Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.^1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.^3,4

INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY

Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.

Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.⁵

The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.⁶

RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.⁵ As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. ^1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.⁷

THE POSITIVE TRIALS

Tepel et al³ performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.

The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.

Shyu et al⁴ studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).

Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.

Marenzi et al⁸ randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:

• NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
• NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
• Placebo.

The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.⁵

THE NEGATIVE TRIALS

Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.^1,2,9

The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,¹ was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.

The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).

Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.

Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).¹

The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al⁸ in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.

Webb et al² found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.

Gurm et al⁹ found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.

MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES

Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,^10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.

CURRENT GUIDELINES

After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.¹²

However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).⁵

WHAT WE RECOMMEND

The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.

The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m².

In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:

• Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
• When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
• Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
• Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
• Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m²), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
• Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.^7,13

We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.

No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.^1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.^3,4

INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY

Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.

Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.⁵

The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.⁶

RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.⁵ As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. ^1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.⁷

THE POSITIVE TRIALS

Tepel et al³ performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.

The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.

Shyu et al⁴ studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).

Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.

Marenzi et al⁸ randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:

• NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
• NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
• Placebo.

The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.⁵

THE NEGATIVE TRIALS

Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.^1,2,9

The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,¹ was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.

The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).

Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.

Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).¹

The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al⁸ in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.

Webb et al² found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.

Gurm et al⁹ found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.

MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES

Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,^10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.

CURRENT GUIDELINES

After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.¹²

However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).⁵

WHAT WE RECOMMEND

The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.

The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m².

In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:

• Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
• When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
• Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
• Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
• Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m²), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
• Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.^7,13

We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.

No. Using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) routinely to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the evidence at this time.^1,2 However, there is evidence to suggest using it for patients at high risk, ie, those with significant baseline renal dysfunction.^3,4

INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY

Intraarterial use of contrast is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury than intravenous use. Most studies of NAC for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury have focused on patients receiving contrast intraarterially. The reported rates of contrast-induced acute kidney injury also vary depending on how acute kidney injury was defined.

Although the incidence is low (1% to 2%) in patients with normal renal function, it can be as high as 25% in patients with renal impairment or a chronic condition such as diabetes or congestive heart failure, or in elderly patients.⁵

The development of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher cost of care, and higher rates of morbidity and death.⁶

RATIONALE FOR USING N-ACETYLCYSTEINE

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is thought to involve vasoconstriction and medullary ischemia mediated by reactive oxygen species.⁵ As an antioxidant and a scavenger of free radicals, NAC showed early promise in reducing the risk of this complication, but subsequent trials raised doubts about its efficacy. ^1,2 In clinical practice, the drug is often used to prevent acute kidney injury because it is easy to give, cheap, and has few side effects. Recently, however, there have been suggestions that giving it intravenously may be associated with adverse effects that include anaphylactoid reactions.⁷

THE POSITIVE TRIALS

Tepel et al³ performed one of the earliest trials that found that NAC prevented contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The trial included 83 patients with stable chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.4 mg/dL) who underwent computed tomography with about 75 mL of a nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agent. Participants were randomized to receive either NAC (600 mg orally twice daily) and 0.45% saline intravenously or placebo and saline. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in the serum creatinine level 48 hours after the contrast dye was given.

The rate of acute kidney injury was significantly lower in the treatment group (2% vs 21%, P = .01). None of the patients who developed acute kidney injury needed hemodialysis.

Shyu et al⁴ studied 121 patients with chronic kidney disease (mean serum creatinine 2.8 mg/dL) who underwent a coronary procedure. Patients were randomized to receive NAC 400 mg orally twice daily or placebo in addition to 0.45% saline in both groups. Two (3.3%) of the 60 patients in the treated group and 15 (24.6%) of the 61 patients in the control group had an increase in creatinine concentration greater than 0.5 mg/dL at 48 hours (P < .001).

Both of these single-center studies were limited by small sample sizes and very short follow-up. Further, the impact of the drug on important clinical outcomes such as death and progression of chronic kidney disease was not reported.

Marenzi et al⁸ randomized 354 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty as the primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction to one of three treatment groups:

• NAC in a standard dosage (a 600-mg intravenous bolus before the procedure and then 600 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours afterward)
• NAC in a high dosage (a 1,200-mg intravenous bolus and then 1,200 mg orally twice daily for 48 hours)
• Placebo.

The two treatment groups had significantly lower rates of acute kidney injury than the placebo group. In addition, the hospital mortality rate and the rate of a composite end point of death, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the treated groups. However, the number of events was small, and a beneficial effect on the death rate has not been confirmed by other studies.⁵

THE NEGATIVE TRIALS

Several studies found that NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.^1,2,9

The Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT), published in 2011,¹ was the largest of these trials. It included 2,308 patients undergoing an angiographic procedure who had at least one risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (age > 70, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or hypotension). Patients were randomly assigned to receive the drug (1,200 mg by mouth) or placebo.

The incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury was 12.7% in the treated group and 12.7% in the control group (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.81–1.25; P = .97). The rate of a combined end point of death or need for dialysis at 30 days was also similar in both groups (2.2% with treatment vs 2.3% with placebo).

Importantly, only about 15% of patients had a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. Of these, most had an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 45 and 60 mL/min. Indeed, most patients in the ACT were at low risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. As a result, there were low event rates and, not surprisingly, no differences between the control and treatment groups.

Subgroup analysis did not suggest a benefit of treatment in those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL. However, as the authors pointed out, this subgroup was small, so definitive statistically powered conclusions cannot be drawn. There was no significant difference in the primary end point among several other predefined subgroups (age > 70, female sex, diabetes).¹

The ACT differed from the “positive” study by Marenzi et al⁸ in several ways. The ACT patients were at lower risk, the coronary catheterizations were being done mainly for diagnosis rather than intervention, a lower volume of contrast dye was used (100 mL in the ACT vs 250 mL in the Marenzi study), and patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Other weaknesses of the ACT include use of a baseline serum creatinine within 3 months of study entry, variations in the hydration protocol, and the use of a high-osmolar contrast agent in some patients.

Webb et al² found, in a large, randomized trial, that intravenous NAC did not prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with renal dysfunction (mean serum creatinine around 1.6 mg/dL) undergoing cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to receive either NAC 500 mg or placebo immediately before the procedure. All patients first received isotonic saline 200 mL, then 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours, unless contraindicated. The study was terminated early because of a determination of futility.

Gurm et al⁹ found that a database of 90,578 consecutive patients undergoing nonemergency coronary angiography from 2006 to 2009 did not show differences in the rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury between patients who received NAC and those who did not (5.5% vs 5.5%, P = .99). There was also no difference in the rate of death or the need for dialysis. These negative findings were consistent across many prespecified subgroups.

MIXED RESULTS IN META-ANALYSES

Results from meta-analyses have been mixed,^10,11 mainly because of study heterogeneity (eg, baseline risk, end points, dose of the drug) and publication bias. None of the previous meta-analyses included the recent negative results from the ACT.

CURRENT GUIDELINES

After the publication of the ACT, the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association were updated, designating NAC as class III (no benefit) and level of evidence A.¹²

However, recently published guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Acute Kidney Injury Working Group recommend using the drug together with intravenous isotonic crystalloids in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, although the level of evidence is 2D (2 = suggestion, D = quality of evidence very low).⁵

WHAT WE RECOMMEND

The routine use of NAC to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury is not supported by the current evidence. However, clarification of its efficacy in high-risk patients is needed, especially those with baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus.

The Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) study (ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01467466) may clarify the role of this drug in a high-risk cohort using the important clinical outcomes of death, need for acute dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function after angiography. This important study was set to begin in July 2012, with an anticipated enrollment of more than 8,000 patients who have glomerular filtration rates of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m².

In the meantime, we recommend the following in patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury:

• Clarify whether contrast is truly needed
• When possible, limit the volume of contrast, avoid repeated doses over a short time frame, and use an iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agent
• Discontinue nephrotoxic agents
• Provide an evidence-based intravenous crystalloid regimen with isotonic sodium bicarbonate or saline
• Although it is not strictly evidence-based, use NAC in patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m²), multiple concurrent risk factors such as hypotension, diabetes, preexisting kidney injury, or congestive heart failure that limits the use of intravenous fluids, or who need a high volume of contrast dye
• Avoid using intravenous NAC, given its lack of benefit and risk of anaphylactoid reactions.^7,13

We do not yet have clear evidence on the optimal dosing regimen. But based on the limited data, we recommend 600 to 1,200 mg twice a day for 1 day before and 1 day after the dye is given.

As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.

Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.

Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.

Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.

As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.

Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.

Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.

Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.

As autumn arrives and thoughts turn to pumpkins, football, and Thanks-giving dinner, it is time for health systems and physicians to prepare for the upcoming influenza season. In this issue of the Journal, Drs. Jin and Mossad review some practical virology and remind us why we must continue to encourage our patients and staff to be immunized against the flu.

Last year the flu season was surprisingly mild. The infection incidence seemed to peak late in the season, a reasonable number of people got vaccinated, and the level of viral antigenic drift was low. New hybrid viral strains did appear, but apparently with low prevalence, and the avian strains did not mutate to permit efficient human-to-human infection. But the relatively benign 2011–2012 flu season should not lull us into a lackadaisical approach to offering vaccination to all of our patients.

Ever since my own encounter with the flu a number of years ago, I have been pushing the vaccine with the zeal of a telemarketer. I was pleased that the vaccine arrived early this time, but continue to be surprised by the reasons patients offer for not receiving it—some strike me as akin to “the dog ate my homework.” For example: “I got the vaccine once and I got walking pneumonia.” And the always-popular “I got the vaccine and I got the flu.” Many patients don’t think they need the vaccine because they have never gotten the flu. (To them, I relate my tale of spending a weekend lying curled up on the floor of my bedroom having chills despite a sweatsuit and blanket). Some voice the scientifically irrational but common concern that since their immune system has been weakened by medications, they don’t want to get sick from the shot. And creatively, this year several patients have told me that they heard it is too early to get the vaccine—the effect won’t last all season.

Whatever our patients’ reason for recalcitrance, we should persevere and follow the national recommendation to vaccinate all persons over the age of 6 months. The vaccine may not be perfect, but with an estimated success rate of about 60%, it is better than any alternative approach. Plus, as Drs. Jin and Mossad note in their article, there is concern about emerging strains that are resistant to available antiviral therapies—0.5 mL of prevention trumps a pound of ineffective treatment.

Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.^1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.^3,4

In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.

H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?

Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.

From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.⁵ However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.⁶

Adapted from Lindstrom S, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)V viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.

Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.

Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.⁷ Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.⁸ The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.

In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.⁷

The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).⁹

Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.

H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC

Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.¹⁰

As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.¹¹ Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.¹²

Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.¹³ Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.¹⁴ Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.¹⁵ A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.¹⁶ The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.

Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.¹⁷ If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.¹⁸

An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.¹⁹ For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.¹⁰ Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. ²⁰ Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.²¹

THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT

The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.²² This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.

Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.²³ However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.²⁴

AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1

Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.²⁵ In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.²⁶

Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.^27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.³⁰ In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.^31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.^36,37

However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.³⁸ In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.³⁹ Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.

This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.

THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE

The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses⁴⁰:

• Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
• Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
• Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).

The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.⁴¹ The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.

LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION

Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.⁴²

Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.

Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.^43,44

There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.

The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.

For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).⁴⁰

Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs

All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System⁴⁵ and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season⁴⁰:

• In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
• Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
• Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
• Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
• Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.

A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older

The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.^46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.

Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.^49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.⁵⁴

In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.⁵⁵ Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.⁵⁶

At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.⁴⁰ Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.

A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON

In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.

A recent analysis⁵⁷ estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.

EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.⁵⁸

As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.

NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.^{34,35,59–61}

A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.⁶² This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.

CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA

Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.⁴²

Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.

One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.

Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.⁶³

Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.⁶⁴ Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.⁶⁵ And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.^66,67

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.³⁸

Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.²²

What we must do

As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.⁶⁸ Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging⁶⁹ in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.

With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.

Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.^1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.^3,4

In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.

H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?

Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.

From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.⁵ However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.⁶

Adapted from Lindstrom S, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)V viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.

Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.

Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.⁷ Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.⁸ The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.

In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.⁷

The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).⁹

Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.

H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC

Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.¹⁰

As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.¹¹ Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.¹²

Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.¹³ Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.¹⁴ Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.¹⁵ A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.¹⁶ The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.

Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.¹⁷ If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.¹⁸

An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.¹⁹ For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.¹⁰ Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. ²⁰ Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.²¹

THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT

The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.²² This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.

Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.²³ However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.²⁴

AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1

Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.²⁵ In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.²⁶

Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.^27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.³⁰ In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.^31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.^36,37

However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.³⁸ In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.³⁹ Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.

This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.

THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE

The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses⁴⁰:

• Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
• Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
• Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).

The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.⁴¹ The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.

LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION

Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.⁴²

Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.

Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.^43,44

There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.

The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.

For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).⁴⁰

Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs

All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System⁴⁵ and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season⁴⁰:

• In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
• Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
• Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
• Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
• Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.

A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older

The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.^46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.

Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.^49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.⁵⁴

In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.⁵⁵ Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.⁵⁶

At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.⁴⁰ Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.

A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON

In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.

A recent analysis⁵⁷ estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.

EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.⁵⁸

As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.

NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.^{34,35,59–61}

A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.⁶² This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.

CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA

Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.⁴²

Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.

One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.

Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.⁶³

Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.⁶⁴ Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.⁶⁵ And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.^66,67

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.³⁸

Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.²²

What we must do

As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.⁶⁸ Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging⁶⁹ in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.

With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.

Despite our success in reducing the number of deaths from influenza in the last half-century, we must remain vigilant, since influenza still can kill.^1,2 Gene mutations and reassortment among different strains of influenza viruses pose a significant public health threat, especially in an increasingly mobile world.^3,4

In this article, we will present an update on influenza to better prepare primary care providers to prevent and treat this ongoing threat.

H3N2v: SWINE FLU DÉJÀ VU?

Outbreaks of swine flu at state and county fairs in 2012 are unprecedented and have raised concerns.

From 1990 to 2010, human infections with swine-origin influenza viruses were sporadic, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a total of only 27 cases during this period.⁵ However, the number has been increasing since 2011: as of August 31, 2012, a total of 309 cases had been reported.⁶

Adapted from Lindstrom S, et al. Human infections with novel reassortant influenza A(H3N2)V viruses, United States, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 2012; 18:834–837.

Analysis of viral RNA in clinical respiratory specimens from 12 cases in 2011 revealed a variant strain, called H3N2v, which is a hybrid containing genetic material from swine H3N2 and the 2009 human pandemic virus H1N1pdm09. The M gene in this new variant came from the human virus, while the other seven came from the swine virus when a host was infected with both viruses simultaneously (Figure 1). As a result of this genetic reassortment, this variant virus is genetically and antigenically different from seasonal H3N2.

Epidemiologic data showed that children under 10 years of age are especially susceptible to this new variant because they lack immunity, whereas adolescents and adults may have some immunity from cross-reacting antibodies.⁷ Most infected people had been exposed to swine in agriculture, including county and state fairs. So far, evidence suggests only limited human-to-human transmission.⁸ The clinical diagnosis of H3N2v infection relies on the epidemiologic link to exposure to pigs in the week before the onset of illness, since the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of seasonal influenza A or B infections.

In suspected cases, the clinician should notify the local or state public health department and arrange for a special test to be performed on respiratory specimens: the CDC Flu Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Dx Panel. The reason is that a negative rapid influenza diagnostic test does not rule out influenza infection, and a positive immunofluorescence assay (direct fluorescent antibody staining) cannot specifically detect H3N2v.⁷

The current seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect against H3N2v. The isolates tested to date were susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitor drugs oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) but resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel) and rimantadine (Flumadine).⁹

Whether H3N2v will become a significant problem during the upcoming flu season largely depends on the extent of human-to-human transmission. We need to closely follow updates on this virus.

H5N1: THE LOOMING THREAT OF A BIRD FLU PANDEMIC

Since 2003, influenza A H5N1, a highly pathogenic avian virus, has broken out in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, killing more than 100 million birds. It also has crossed the species barrier to infect humans, with an unusually high death rate.¹⁰

As of August 10, 2012, the World Health Organization had reported 608 confirmed cases of this virus infecting humans and 359 associated deaths.¹¹ Most infected patients had a history of close contact with diseased poultry, but limited, nonsustained human-to-human transmission can occur during very close, unprotected contact with a severely ill patient.¹²

Molecular studies of this virus revealed further insights into its pathogenesis. Some of the viruses isolated from humans have had mutations that allow them to bind to human-type receptors.¹³ Amino acid substitutions in the polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) gene are associated with mammalian adaptation, virulence in mice, and viral replication at temperatures present in the upper respiratory tract.¹⁴ Furthermore, higher plasma levels of macrophage- and neutrophil-attractant chemokines and both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6, interleukin 10, and interferon gamma) have been observed in patients with H5N1 infection, especially in fatal cases.¹⁵ A recent study found that H5N1 causes significant perturbations in the host’s protein synthesis machinery as early as 1 hour after infection, suggesting that this virus gains an early advantage in replication by using the host’s proteome.¹⁶ The effects of unrestrained viral infection and inflammatory responses induced by H5N1 infection certainly contributed to the primary pathologic process and to death in human fulminant viral pneumonia. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in these infections contributes to the development of sepsis syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and an increased risk of death, particularly in pregnant women.

Most experts predict that pandemic influenza is probably inevitable.¹⁷ If avian H5N1 and a human influenza virus swap genes in a host such as swine, the new hybrid virus will contain genetic material from both strains and will have surface antigens that the human immune system does not recognize. This could lead to a devastating avian flu pandemic with a very high death rate.¹⁸

An inactivated whole-virus H5N1 vaccine has been developed by the US government to prevent H5N1 infection.¹⁹ For treatment, the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir is the drug of choice.¹⁰ Oseltamivir resistance remains uncommon. ²⁰ Fortunately, zanamivir is still active against oseltamivir-resistant variants that have N1 neuraminidase mutations.²¹

THE 2009 H1N1 PANDEMIC KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WE THOUGHT

The fourth flu pandemic of the last 100 years occurred in 2009. (The other three were in 1918, 1957, and 1968.) It was caused by a novel strain, H1N1 of swine origin.²² This 2009 pandemic strain had six genes from the North American swine flu virus and two genes from the Eurasian swine flu virus. The pandemic affected more children and young people (who completely lacked prior immunity to this virus), while older people, who had cross-reacting antibodies, were less affected.

Worldwide, 18,500 people were reported initially to have died in this pandemic from April 2009 to August 2010.²³ However, a recent modeling study estimated the number of respiratory and cardiovascular deaths associated with this pandemic at 283,500—about 15 times higher.²⁴

AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBREAK OF OSELTAMIVIR-RESISTANT H1N1

Many strains of influenza A virus are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine, owing to amino acid substitutions in the M2 protein.²⁵ In contrast, resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir has been reported only occasionally.²⁶

Until recently, most oseltamivir-resistant viruses were isolated from immunocompromised hosts treated with oseltamivir.^27–29 All the resistant viral isolates contained an amino acid substitution of histidine (H) to tyrosine (Y) at position 275 of the viral neuraminidase.³⁰ In general, transmission of these oseltamivir-resistant strains has been limited and unsustained, but it can occur in settings of close contact, such as hospitals, school camps, or long train rides.^31–35 Oseltamivir-resistant strains were detected in fewer than 1% of isolates from the community during the 2010–2011 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere and most countries in the Southern Hemisphere during the 2011 flu season.^36,37

However, an outbreak of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 occurred in Australia between June and August 2011.³⁸ In that outbreak, the isolates from only 15% of the 191 people infected with this virus, designated H1N1pdm09, carried the H257Y neuraminidase substitution.³⁹ Further, only 1 of the 191 patients had received oseltamivir before. More importantly, genetic analysis suggested that the infection spread from a single source.

This was the first reported sustained community transmission of oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 in a community previously unexposed to this drug. As such, it is a warning sign of the potential for a widespread outbreak of this virus. In the event of such an outbreak, inhaled zanamivir would be the only effective treatment available.

THIS SEASON’S TRIVALENT INACTIVATED VACCINE

The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2012–2013 season contains three inactivated viruses⁴⁰:

• Influenza A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-like
• Influenza A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)-like
• Influenza B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like (Yamagata lineage).

The influenza A H3N2 and influenza B antigens are different from those in the 2011–2012 vaccine.⁴¹ The H1N1 strain is derived from H1N1pdm09, which had been contained in the 2011–2012 seasonal vaccine. This vaccine will not protect against H3N2v or H5N1.

LATEST RECOMMENDATIONS ON VACCINATION

Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended annual flu shots for all people older than 6 months in the United States.⁴²

Vaccination should be done before the onset of influenza activity in the community as soon as vaccine is available for the season. However, one should continue offering vaccination throughout the influenza season as long as influenza viruses are circulating in the community.

Children ages 6 months through 8 years not previously vaccinated against influenza should receive two doses of influenza vaccine at least 4 weeks apart for an optimal immune response. The US-licensed Afluria vaccine (CSL Biotherapies, King of Prussia, PA), a trivalent inactivated vaccine, is not recommended for children under 9 years of age because of concern about febrile seizures.^43,44

There is no contraindication to giving inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to immunosuppressed people.

The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is indicated only for healthy, nonpregnant people age 2 through 49 years and not for people who care for severely immunosuppressed patients who require a protective environment.

For indications for and details about the different available influenza vaccines, see the ACIP’s current recommendations (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6132.pdf).⁴⁰

Updated recommendations for people allergic to eggs

All currently available influenza vaccines are made by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Therefore, severe allergic and anaphylactic reactions can occur in people with egg allergy. The ACIP recommends that if people experienced only hives after egg exposure, they should still receive the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Recently, the ACIP reviewed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System⁴⁵ and issued the following recommendations for the 2012–2013 influenza season⁴⁰:

• In people who are allergic to eggs, only trivalent inactivated vaccine should be used, not the live-attenuated vaccine, because of lack of data for use of the latter in this group.
• Vaccine should be given by providers who are familiar with the signs of egg allergy.
• Patients with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to eggs should be observed for a minimum of 30 minutes after vaccination.
• Patients who experience lightheadedness, respiratory distress, angioedema, or recurrent emesis or who require epinephrine or emergency medical attention after egg exposure should be referred before vaccination to a physician who has expertise in managing allergic conditions.
• Tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs or egg-containing foods, plus skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.

A high-dose vaccine is available for people 65 years and older

The rates of hospitalization and death due to seasonal flu in elderly people have increased significantly in the last 20 years despite rising rates of vaccination.^46–48 This is largely due to lower serologic response rates and vaccine efficacy in older adults with weaker immune systems.

Several studies have shown that the development of protective antibody titers depends on the dose of antigen.^49–53 A randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the immunogenicity of a high-dose vaccine and a standard-dose vaccine in older adults and found that the level of antibody response was significantly higher with the high-dose vaccine, and that the rate of adverse reactions was the same.⁵⁴

In December 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with high doses of hemagglutinin antigens for adults over the age of 65.⁵⁵ Postlicensure safety surveillance in 2010 revealed no serious safety concerns.⁵⁶

At present, the ACIP expresses no preference for standard-dose or high-dose vaccine for adults 65 years of age and older.⁴⁰ Importantly, if only the standard-dose vaccine is at hand, the opportunity for influenza vaccination should not be missed with the intention of giving high-dose vaccine at a later date.

A NEW QUADRIVALENT LIVE-ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE 2013–2014 SEASON

In February 2012, the FDA approved the first quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine, which is expected to replace the currently available trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine in the 2013–2014 flu season. The quadrivalent vaccine will include both lineages of the circulating influenza B viruses (the Victoria and Yamagata lineages). The reasons for this inclusion is the difficulty in predicting which of these viruses will predominate in any given season, and the limited cross-resistance by immunization against one of the lineages.

A recent analysis⁵⁷ estimated that such a vaccine is likely to further reduce influenza cases, related hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the current trivalent vaccine. Like the current trivalent live-attenuated vaccine, the quadrivalent vaccine is inhaled.

EVOLVING VACCINATION POLICY IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Starting in January 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require hospitals to report how many of their health care workers are vaccinated. These rates will be publicly reported as a measure of hospital quality. This has fueled the ongoing debate about mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers. Studies have shown that the most important factors in increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers are requiring vaccination as a condition for employment and making vaccination available on-site, for more than 1 day, at no cost to the worker.⁵⁸

As an alternative, some institutions have implemented a “shot-or-mask” policy whereby a health care worker who elects not to be vaccinated because of medical or religious reasons would be asked to wear a mask during all faceto-face encounters with patients.

NEW ANTIVIRAL DRUGS ON THE HORIZON

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years caused a great deal of concern in public health regarding the potential for outbreaks of drug-resistant influenza.^{34,35,59–61}

A recent Asian randomized clinical trial reported the efficacy of a long-acting neuraminidase inhibitor, laninamivir octanoate, in the treatment of seasonal influenza.⁶² This study showed that a single inhalation of this drug is effective in treating seasonal influenza, including that caused by oseltamivir-resistant strains in adults. Laninamivir is currently approved in Japan.

CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING AND TREATING INFLUENZA

Despite the great advances that we have made in preventing and treating influenza in the last half-century, we still face many challenges. Each year in the United States, influenza infection results in an estimated 31 million outpatient visits, 226,000 hospital admissions, and 36,000 deaths.⁴²

Antigenic drift and shift. Influenza viruses circulating among animals and humans vary genetically from season to season and within seasons. As a result of this changing viral antigenicity, the virus can evade the human immune system, causing widespread outbreaks.

One of the unique and most remarkable features of influenza virus is the antigenic variation: antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigenic drift is the relatively minor antigenic changes that occur frequently within an influenza subtype, typically resulting from genetic mutation of viral RNA coding for hemagglutinin or neuraminidase. This causes annual regional epidemics. In contrast, antigenic shift is the result of genetic material reassortment: the emerging of new viral RNA from different strains of different species. This often leads to global pandemics.

Therefore, it is challenging to accurately predict the antigenic makeup of influenza viruses for each season and to include new emerging antigens in the vaccine production, as we are facing a moving target. We prepare influenza vaccines each season based on past experience.⁶³

Vaccination rates have hit a plateau of 60% to 70% in adults since the 1990s, in spite of greater vaccine supply and recommendations that all adults, regardless of underlying disease, be vaccinated annually.⁶⁴ Similarly, only 51% of children age 6 months to 17 years were vaccinated in the 2010–2011 season.⁶⁵ And vaccination rates are even lower in low-income populations.^66,67

The emergence of oseltamivir-resistant strains in recent years, not only in people exposed to oseltamivir but also in those who haven’t been exposed to this drug, with sustained transmission, certainly raises the possibility of a more difficult epidemic to control.³⁸

Global travel, global infection. Our last H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was an example of how easily the influenza virus can spread rapidly in today’s highly mobile global society.²²

What we must do

As primary health care providers, we must closely monitor the community outbreak and the emergence of drug-resistant strains and strongly recommend vaccination for all patients older than 6 months, since timely vaccination is the cornerstone of influenza prevention. Although many have questioned the efficacy of influenza vaccination, a recent meta-analysis showed a 59% pooled efficacy of the trivalent inactivated vaccine in adults age 18 to 65 years in preventing virologically confirmed influenza, and 83% pooled efficacy of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children age 6 months to 7 years.⁶⁸ Novel approaches for vaccination reminders, such as text messaging⁶⁹ in addition to traditional mail or telephone reminders, can improve vaccination compliance in today’s highly mobile world that is more than ever connected.

With the lessons learned from four pandemics in the last century, updated recommendations for prevention, and adequate vaccine supply, we should be ready to face the challenge of another flu season.