Volume 15, Issue 19, 13 May 2010
Research articles
Adverse drug effects following oseltamivir mass treatment and prophylaxis in a school outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in June 2009, Sheffield, United Kingdom
M Strong 1, J Burrows 1, E Stedman 2, P Redgrave 3
1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
2. Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
3. NHS Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Citation style for this article: Strong M, Burrows J, Stedman E, Redgrave P. Adverse drug effects following oseltamivir mass treatment and prophylaxis in a school outbreak of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in June 2009, Sheffield, United Kingdom . Euro Surveill. 2010;15(19)
ii=19565. Available online: (LINK)Date of submission: 04 December 2009
During the containment phase of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, mass treatment and prophylaxis with oseltamivir was used to control an outbreak of pandemic influenza in a primary school in Sheffield, United Kingdom, where ten cases of pandemic influenza had been laboratory confirmed over a three day period in June 2009. A subsequent cross-sectional survey showed that 51 of 297 (17%) pupils and 10 of 58 (17%) reported an influenza-like illness. The most common symptoms were headache, cough, fever, tiredness, sore throat and nausea. Fifty-three staff and 273 pupils took oseltamivir for treatment or prophylaxis. Of this group, 41% (113/273) of pupils and 47% (25/53) of staff reported adverse effects. Overall, 14% (37/273) of pupils and 20% (11/53) of staff did not complete the course of oseltamivir, primarily due to adverse effects. Nausea, vomiting and rash were statistically significantly associated with failing to complete the course of oseltamivir. Given the potential for side effects from oseltamivir, particularly among those without influenza who receive the drug for prophylaxis, our findings have two important implications. Firstly, the benefits of mass treatment in an outbreak setting must clearly be greater than the benefits of targeted treatment. Secondly, any large scale regional or state level system for distribution of antiviral drugs for treatment should ideally include a robust quantification of an individual?s probability of infection with influenza virus in order to avoid unnecessary treatment.
-
-----