There are few data on the comparative epidemiology and virology of the pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus and cocirculating seasonal influenza A viruses in community settings. We recruited 348 index patients with acute respiratory illness from 14 outpatient clinics in Hong Kong in July and August 2009. We then prospectively followed household members of 99 patients who tested positive for influenza A virus on rapid diagnostic testing. We collected nasal and throat swabs from all household members at three home visits within 7 days for testing by means of quantitative reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay and viral culture. Using hemagglutination-inhibition and viral-neutralization assays, we tested baseline and convalescent serum samples from a subgroup of patients for antibody responses to the pandemic and seasonal influenza A viruses. Secondary attack rates (as confirmed on RT-PCR assay) among household contacts of index patients were similar for the pandemic influenza virus (8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 14) and seasonal influenza viruses (9%; 95% CI, 5 to 15). The patterns of viral shedding and the course of illness among index patients were also similar for the pandemic and seasonal influenza viruses. In a subgroup of patients for whom baseline and convalescent serum samples were available, 36% of household contacts who had serologic evidence of pandemic influenza virus infection did not shed detectable virus or report illness. Pandemic 2009 H1N1 virus has characteristics that are broadly similar to those of seasonal influenza A viruses in terms of rates of viral shedding, clinical illness, and transmissibility in the household setting.

Background. Volunteer challenge studies have provided detailed data on viral shedding from the respiratory tract before and through the course of expe

The presence of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is raising important concerns about effective pandemic response and preparedness in the context of fragile health systems and the pervasiveness of misinformation. The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of how COVID-19 was perceived by households experiencing extreme poverty in the Philippines. This study was conducted in partnership with International Care Ministries (ICM), a Philippine-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that runs a poverty-alleviation program called Transform targeted towards extreme low-income households. We integrated knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) questions into ICM's cross-sectional program monitoring and evaluation systems from February 20 through March 13, 2020. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to describe the respondents' responses, and the Kruskal-Wallis test and binomial logistic regression were undertaken to determine the socio-demographic characteristics associated with COVID-19 KAPs. In total, 2224 respondents from 166 communities in rural, urban and coastal settings were surveyed. Although the survey was administered during the earlier stages of the pandemic, 94.0% of respondents had already heard of COVID-19. Traditional media sources such as television (85.5%) and radio (56.1%) were reported as the main sources of information about the virus. Coughing and sneezing were identified as a transmission route by 89.5% of respondents, while indirect hand contact was the least commonly identified transmission route, recognized by 72.6% of respondents. Handwashing was identified by 82.2% of respondents as a preventive measure against the virus, but social distancing and avoiding crowds were only identified by 32.4% and 40.6%, respectively. Handwashing was the most common preventive practice in response to COVID-19, adopted by 89.9% of respondents. A greater number of preventive measures were taken by those with more knowledge of potential transmission routes. There is a need for targeted health education as a response strategy to COVID-19 in low-income settings, and it is important that strategies are contextually relevant. Understanding KAPs among populations experiencing extreme poverty will be important as tailored guidance for public health response and communication strategies are developed for LMICs.

After the WHO issued the global alert for 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1), many national health agencies began to screen travelers on entry in airports, ports and border crossings to try to delay local transmission.

Objective The aim of this review, conducted in April 2020, is to examine available national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 and to explore the ways in which these guidelines support primary care facilities in responding to the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Rapid review and narrative synthesis. Data sources PubMed, Embase and Google, as well as the websites of relevant national health departments, were searched from 1 January 2020 to 24 April 2020. Eligibility criteria Documents included must be issued by a national health authority, must be specific to COVID-19 care, directed at healthcare workers or managers, and must refer to the role of primary care in the COVID-19 response. Results We identified 17 documents from 14 countries. An adapted framework on primary care challenges and responses to pandemic influenza framed our analysis. Guidelines generally reported on COVID-19 service delivery and mostly made specific recommendations for ensuring continued delivery of essential primary care services through telehealth or other virtual care modalities. Few offered guidance to support surveillance as a public health function. All offered guidance on implementing outbreak control measures, largely through flexible and coordinated organisational models with partners from various sectors. There was a lack of guidance to support supply chain management and practice resilience in primary care, and lack of personal protective equipment represents a serious threat to the provision of quality care during the pandemic. Conclusions Current national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 provide guidance on infection control and minimising the risk of spread in primary care practices, while supporting the use of new technology and coordinated partnerships. However, to ensure primary care practice resilience and quality of care are upheld, guidelines must offer recommendations on supply chain management and operational continuity, supported by adequate resources.