10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Questioning Aerosol Transmission of Influenza

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor We have reviewed the literature cited in Tellier’s Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus ( 1 ) and disagree that it supports the conclusions drawn regarding the importance of aerosols in natural influenza infection. In certain cited studies, researchers recovered viable virus from artificially generated aerosols; this is not evidence that aerosol transmission leads to natural human infection ( 2 , 3 ). By standard definitions, the rarity of long-range infections supports the conclusion that effective aerosol transmission is absent in the natural state ( 4 ) (www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_isolation_hicpac.html). The superior efficacy of inhaled versus intranasal zanamivir is referenced as support for the idea that the lower respiratory tract is the preferred site of influenza infection; however, 1 study cited is insufficiently powered, and the other 2 do not compare the intranasal and inhaled routes ( 5 – 7 ). The major site of deposition of inhaled zanamivir is the oropharynx (77.6%), not the lungs (13.2%) (www.gsk.ca/en/products/prescription/relenza_pm.pdf). In another flawed study ( 8 ), study participants naturally infected with wild-type virus are compared with study participants experimentally infected with an attenuated strain. In a review of such relevance, critical analysis of confounding factors is necessary. The Alaska Airlines outbreak ( 9 ) is presented as proof of airborne influenza transmission; however, droplet/contact transmission remains plausible because passenger movement was not restricted and the index patient was seated in high-traffic area. In the Livermore Hospital study ( 10 ), serious confounders such as bed arrangements, number of influenza exposures, patient mix, and ventilation were not accounted for. We encourage readers of Teller’s article to review the relevant primary literature. We believe that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn at this time is that aerosol transmission does not play a major role in natural influenza epidemiology. Whether aerosols play any role in the transmission of influenza is a question demanding an answer; it is clear that we do not yet have that answer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus

          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 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 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 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 >(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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airliner.

            A jet airliner with 54 persons aboard was delayed on the ground for three hours because of engine failure during a takeoff attempt. Most passengers stayed on the airplane during the delay. Within 72 hours, 72 per cent of the passengers became ill with symptoms of cough, fever, fatigue, headache, sore throat and myalgia. One passenger, the apparent index case, was ill on the airplane, and the clinical attack rate among the others varied with the amount of time spent aboard. Virus antigenically similar to A/Texas/1/77(H3N2) was isolated from 8 of 31 passengers cultured, and 20 of 22 ill persons tested had serologic evidence of infection with this virus. The airplane ventilation system was inoperative during the delay and this may account for the high attack rate.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survival of airborne influenza virus: effects of propagating host, relative humidity, and composition of spray fluids.

              Influenza A virus, strain WSNH, propagated in bovine, human and chick embryo cell cultures and aerosolized from the cell culture medium, was maximally stable at low relative humidity (RH), minimally stable at mid-range RH, and moderately stable at high RH. Most lots of WSNH virus propagated in embryonated eggs and aerosolized from the allantoic fluid were also least stable at mid-range RH, but two preparations after multiple serial passage in eggs showed equal stability at mid-range and higher RH's. Airborne stability varied from preparation to preparations of virus propagated both in cell culture and embryonal eggs. There was no apparent correlation between airborne stability and protein content of spray fluid above 0.1 mg/ml, but one preparation of lesser protein concentration was extremely unstable at 50 to 80 per cent RH. Polyhydroxy compounds exerted a protective effect on airborne stability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Emerg Infect Dis
                EID
                Emerging Infectious Diseases
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                1080-6040
                1080-6059
                January 2007
                : 13
                : 1
                : 173-175
                Affiliations
                [* ]University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                []University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [1 ]Currently with the Durham Region Health Department, Whitby, Ontario, Canada
                [* ]Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Camille Lemieux, 200 Elizabeth St, NCSB 12C-1262, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 2C4; email: camille.lemieux@ 123456uhn.on.ca
                Raymond Tellier, Division of Microbiology, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8; email: raymond.tellier@ 123456sickkids.ca
                Article
                06-1202
                10.3201/eid1301.061202
                2725811
                17370541
                26e47109-aa63-4df9-b6e4-ba242af32d3e
                History
                Categories
                Letters to the Editor

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                influenza,transmission,droplet,aerosol,letter
                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                influenza, transmission, droplet, aerosol, letter

                Comments

                Comment on this article