BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce influenza transmission. METHODOLOGY: We studied NPIs in households with a febrile, influenza-positive child. Households were randomized to control, hand washing (HW), or hand washing plus paper surgical face masks (HW + FM) arms. Study nurses conducted home visits within 24 hours of enrollment and on days 3, 7, and 21. Respiratory swabs and serum were collected from all household members and tested for influenza by RT-PCR or serology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Between April 2008 and August 2009, 991 (16.5%) of 5995 pediatric influenza-like illness patients tested influenza positive. Four hundred and forty-two index children with 1147 household members were enrolled, and 221 (50.0%) were aged <6 years. Three hundred and ninety-seven (89.8%) households reported that the index patient slept in the parents' bedroom. The secondary attack rate was 21.5%, and 56/345 (16.3%; 95% CI 12.4-20.2%) secondary cases were asymptomatic. Hand-washing subjects reported 4.7 washing episodes/day, compared to 4.9 times/day in the HW + FM arm and 3.9 times/day in controls (P = 0.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for secondary influenza infection were not significantly different in the HW arm (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.88; P-0.442), or the HW + FM arm (OR = 1.16; 95% CI .0.74-1.82; P = 0.525). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza transmission was not reduced by interventions to promote hand washing and face mask use. This may be attributable to transmission that occurred before the intervention, poor facemask compliance, little difference in hand-washing frequency between study groups, and shared sleeping arrangements. A prospective study design and a careful analysis of sociocultural factors could improve future NPI studies.

BACKGROUND: The National Avian Influenza Surveillance (NAIS) system detected human H5N1 cases in Thailand from 2004-2006. Using NAIS data, we identified risk factors for death among H5N1 cases and described differences between H5N1 and human (seasonal) influenza cases. METHODS AND FINDINGS: NAIS identified 11,641 suspect H5N1 cases (e.g. persons with fever and respiratory symptoms or pneumonia, and exposure to sick or dead poultry). All suspect H5N1 cases were tested with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for influenza A(H5N1) and human influenza viruses. NAIS detected 25 H5N1 and 2074 human influenza cases; 17 (68%) and 22 (1%) were fatal, respectively. We collected detailed information from medical records on all H5N1 cases, all fatal human influenza cases, and a sampled subset of 230 hospitalized non-fatal human influenza cases drawn from provinces with ≥1 H5N1 case or human influenza fatality. Fatal versus non-fatal H5N1 cases were more likely to present with low white blood cell (p = 0.05), lymphocyte (p<0.02), and platelet counts (p<0.01); have elevated liver enzymes (p = 0.05); and progress to circulatory (p<0.001) and respiratory failure (p<0.001). There were no differences in age, medical conditions, or antiviral treatment between fatal and non-fatal H5N1 cases. Compared to a sample of human influenza cases, all H5N1 cases had direct exposure to sick or dead birds (60% vs. 100%, p<0.05). Fatal H5N1 and fatal human influenza cases were similar clinically except that fatal H5N1 cases more commonly: had fever (p<0.001), vomiting (p<0.01), low white blood cell counts (p<0.01), received oseltamivir (71% vs. 23%, p<.001), but less often had ≥1 chronic medical conditions (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of diagnostic testing during an influenza A(H5N1) epizootic, a few epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory findings might provide clues to help target H5N1 control efforts. Severe human influenza and H5N1 cases were clinically similar, and both would benefit from early antiviral treatment.