BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing is a fundamental component of influenza surveillance for detecting novel strains with pandemic potential and informing biannual vaccine strain selection. The United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the auspices of its WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza, is one of the major public health agencies which provides support globally to build national capacity for influenza surveillance. Our main objective was to determine if laboratory assessments supported capacity building efforts for improved global influenza surveillance. METHODS: In 2010, 35 national influenza laboratories were assessed in 34 countries, using a standardized tool. Post-assessment, each laboratory received a report with a list of recommendations for improvement. Uptake of recommendations were reviewed 3.2 mean years after the initial assessments and categorized as complete, in-progress, no action or no update. This was a retrospective study; follow-up took place through routine project management rather than at a set time-point post-assessment. WHO data on National Influenza Centre (NIC) designation, External Quality Assessment Project (EQAP) participation and FluNet reporting was used to measure laboratory capacity longitudinally and independently of the assessments. All data was further stratified by World Bank country income category. RESULTS: At follow-up, 81 % of 614 recommendations were either complete (350) or in-progress (145) for 32 laboratories (91 % response rate). The number of countries reporting to FluNet and the number of specimens they reported annually increased between 2005, when they were first funded by CDC, and 2010, the assessment year (p < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in EQAP participation and NIC designation over time and more so for low and lower-middle income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments using a standardized tool have been beneficial to improving laboratory-based influenza surveillance. Specific recommendations helped countries identify and prioritize areas for improvement. Data from assessments helped CDC focus its technical assistance by country and region. Low and lower-middle income countries made greater improvements in their laboratories compared with upper-middle income countries. Future research could include an analysis of annual funding and technical assistance by country. Our approach serves as an example for capacity building for other diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) emphasized the importance of laboratory capacity to detect emerging diseases including novel influenza viruses. To support IHR 2005 requirements and the need to enhance influenza laboratory surveillance capacity, the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Influenza Division developed the International Influenza Laboratory Capacity Review (Tool). STUDY DESIGN: Data from 37 assessments were reviewed and analyzed to verify that the quantitative analysis results accurately depicted a laboratory's capacity and capabilities. METHODS: Subject matter experts in influenza and laboratory practice used an iterative approach to develop the Tool incorporating feedback and lessons learnt through piloting and implementation. To systematically analyze assessment data, a quantitative framework for analysis was added to the Tool. RESULTS: The review indicated that changes in scores consistently reflected enhanced or decreased capacity. The review process also validated the utility of adding a quantitative analysis component to the assessments and the benefit of establishing a baseline from which to compare future assessments in a standardized way. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Tool has provided APHL, CDC and each assessed laboratory with a standardized analysis of the laboratory's capacity. The information generated is used to improve laboratory systems for laboratory testing and enhance influenza surveillance globally. We describe the development of the Tool and lessons learnt.

The rising importance of infectious disease modeling makes this an appropriate time for a guide for public health practitioners tasked with preparing for, and responding to, an influenza pandemic. We list several questions that public health practitioners commonly ask about pandemic influenza and match these with analytical methods, giving details on when during a pandemic the methods can be used, how long it might take to implement them, and what data are required. Although software to perform these tasks is available, care needs to be taken to understand: (1) the type of data needed, (2) the implementation of the methods, and (3) the interpretation of results in terms of model uncertainty and sensitivity. Public health leaders can use this article to evaluate the modeling literature, determine which methods can provide appropriate evidence for decision-making, and to help them request modeling work from in-house teams or academic groups.

BACKGROUND: In view of ongoing pandemic threats such as the recent human cases of novel avian influenza A(H7N9) in China, it is important that all countries continue their preparedness efforts. Since 2006, Central American countries have received donor funding and technical assistance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to build and improve their capacity for influenza surveillance and pandemic preparedness. Our objective was to measure changes in pandemic preparedness in this region, and explore factors associated with these changes, using evaluations conducted between 2008 and 2012. METHODS: Eight Central American countries scored their pandemic preparedness across 12 capabilities in 2008, 2010 and 2012, using a standardized tool developed by CDC. Scores were calculated by country and capability and compared between evaluation years using the Student's t-test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, respectively. Virological data reported to WHO were used to assess changes in testing capacity between evaluation years. Linear regression was used to examine associations between scores, donor funding, technical assistance and WHO reporting. RESULTS: All countries improved their pandemic preparedness between 2008 and 2012 and seven made statistically significant gains (p < 0.05). Increases in median scores were observed for all 12 capabilities over the same period and were statistically significant for eight of these (p < 0.05): country planning, communications, routine influenza surveillance, national respiratory disease surveillance, outbreak response, resources for containment, community interventions and health sector response. We found a positive association between preparedness scores and cumulative funding between 2006 and 2011 (R2 = 0.5, p < 0.01). The number of specimens reported to WHO from participating countries increased significantly from 5,551 (2008) to 18,172 (2012) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Central America has made significant improvements in influenza pandemic preparedness between 2008 and 2012. U.S. donor funding and technical assistance provided to the region is likely to have contributed to the improvements we observed, although information on other sources of funding and support was unavailable to study. Gains are also likely the result of countries' response to the 2009 influenza pandemic. Further research is required to determine the degree to which pandemic improvements are sustainable.