A new sentinel surveillance system for severe influenza in England shows a shift in age distribution of hospitalised cases in the post-pandemic period

Background

The World Health Organization and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have highlighted the importance of establishing systems to monitor severe influenza. Following the H1N1 (2009) influenza pandemic, a sentinel network of 23 Trusts, the UK Severe Influenza Surveillance System (USISS), was established to monitor hospitalisations due to confirmed seasonal influenza in England. This article presents the results of the first season of operation of USISS in 2010/11.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A case was defined as a person hospitalised with confirmed influenza of any type. Weekly aggregate numbers of hospitalised influenza cases, broken down by flu type and level of care, were submitted by participating Trusts. Cases in 2010/11 were compared to cases during the 2009 pandemic in hospitals with available surveillance data for both time periods (n = 19). An unexpected resurgence in seasonal A/H1N1 (2009) influenza activity in England was observed in December 2010 with reports of severe disease. Reported cases over the period of 4 October 2010 to 13 February 2011 were mostly due to influenza A/H1N1 (2009). One thousand and seventy-one cases of influenza A/H1N1 (2009) occurred over this period compared to 409 at the same Trusts over the 2009/10 pandemic period (1 April 2009 to 6 January 2010). Median age of influenza A/H1N1 (2009) cases in 2010/11 was 35 years, compared with 20 years during the pandemic (p = <0.0001).

Conclusions/Significance

The Health Protection Agency successfully established a sentinel surveillance system for severe influenza in 2010/11, detecting a rise in influenza cases mirroring other surveillance indicators. The data indicate an upward shift in the age-distribution of influenza A/H1N1 (2009) during the 2010/11 influenza season as compared to the 2009/10 pandemic. Systems to enable the ongoing surveillance of severe influenza will be a key component in understanding and responding to the evolving epidemiology of influenza in the post-pandemic era.     

The effects of centralised and specialised intervention in the early course of severe unipolar depressive disorder: a randomised clinical trial

Background

Little is known on whether centralised and specialised combined pharmacological and psychological intervention in the early phase of severe unipolar depression improve prognosis. The aim of the present study was to assess the benefits and harms of centralised and specialised secondary care intervention in the early course of severe unipolar depression.

Methods

A randomised multicentre trial with central randomisation and blinding in relation to the primary outcome comparing a centralised and specialised outpatient intervention program with standard decentralised psychiatric treatment. The interventions were offered at discharge from first, second, or third hospitalisation due to a single depressive episode or recurrent depressive disorder. The primary outcome was time to readmission to psychiatric hospital. The data on re-hospitalisation was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. The secondary and tertiary outcomes were severity of depressive symptoms according to the Major Depression Inventory, adherence to medical treatment, and satisfaction with treatment according to the total score on the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale-Affective Disorder (VSSS-A). These outcomes were assessed using questionnaires one year after discharge from hospital.

Results

A total of 268 patients with unipolar depression were included. There was no significant difference in the time to readmission (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.32; log rank: χ² = 0.3, d.f. = 1, p = 0.6); severity of depressive symptoms (mood disorder clinic: median 21.6, quartiles 9.7–31.2 versus standard treatment: median 20.2, quartiles 10.0–29.8; p = 0.7); or the prevalence of patients in antidepressant treatment (73.9% versus 80.0%, p = 0.2). Centralised and specialised secondary care intervention resulted in significantly higher satisfaction with treatment (131 (SD 31.8) versus 107 (SD 25.6); p<0.001).

Conclusions

Centralised and specialised secondary care intervention in the early course of severe unipolar depression resulted in no significant effects on time to rehospitalisation, severity of symptoms, or use of antidepressants, but increased patient satisfaction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00253071","term_id":"NCT00253071"}}NCT00253071