A week-and-a-half after finding the dead, H5N1 infected swan in Fife, Scotland, scientists are still not able to identify what type of swan it was. Epidemiologists need to know what type of swan it is so that they can have a better idea how the virus entered the UK.
If it was a native, non-migratory, British swan, then another bird brought the bird flu in. This means other birds could be infected. The other bird could have infected several British birds, depending on how long ago it arrived.
Scientists are carrying out DNA tests to try to identify the type of swan.
The bird was so decomposed and torn open when found that a visual identification is impossible. According to Defra, the bird was found in an advanced state of decay, with its head missing.
Ornithologists say swans are identified by their heads. Identifying a headless swan is difficult - a very decomposed headless swan is extremely complicated.
Experts say that poor identification of some infected birds in other parts of the world led to wrong conclusions about the H5N1's spread. Identifying this one correctly is vital.
Written by:
вторник, 7 июня 2011 г.
понедельник, 6 июня 2011 г.
Two New Human Cases Of Avian Influenza, Egypt
The Egyptian Central Public Health Laboratory and the US Naval Medical Research Unit Number 3 (NAMRU-3) have confirmed that two more people have become infected with the avian influenza A(H5N1) virus.
-- A girl, aged 6, was hospitalized on March 25th with bird-flu-like symptoms. She is from Qena Governorate.
-- A boy, aged 5, was hospitalized with bird-flu-like symptoms, also on March 25th. He is from Menia Governate.
Authorities say that both the boy and the girl are in a stable condition. Both children had been exposed to infected poultry.
So far, 29 humans have become infected with bird flu in Egypt, of which 13 have died.
Experts fear the H5N1 bird flu virus strain will eventually mutate and become easily human transmissible. This has not happened yet. It is still very difficult for a bird to infect a human - it is even harder for a human to infect another human.
Written by:
-- A girl, aged 6, was hospitalized on March 25th with bird-flu-like symptoms. She is from Qena Governorate.
-- A boy, aged 5, was hospitalized with bird-flu-like symptoms, also on March 25th. He is from Menia Governate.
Authorities say that both the boy and the girl are in a stable condition. Both children had been exposed to infected poultry.
So far, 29 humans have become infected with bird flu in Egypt, of which 13 have died.
Experts fear the H5N1 bird flu virus strain will eventually mutate and become easily human transmissible. This has not happened yet. It is still very difficult for a bird to infect a human - it is even harder for a human to infect another human.
Written by:
воскресенье, 5 июня 2011 г.
Avian Influenza On People's Minds
Researchers at the Food Policy Institute at the Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station have conducted a nationwide survey of public knowledge, attitudes, intentions and behaviors related to the threat of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The researchers conducted a total of 1200 telephone interviews on the topic between May 3 and June 5, 2006.
The results suggest that avian influenza is on the national agenda. Most Americans have heard about it and have talked about it, but don't know much about it. Most are aware of the presence of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in people, birds, and poultry globally, but many are unaware that there have been no cases in humans or animals in the United States.
Despite this, Americans see their current risk of infection with avian influenza as low and are not particularly worried about it. They see the current supply of chicken products as relatively safe, and they continue to eat it. However, most see the risks of infection from avian influenza as much greater for other people than for themselves.
"This tendency to believe that others are at greater risk may be a problem in getting messages across, in influencing perceived susceptibility, and in persuading people to adopt appropriate behaviors," says Sarah C. Condry, the lead author of the study.
The study focused on what American consumers would likely do if highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza were found in poultry in the United States. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in such a scenario, "The chance of infected poultry or eggs entering the food chain would be extremely low because of the rapid onset of symptoms in poultry as well as the safeguards in place, which include testing of flocks and Federal inspection programs." Moreover, the USDA states, "Cooking poultry, eggs, and other poultry products to the proper temperature and preventing cross-contamination between raw and cooked food is the key to safety."
However, according to William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute, "The results of the study suggest that much of the American public does not yet have the information they need to make informed choices about purchasing, preparing, and consuming poultry products, should avian influenza emerge in the United States."
Hallman points out that U.S. farming methods for raising poultry drastically reduce the risk of an outbreak of avian influenza within our food supply. "Our poultry is typically farmed in tightly controlled environments," he said. "The poultry industry is well aware of the dangers of avian influenza and is working closely with the USDA to take appropriate precautions to prevent an outbreak." Yet, according to the study, only about two-thirds of Americans seem aware that the majority of chicken sold in the United States is produced domestically and that poultry products from countries with reported outbreaks of avian influenza are banned from import. In addition, while a variety of clinical symptoms makes it relatively easy to identify domestic poultry infected with avian influenza, few Americans believe that live chickens infected with avian influenza are easily distinguishable from healthy birds.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, a more significant fact is that "there is no evidence that people have been infected with bird flu by eating safely handled and properly cooked poultry or eggs." Yet, less than half of Americans believe that cooking chicken to the recommended temperature kills the avian influenza virus and only four-in-ten believe that the avian influenza virus is not transmissible to humans from eating fully cooked chicken or eggs.
"The methods for destroying avian influenza during the cooking process are the same as for destroying salmonella," said Hallman. "If poultry contaminated with avian influenza is cooked properly, a person cannot get sick from eating the finished product." According to the USDA, poultry and egg products should be cooked to the minimum safe internal temperature of 165 °F.
However, even if consumers can be convinced that proper cooking kills the avian influenza virus, getting them to act on this information to reduce the risk of infection may be difficult. Surveys by the Food and Drug Administration suggest that fewer than 60 percent of Americans own a meat thermometer and only 12 percent always use it when they cook chicken or chicken parts.
Instead, suggests Condry, "Consumers are likely to try to eliminate the risk entirely by avoiding consumption of poultry altogether." In fact, the study found that if highly pathogenic avian influenza were found in chickens in the United States, nearly 40 percent of Americans say they would stop eating chicken products altogether. The study also suggests that even after receiving reassurances that it is safe to eat chicken, it would take an average of nearly five months for most Americans to begin eating it again.
The USDA reports that Americans purchase an average of 86 pounds of chicken a year; nearly 26 billion pounds a year in total. A substantial drop in domestic consumer demand would result in significant economic losses.
According to Hallman, the social and nutritional costs would also likely be significant. "Chicken serves as a popular, low-cost source of protein for many American families." Indeed, the USDA estimates that the per capita consumption of chicken in the United States has more than doubled since 1970. Loss of confidence in the safety of poultry would likely result in increases in the prices of alternative sources of animal protein resulting from higher consumer demands for substitutes for chicken products. "As a result, the costs of feeding the average American family would likely rise."
The authors of the survey were Sarah C. Condry, William K. Hallman, Miranda Vata, and Cara L. Cuite. The survey project was funded through a National Integrated Food Safety Initiative grant awarded by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
The Food Policy Institute is a research unit of the Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station that addresses food and health policy issues. The institute supports public and private decision makers who shape aspects of the food system within which government, agriculture, industry and the consumer interact. Copies of the report are available at: foodpolicyinstitute/.
Contact: Michele Hujber
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
The results suggest that avian influenza is on the national agenda. Most Americans have heard about it and have talked about it, but don't know much about it. Most are aware of the presence of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in people, birds, and poultry globally, but many are unaware that there have been no cases in humans or animals in the United States.
Despite this, Americans see their current risk of infection with avian influenza as low and are not particularly worried about it. They see the current supply of chicken products as relatively safe, and they continue to eat it. However, most see the risks of infection from avian influenza as much greater for other people than for themselves.
"This tendency to believe that others are at greater risk may be a problem in getting messages across, in influencing perceived susceptibility, and in persuading people to adopt appropriate behaviors," says Sarah C. Condry, the lead author of the study.
The study focused on what American consumers would likely do if highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza were found in poultry in the United States. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in such a scenario, "The chance of infected poultry or eggs entering the food chain would be extremely low because of the rapid onset of symptoms in poultry as well as the safeguards in place, which include testing of flocks and Federal inspection programs." Moreover, the USDA states, "Cooking poultry, eggs, and other poultry products to the proper temperature and preventing cross-contamination between raw and cooked food is the key to safety."
However, according to William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute, "The results of the study suggest that much of the American public does not yet have the information they need to make informed choices about purchasing, preparing, and consuming poultry products, should avian influenza emerge in the United States."
Hallman points out that U.S. farming methods for raising poultry drastically reduce the risk of an outbreak of avian influenza within our food supply. "Our poultry is typically farmed in tightly controlled environments," he said. "The poultry industry is well aware of the dangers of avian influenza and is working closely with the USDA to take appropriate precautions to prevent an outbreak." Yet, according to the study, only about two-thirds of Americans seem aware that the majority of chicken sold in the United States is produced domestically and that poultry products from countries with reported outbreaks of avian influenza are banned from import. In addition, while a variety of clinical symptoms makes it relatively easy to identify domestic poultry infected with avian influenza, few Americans believe that live chickens infected with avian influenza are easily distinguishable from healthy birds.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, a more significant fact is that "there is no evidence that people have been infected with bird flu by eating safely handled and properly cooked poultry or eggs." Yet, less than half of Americans believe that cooking chicken to the recommended temperature kills the avian influenza virus and only four-in-ten believe that the avian influenza virus is not transmissible to humans from eating fully cooked chicken or eggs.
"The methods for destroying avian influenza during the cooking process are the same as for destroying salmonella," said Hallman. "If poultry contaminated with avian influenza is cooked properly, a person cannot get sick from eating the finished product." According to the USDA, poultry and egg products should be cooked to the minimum safe internal temperature of 165 °F.
However, even if consumers can be convinced that proper cooking kills the avian influenza virus, getting them to act on this information to reduce the risk of infection may be difficult. Surveys by the Food and Drug Administration suggest that fewer than 60 percent of Americans own a meat thermometer and only 12 percent always use it when they cook chicken or chicken parts.
Instead, suggests Condry, "Consumers are likely to try to eliminate the risk entirely by avoiding consumption of poultry altogether." In fact, the study found that if highly pathogenic avian influenza were found in chickens in the United States, nearly 40 percent of Americans say they would stop eating chicken products altogether. The study also suggests that even after receiving reassurances that it is safe to eat chicken, it would take an average of nearly five months for most Americans to begin eating it again.
The USDA reports that Americans purchase an average of 86 pounds of chicken a year; nearly 26 billion pounds a year in total. A substantial drop in domestic consumer demand would result in significant economic losses.
According to Hallman, the social and nutritional costs would also likely be significant. "Chicken serves as a popular, low-cost source of protein for many American families." Indeed, the USDA estimates that the per capita consumption of chicken in the United States has more than doubled since 1970. Loss of confidence in the safety of poultry would likely result in increases in the prices of alternative sources of animal protein resulting from higher consumer demands for substitutes for chicken products. "As a result, the costs of feeding the average American family would likely rise."
The authors of the survey were Sarah C. Condry, William K. Hallman, Miranda Vata, and Cara L. Cuite. The survey project was funded through a National Integrated Food Safety Initiative grant awarded by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
The Food Policy Institute is a research unit of the Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station that addresses food and health policy issues. The institute supports public and private decision makers who shape aspects of the food system within which government, agriculture, industry and the consumer interact. Copies of the report are available at: foodpolicyinstitute/.
Contact: Michele Hujber
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
суббота, 4 июня 2011 г.
Tamiflu Predicted To Halve The Pandemic Influenza Death Toll Versus No Intervention
Treatment with the oral antiviral Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and prophylaxis for people exposed to infected patients could be one of the most cost-effective strategies for reducing illness and death during an influenza pandemic. According to modelling research presented by Beate Sander, University of Toronto, Canada, a stockpile of Tamiflu sufficient to cover 65% of a country's population could cut deaths by approximately half. This study was announced at the leading influenza conference, Options for the Control of Influenza VI, in Toronto.1
The reality is that country stockpiles of Tamiflu are limited and are targeted at treatment only rather than treatment and prevention.2 However, some governments are now planning for sufficient antiviral stockpiles that will allow them to provide Tamiflu preventatively to close contacts of infected individuals.
The disease modelling research analysed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce the spread of pandemic influenza using Tamiflu prophylactically. It was predicted that this preventative approach is likely to be more cost-effective than treating symptomatic patients alone and may be an effective and cost-saving measure for reducing the impact of pandemic influenza.1 This research is supported by an earlier analysis that indicates that a prevention strategy using Tamiflu may help contain a pandemic outbreak.3
The study also predicts that if the stockpile is increased so that there is an unlimited supply of Tamiflu for treating symptomatic patients and for preventing infection in people exposed to these patients (household contacts and school/work contacts), illness attack rates and deaths could potentially be reduced by more than half when compared to no intervention. This equates to a cost saving of $70,000 per 1,000 population which would save $21 billion in the US alone versus no intervention. Adding other strategies such as school closures further reduces the attack and death rate and provides a health benefit at a reasonable cost. The research also showed that pre-pandemic vaccination programmes would play an important role but their effectiveness would be dependent upon how well the vaccine was matched to the virus.1
"The World Health Organisation provides a strong recommendation for the use of Tamiflu for the prevention of avian flu in people who have been in contact with someone who is known, or suspected of being infected with the virus," commented Professor Ira Longini, Professor of Biostatistics and Mathematics at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA. "This research suggests that a similar approach may also be an effective strategy in the event of an actual pandemic outbreak, especially as it is unlikely that a vaccine fully matched to the strain will be available in the initial wave of a pandemic."
Prophylaxis with antivirals or vaccines
Vaccination is the primary means of preventing influenza. However, at the beginning of a pandemic, supplies of vaccines which are fully matched to the pandemic strain will be limited or non-existent. This is because vaccine production can only start once the specific pandemic virus has been determined. The first doses of a matched vaccine are unlikely to become available within the early months of the pandemic, making prophylaxis and treatment with antivirals a crucial part in the efforts to reduce the burden of pandemic influenza.4
"In an environment full of uncertainties, it is best to have a comprehensive plan in place," said Arnold Monto, professor of epidemiology and influenza expert at the University of Michigan. "Tamiflu is active against all types of influenza virus and will be immediately available during a pandemic if stockpiles are adequate. The big question is, should we be stockpiling for treatment only or for both treatment and prophylaxis""
About the study
The objective of the study was to project the potential impact of pandemic influenza mitigation strategies on health outcomes, cost and cost effectiveness from a societal perspective in the US. The population was based on 1,632,000 people of approximate household size distributions from the 2000 US census. The analysis compared no intervention with 16 single and combination strategies including antiviral post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with Tamiflu; treatment with Tamiflu; pre-vaccination before the outbreak of the pandemic with a partially active vaccine; and school closure. It was assumed that Tamiflu stockpiles of varying quantities were available from the start of the pandemic, ranging from covering 25% of the population to unlimited stockpile. The model was based upon assumptions regarding the efficacy of Tamiflu and of vaccines in reducing mortality and morbidity during a pandemic. Illness attack rate was reduced from 500 cases per 1000 population with no intervention to 230 cases per 1000 population in the Tamiflu PEP group. Deaths were reduced from 13 deaths per 1,000 population to 5 deaths per 1,000 population. This study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Roche.
About pandemic influenza
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new strain of influenza A virus appears, against which the human population has no immunity resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. The most severe influenza pandemics to date include: 'Spanish flu' A (H1N1): 1918 caused in excess of 30 million deaths worldwide, 'Asian flu' A (H2N2): 1958 caused 1 million deaths worldwide, 'Hong Kong flu' A (H3N2): 1968 caused 800,000 deaths worldwide in six weeks. The WHO believes that we are as close to the next pandemic as we have been any time in the past 37 years, with two of the three widely-recognised prerequisites for a human pandemic met to date in the avian influenza outbreak in East Asia. Firstly, a new influenza virus strain has emerged (H5N1), and secondly, the virus has spread to humans. The final barrier will be the transmission of the virus from human to human.
About Tamiflu
Tamiflu is designed to be active against all clinically relevant influenza viruses and works by blocking the action of the neuraminidase (NA) enzyme on the surface of the virus. When neuraminidase is inhibited, the spread of the virus to other cells in the body is inhibited. It is licensed for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in children aged one year and above and in adults.
Roche and Gilead
Tamiflu was invented by Gilead Sciences and licensed to Roche in 1996. Roche and Gilead partnered on clinical development, with Roche leading efforts to produce, register and bring the product to the markets. Under the terms of the companies' agreement, amended in November 2005, Gilead participates with Roche in the consideration of sub-licenses for the pandemic supply of Tamiflu in resource-limited countries. To ensure broader access to Tamiflu for all patients in need, Gilead has agreed to waive its right to full royalty payments for product sold under these sub-licenses.
About Roche
Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Roche is one of the world's leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics. As the world's biggest biotech company and an innovator of products and services for the early detection, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, the Group contributes on a broad range of fronts to improving people's health and quality of life. Roche is the world leader in in-vitro diagnostics and drugs for cancer and transplantation, a market leader in virology and active in other major therapeutic areas such as autoimmune diseases, inflammation, metabolism and central nervous system.
Additional information
* Roche Health Kiosk, Influenza: health-kiosk.ch/start_grip.htm
* About Tamiflu: roche/med_mbtamiflu05e.pdf
* About influenza: roche/med_mbinfluenza05e.pdf
* WHO: Global influenza programme: who.int/csr/disease/influenza/en/
* WHO: Avian flu: who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_influenza/en/
References
1. B Sander et al. Economic Evaluation of Influenza Pandemic Mitigation Strategies in the US Using a Stochastic Microsimulation Influenza Model. Data presented at OPTIONS VI 2007. (Abstract Tracking Number O82)
2. Public pandemic plans and media reporting
3. Germann TC et al. Mitigation strategies for pandemic influenza in the United States, PNAS 2006; 103:5935-5940
4. Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, World Health Organisation, WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics, who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/11_29_01_A.pdf, Accessed 25 May, 2007
Contact: Lucy Rispin
Ketchum
View drug information on Tamiflu capsule.
The reality is that country stockpiles of Tamiflu are limited and are targeted at treatment only rather than treatment and prevention.2 However, some governments are now planning for sufficient antiviral stockpiles that will allow them to provide Tamiflu preventatively to close contacts of infected individuals.
The disease modelling research analysed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce the spread of pandemic influenza using Tamiflu prophylactically. It was predicted that this preventative approach is likely to be more cost-effective than treating symptomatic patients alone and may be an effective and cost-saving measure for reducing the impact of pandemic influenza.1 This research is supported by an earlier analysis that indicates that a prevention strategy using Tamiflu may help contain a pandemic outbreak.3
The study also predicts that if the stockpile is increased so that there is an unlimited supply of Tamiflu for treating symptomatic patients and for preventing infection in people exposed to these patients (household contacts and school/work contacts), illness attack rates and deaths could potentially be reduced by more than half when compared to no intervention. This equates to a cost saving of $70,000 per 1,000 population which would save $21 billion in the US alone versus no intervention. Adding other strategies such as school closures further reduces the attack and death rate and provides a health benefit at a reasonable cost. The research also showed that pre-pandemic vaccination programmes would play an important role but their effectiveness would be dependent upon how well the vaccine was matched to the virus.1
"The World Health Organisation provides a strong recommendation for the use of Tamiflu for the prevention of avian flu in people who have been in contact with someone who is known, or suspected of being infected with the virus," commented Professor Ira Longini, Professor of Biostatistics and Mathematics at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA. "This research suggests that a similar approach may also be an effective strategy in the event of an actual pandemic outbreak, especially as it is unlikely that a vaccine fully matched to the strain will be available in the initial wave of a pandemic."
Prophylaxis with antivirals or vaccines
Vaccination is the primary means of preventing influenza. However, at the beginning of a pandemic, supplies of vaccines which are fully matched to the pandemic strain will be limited or non-existent. This is because vaccine production can only start once the specific pandemic virus has been determined. The first doses of a matched vaccine are unlikely to become available within the early months of the pandemic, making prophylaxis and treatment with antivirals a crucial part in the efforts to reduce the burden of pandemic influenza.4
"In an environment full of uncertainties, it is best to have a comprehensive plan in place," said Arnold Monto, professor of epidemiology and influenza expert at the University of Michigan. "Tamiflu is active against all types of influenza virus and will be immediately available during a pandemic if stockpiles are adequate. The big question is, should we be stockpiling for treatment only or for both treatment and prophylaxis""
About the study
The objective of the study was to project the potential impact of pandemic influenza mitigation strategies on health outcomes, cost and cost effectiveness from a societal perspective in the US. The population was based on 1,632,000 people of approximate household size distributions from the 2000 US census. The analysis compared no intervention with 16 single and combination strategies including antiviral post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with Tamiflu; treatment with Tamiflu; pre-vaccination before the outbreak of the pandemic with a partially active vaccine; and school closure. It was assumed that Tamiflu stockpiles of varying quantities were available from the start of the pandemic, ranging from covering 25% of the population to unlimited stockpile. The model was based upon assumptions regarding the efficacy of Tamiflu and of vaccines in reducing mortality and morbidity during a pandemic. Illness attack rate was reduced from 500 cases per 1000 population with no intervention to 230 cases per 1000 population in the Tamiflu PEP group. Deaths were reduced from 13 deaths per 1,000 population to 5 deaths per 1,000 population. This study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Roche.
About pandemic influenza
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new strain of influenza A virus appears, against which the human population has no immunity resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. The most severe influenza pandemics to date include: 'Spanish flu' A (H1N1): 1918 caused in excess of 30 million deaths worldwide, 'Asian flu' A (H2N2): 1958 caused 1 million deaths worldwide, 'Hong Kong flu' A (H3N2): 1968 caused 800,000 deaths worldwide in six weeks. The WHO believes that we are as close to the next pandemic as we have been any time in the past 37 years, with two of the three widely-recognised prerequisites for a human pandemic met to date in the avian influenza outbreak in East Asia. Firstly, a new influenza virus strain has emerged (H5N1), and secondly, the virus has spread to humans. The final barrier will be the transmission of the virus from human to human.
About Tamiflu
Tamiflu is designed to be active against all clinically relevant influenza viruses and works by blocking the action of the neuraminidase (NA) enzyme on the surface of the virus. When neuraminidase is inhibited, the spread of the virus to other cells in the body is inhibited. It is licensed for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in children aged one year and above and in adults.
Roche and Gilead
Tamiflu was invented by Gilead Sciences and licensed to Roche in 1996. Roche and Gilead partnered on clinical development, with Roche leading efforts to produce, register and bring the product to the markets. Under the terms of the companies' agreement, amended in November 2005, Gilead participates with Roche in the consideration of sub-licenses for the pandemic supply of Tamiflu in resource-limited countries. To ensure broader access to Tamiflu for all patients in need, Gilead has agreed to waive its right to full royalty payments for product sold under these sub-licenses.
About Roche
Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Roche is one of the world's leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics. As the world's biggest biotech company and an innovator of products and services for the early detection, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, the Group contributes on a broad range of fronts to improving people's health and quality of life. Roche is the world leader in in-vitro diagnostics and drugs for cancer and transplantation, a market leader in virology and active in other major therapeutic areas such as autoimmune diseases, inflammation, metabolism and central nervous system.
Additional information
* Roche Health Kiosk, Influenza: health-kiosk.ch/start_grip.htm
* About Tamiflu: roche/med_mbtamiflu05e.pdf
* About influenza: roche/med_mbinfluenza05e.pdf
* WHO: Global influenza programme: who.int/csr/disease/influenza/en/
* WHO: Avian flu: who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_influenza/en/
References
1. B Sander et al. Economic Evaluation of Influenza Pandemic Mitigation Strategies in the US Using a Stochastic Microsimulation Influenza Model. Data presented at OPTIONS VI 2007. (Abstract Tracking Number O82)
2. Public pandemic plans and media reporting
3. Germann TC et al. Mitigation strategies for pandemic influenza in the United States, PNAS 2006; 103:5935-5940
4. Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, World Health Organisation, WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics, who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/11_29_01_A.pdf, Accessed 25 May, 2007
Contact: Lucy Rispin
Ketchum
View drug information on Tamiflu capsule.
пятница, 3 июня 2011 г.
Time Cites Bird Flu Vaccine As Top Medical Development Of 2007
Time Magazine this week cited the approval of a bird flu vaccine earlier this year as the top medical development in 2007.
Key testing of the vaccine, the first ever approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent bird flu, was done by doctors and nurses at the University of Rochester Medical Center. More than 750 people in the Rochester area have taken part in studies of bird flu vaccines at the University.
Crucial testing of the vaccine was led by John Treanor, M.D., professor of Medicine and of Microbiology and Immunology. His team on the University's Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit, together with scientists around the nation, showed that large doses of the vaccine are safe and effective at protecting people against bird flu.
The vaccine, made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc., has been purchased by the federal government and is being stockpiled for distribution by public health officials if needed.
"We feel very honored to have been able to contribute to this important effort, and we are especially grateful to our volunteer study subjects, without whom none of this research would have been possible," said Treanor. "Because of the willing participation of Rochesterians, we have something we can really use to fight off a bird flu pandemic, if it ever occurs."
Discover Magazine also noted Treanor's research as part of its top medical developments of the year. That publication cited a study by his group earlier this year that showed the promise of a new type of flu vaccine, grown not in eggs but instead in insect cells. That step could save the nation crucial months in producing vast amounts of flu vaccine on short notice.
More than half of the 340 people worldwide who have been infected with the H5N1 type of bird flu have died, making the flu at least 20 times as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918 that killed 50 million people. Thus far the number of deaths has been low because H5N1 hasn't acquired the ability to spread efficiently from person to person. If the virus does gain the ability to spread quickly among people, the vaccine would provide early protection until a vaccine tailored to the pandemic strain of the virus could be developed and produced.
Rochester is continuing its leading role to fight both bird flu and "regular" flu. Earlier this year, the University was awarded $26 million from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to establish the New York Influenza Center of Excellence. The center is part of a network recently established by NIAID to protect people against seasonal flu and future flu pandemics.
urmc.rochester
Key testing of the vaccine, the first ever approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent bird flu, was done by doctors and nurses at the University of Rochester Medical Center. More than 750 people in the Rochester area have taken part in studies of bird flu vaccines at the University.
Crucial testing of the vaccine was led by John Treanor, M.D., professor of Medicine and of Microbiology and Immunology. His team on the University's Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit, together with scientists around the nation, showed that large doses of the vaccine are safe and effective at protecting people against bird flu.
The vaccine, made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc., has been purchased by the federal government and is being stockpiled for distribution by public health officials if needed.
"We feel very honored to have been able to contribute to this important effort, and we are especially grateful to our volunteer study subjects, without whom none of this research would have been possible," said Treanor. "Because of the willing participation of Rochesterians, we have something we can really use to fight off a bird flu pandemic, if it ever occurs."
Discover Magazine also noted Treanor's research as part of its top medical developments of the year. That publication cited a study by his group earlier this year that showed the promise of a new type of flu vaccine, grown not in eggs but instead in insect cells. That step could save the nation crucial months in producing vast amounts of flu vaccine on short notice.
More than half of the 340 people worldwide who have been infected with the H5N1 type of bird flu have died, making the flu at least 20 times as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918 that killed 50 million people. Thus far the number of deaths has been low because H5N1 hasn't acquired the ability to spread efficiently from person to person. If the virus does gain the ability to spread quickly among people, the vaccine would provide early protection until a vaccine tailored to the pandemic strain of the virus could be developed and produced.
Rochester is continuing its leading role to fight both bird flu and "regular" flu. Earlier this year, the University was awarded $26 million from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to establish the New York Influenza Center of Excellence. The center is part of a network recently established by NIAID to protect people against seasonal flu and future flu pandemics.
urmc.rochester
четверг, 2 июня 2011 г.
Questions and Answers on Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) - European Commission
Avian Influenza is a virulent and highly contagious viral disease which occurs in poultry and other birds. It was first
identified in Italy in the early 1900s. There are various strains of the avian influenza virus, with the high pathogenic
strains having almost 100% fatality rates. Wild birds are often carriers of the low pathogenic strains of the virus without
showing any symptoms, and contact of domestic flocks with wild migratory birds has been at the origin of many epidemics in
poultry. Avian influenza can occasionally spread to humans and other animals, usually following direct contact with infected
birds.
What has been the recent situation of avian influenza outbreaks?
In recent years the poultry industry worldwide has suffered serious damage due to avian flu epidemics. Since 2003, the
particularly virulent H5N1 strain of the disease has caused more than 125 million birds to die or be destroyed in South-East
Asia. Avian flu is still endemic in this region of the world and eradication is proving extremely difficult. Outbreaks of
avian flu also occurred in the USA, Canada and South Africa in 2004.
In the EU, recent major outbreaks of avian flu occurred in Italy (1999-2000) and the Netherlands, with incidences in Belgium
and Germany (2003). The outbreak in the Netherlands led to the destruction of around 30 million birds and direct economic
costs of more than Ђ150 million.
What threats does avian influenza pose to human health?
In most cases, avian influenza viruses do not infect humans. However, these viruses have the tendency to mutate and may
occasionally spread to other animals and to humans. In particular, there have been cases of humans becoming infected with
certain highly pathogenic subtypes of the avian flu virus due to direct contact with diseased birds. The 2003 outbreak of the
disease in the Netherlands resulted in 1 human death and numerous milder human infections. In South-East Asia, around 50
people have died from avian flu since the current outbreak began. A major concern now is that a possible mutation or genetic
change of the virus circulating in Asia could lead to the avian flu virus transforming into a new human strain of influenza
capable of human-to-human transmission. The European Commission and EU Member States are working continually on pandemic
influenza planning and response measures in case of such an eventuality.
Why is the Commission proposing new measures for avian influenza?
The proposed Directive on measures for the control of avian influenza aims to update EU measures based on lessons learned
from recent epidemics and new scientific knowledge on how the disease spreads and risks to human health. Current EU
legislation on avian influenza control is laid down in Council Directive 92/40/EEC. This Directive only establishes control
measures against the so-called "highly pathogenic" avian influenza viruses, those causing major disease outbreaks in poultry
and that may also occasionally infect humans. However, there is now evidence that these highly pathogenic viruses actually
originate from the so-called "low-pathogenic" avian influenza viruses as a result of virus mutation. In order to prevent
major avian influenza outbreaks, the new legislation would also establish compulsory surveillance and control measures
against the low pathogenic avian influenza viruses that can be transmitted to domestic poultry from wild birds such as ducks
and geese. The low pathogenic viruses cannot be eradicated from wild birds, but the infection of domestic poultry can be
effectively controlled and virus mutation into the highly pathogenic forms can be prevented. The aim of the new legislation
is to ensure that the most appropriate surveillance and prevention measures against avian flu are in place and that the
health risks, economic costs and the negative impact on society in the event of an outbreak are minimised. The previous
Directive will be repealed when the new Directive is adopted.
Why is surveillance necessary and how will be applied?
Early detection of low pathogenic viruses in domestic poultry is a key factor to prevent highly pathogenic form of disease.
In the last years avian influenza surveillance has already been implemented in all Member States, but the new legislation
will be in place will make this more systematic, eg Member States will have to implement national surveillance plans taking
into consideration risk factors such as the possibility of contact of domestic poultry with wild birds, risk factors
associated with different poultry species, the density of poultry farms, etc. Surveillance will also be carried out on wild
birds to ensure that new knowledge is gained on the risks posed by these birds. Based on the results obtained, the Commission
and the Member States will regularly revise the surveillance plans to increase their effectiveness.
Which measures will be applied to low pathogenic avian influenza?
To prevent the spread of the disease to other farms, Member States will have to ensure that the poultry are not moved from
the farms where low pathogenic avian influenza has been detected. Birds from the affected farms must be either killed and
destroyed ("stamping out") or slaughtered normally. The virus is rapidly inactivated by heat, which means that there is zero
risk to human health from cooked poultry meat. All available information suggests that even if eaten raw, the risk to human
health posed by the consumption of poultry meat from birds infected with low pathogenic strains is probably negligible.
However, under certain circumstances stamping-out may still be a necessary measure, as the movement of poultry from the farm
where they are kept to the slaughterhouse may cause the virus to spread from farm to farm.
How will the new measures be funded?
According to an impact assessment carried out when preparing the Directive, the additional cost of the new measures to the EU
budget have been estimated at Ђ3-8 million a year. This will be financed by the EU Veterinary Fund. However, projections
based on the frequency and cost of past outbreaks of Avian Influenza show that the additional cost to the EU budget should be
more than recuperated by savings related to reduced risks of future epidemics, which have in the past been very costly to
control (with the EU co-financing control measures). Moreover, some of the control measures envisaged in the new legislation,
such as vaccination, should diminish the size of any future avian influenza outbreaks, resulting in further savings.
Why is the EU now more keen on vaccination than before?
Recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the EU and elsewhere have shown us how devastating this disease can
be. All means to prevent future disasters have been carefully considered, including vaccination. The decision on whether or
not to use vaccination is still not easy, but there is increasing experience indicating that it can be a useful tool, for
example where domestic birds are exposed to the virus among wild birds. The use of vaccination will always be strictly
monitored and the EU rules will require that vaccinated birds can be differentiated from infected birds. This is very
important both for disease control and for trade purposes. The vaccination and monitoring system proposed in the new
Directive will be managed so that restrictions on trade in poultry and poultry products from the vaccinated areas can be
minimised. Eventual restrictions on trade will be decided on a case-by-case basis. In any case, restrictions will only be
applied to the specific regions using vaccination, or even compartments within those regions. All areas of the EU not using
vaccination will be able to continue to trade normally.
If Italy is a test case for the new vaccination approach, what does the current outbreak there say about the future policy
on vaccination?
In northern Italy, a new approach to vaccination (the so called DIVA strategy) has been tested over the past four years in an
area at high risk of disease due to frequent virus incursions from wild birds into poultry farms, one of which led to a major
epidemic in 1999/2000. The DIVA strategy is accompanied by very strict surveillance in the vaccination area, so that virus
introduction can be detected at an early stage and vaccinated birds can be differentiated from the infected ones.
Broadly speaking, the results obtained in Italy with the DIVA strategy were satisfactory and they were well accepted also at
the international level. Nevertheless, this strategy was not able to prevent the very recent low pathogenic avian influenza
outbreak which has occurred in Lombardy (April 2005). However, the strict surveillance led to the early detection of the
virus and the vaccination programme probably contributed to containing it. These are key elements to prevent the virus from
mutating into its highly pathogenic form.
The Commission proposal takes into account all experiences gained related to disease control and provides for a more flexible
approach to vaccination. However, it must be noted that there are still many constraints to vaccination and that this tool is
not a panacea to solve all problems.
What is the EU doing to help Asia tackle the current outbreak there?
The ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza in Asia has lead to the death or the killing and destruction of
over 125 million birds, economic losses estimated at Ђ8-12 billion and the death of around 50 people. Furthermore, there are
fears that this particular virus strain may eventually lead to a human flu pandemic.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Animal
Health Organisation (OIE) have called for decisive action by governments to help the countries affected to limit the scale of
the bird flu outbreak and so also reduce the risk for public health in Asia.
In coordination with the relevant international organisations, the European Commission has already provided some emergency
technical and financial support to the concerned countries, Vietnam in particular, to help to control the disease in poultry
and other birds and prevent as much as possible the spread of the virus to humans. However, the eradication of avian flu from
Asia cannot be considered a realistic short-term objective and adequate planning and co-ordination of future actions and
control measures is essential.
The FAO is currently finalising a regional master plan including a road map and time frame, within which framework the
concerned countries can than draft their own country plans. This FAO master plan and the country plans will be carefully
studied as soon as available, in view of possible support by the Commission.
How would our new legislation help prevent serious outbreaks such as the one currently seen in Asia?
Avian flu viruses circulate worldwide in migratory waterfowl, such as ducks and geese. However, at that stage the viruses are
not able to cause serious disease; they are defined as low pathogenic viruses. Only after the spread from wild birds to
domestic poultry and circulation in the poultry populations, the low pathogenic viruses may mutate into highly pathogenic
viruses, like the one that is causing major disease problems in parts of Asia and that is also affecting humans.
The new proposed legislation will require EU Member States to introduce and reinforce surveillance and control measures
against the low-pathogenic viruses, aiming in particular at preventing virus circulation in domestic poultry, so that virus
mutation and highly pathogenic forms of disease are prevented.
Which Asian countries are currently blocked for what exports?
The Commission has undertaken a number of actions to protect the EU from disease introduction from Asia. Imports of live
birds and risky poultry products such as fresh poultry meat and untreated feathers from the concerned countries have been
prohibited. However, this ban does not concern heat-treated poultry meat, as the heat-treatment (70 degrees) destroys the
avian influenza virus.
The disease situation in Asia is regularly reviewed at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, where the
safeguard measures taken are updated as appropriate. At present, the import ban concerns Cambodia, China including Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam.
More information:
Avian Influenza -
Introduction from the European Commission
europa.eu.int
identified in Italy in the early 1900s. There are various strains of the avian influenza virus, with the high pathogenic
strains having almost 100% fatality rates. Wild birds are often carriers of the low pathogenic strains of the virus without
showing any symptoms, and contact of domestic flocks with wild migratory birds has been at the origin of many epidemics in
poultry. Avian influenza can occasionally spread to humans and other animals, usually following direct contact with infected
birds.
What has been the recent situation of avian influenza outbreaks?
In recent years the poultry industry worldwide has suffered serious damage due to avian flu epidemics. Since 2003, the
particularly virulent H5N1 strain of the disease has caused more than 125 million birds to die or be destroyed in South-East
Asia. Avian flu is still endemic in this region of the world and eradication is proving extremely difficult. Outbreaks of
avian flu also occurred in the USA, Canada and South Africa in 2004.
In the EU, recent major outbreaks of avian flu occurred in Italy (1999-2000) and the Netherlands, with incidences in Belgium
and Germany (2003). The outbreak in the Netherlands led to the destruction of around 30 million birds and direct economic
costs of more than Ђ150 million.
What threats does avian influenza pose to human health?
In most cases, avian influenza viruses do not infect humans. However, these viruses have the tendency to mutate and may
occasionally spread to other animals and to humans. In particular, there have been cases of humans becoming infected with
certain highly pathogenic subtypes of the avian flu virus due to direct contact with diseased birds. The 2003 outbreak of the
disease in the Netherlands resulted in 1 human death and numerous milder human infections. In South-East Asia, around 50
people have died from avian flu since the current outbreak began. A major concern now is that a possible mutation or genetic
change of the virus circulating in Asia could lead to the avian flu virus transforming into a new human strain of influenza
capable of human-to-human transmission. The European Commission and EU Member States are working continually on pandemic
influenza planning and response measures in case of such an eventuality.
Why is the Commission proposing new measures for avian influenza?
The proposed Directive on measures for the control of avian influenza aims to update EU measures based on lessons learned
from recent epidemics and new scientific knowledge on how the disease spreads and risks to human health. Current EU
legislation on avian influenza control is laid down in Council Directive 92/40/EEC. This Directive only establishes control
measures against the so-called "highly pathogenic" avian influenza viruses, those causing major disease outbreaks in poultry
and that may also occasionally infect humans. However, there is now evidence that these highly pathogenic viruses actually
originate from the so-called "low-pathogenic" avian influenza viruses as a result of virus mutation. In order to prevent
major avian influenza outbreaks, the new legislation would also establish compulsory surveillance and control measures
against the low pathogenic avian influenza viruses that can be transmitted to domestic poultry from wild birds such as ducks
and geese. The low pathogenic viruses cannot be eradicated from wild birds, but the infection of domestic poultry can be
effectively controlled and virus mutation into the highly pathogenic forms can be prevented. The aim of the new legislation
is to ensure that the most appropriate surveillance and prevention measures against avian flu are in place and that the
health risks, economic costs and the negative impact on society in the event of an outbreak are minimised. The previous
Directive will be repealed when the new Directive is adopted.
Why is surveillance necessary and how will be applied?
Early detection of low pathogenic viruses in domestic poultry is a key factor to prevent highly pathogenic form of disease.
In the last years avian influenza surveillance has already been implemented in all Member States, but the new legislation
will be in place will make this more systematic, eg Member States will have to implement national surveillance plans taking
into consideration risk factors such as the possibility of contact of domestic poultry with wild birds, risk factors
associated with different poultry species, the density of poultry farms, etc. Surveillance will also be carried out on wild
birds to ensure that new knowledge is gained on the risks posed by these birds. Based on the results obtained, the Commission
and the Member States will regularly revise the surveillance plans to increase their effectiveness.
Which measures will be applied to low pathogenic avian influenza?
To prevent the spread of the disease to other farms, Member States will have to ensure that the poultry are not moved from
the farms where low pathogenic avian influenza has been detected. Birds from the affected farms must be either killed and
destroyed ("stamping out") or slaughtered normally. The virus is rapidly inactivated by heat, which means that there is zero
risk to human health from cooked poultry meat. All available information suggests that even if eaten raw, the risk to human
health posed by the consumption of poultry meat from birds infected with low pathogenic strains is probably negligible.
However, under certain circumstances stamping-out may still be a necessary measure, as the movement of poultry from the farm
where they are kept to the slaughterhouse may cause the virus to spread from farm to farm.
How will the new measures be funded?
According to an impact assessment carried out when preparing the Directive, the additional cost of the new measures to the EU
budget have been estimated at Ђ3-8 million a year. This will be financed by the EU Veterinary Fund. However, projections
based on the frequency and cost of past outbreaks of Avian Influenza show that the additional cost to the EU budget should be
more than recuperated by savings related to reduced risks of future epidemics, which have in the past been very costly to
control (with the EU co-financing control measures). Moreover, some of the control measures envisaged in the new legislation,
such as vaccination, should diminish the size of any future avian influenza outbreaks, resulting in further savings.
Why is the EU now more keen on vaccination than before?
Recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the EU and elsewhere have shown us how devastating this disease can
be. All means to prevent future disasters have been carefully considered, including vaccination. The decision on whether or
not to use vaccination is still not easy, but there is increasing experience indicating that it can be a useful tool, for
example where domestic birds are exposed to the virus among wild birds. The use of vaccination will always be strictly
monitored and the EU rules will require that vaccinated birds can be differentiated from infected birds. This is very
important both for disease control and for trade purposes. The vaccination and monitoring system proposed in the new
Directive will be managed so that restrictions on trade in poultry and poultry products from the vaccinated areas can be
minimised. Eventual restrictions on trade will be decided on a case-by-case basis. In any case, restrictions will only be
applied to the specific regions using vaccination, or even compartments within those regions. All areas of the EU not using
vaccination will be able to continue to trade normally.
If Italy is a test case for the new vaccination approach, what does the current outbreak there say about the future policy
on vaccination?
In northern Italy, a new approach to vaccination (the so called DIVA strategy) has been tested over the past four years in an
area at high risk of disease due to frequent virus incursions from wild birds into poultry farms, one of which led to a major
epidemic in 1999/2000. The DIVA strategy is accompanied by very strict surveillance in the vaccination area, so that virus
introduction can be detected at an early stage and vaccinated birds can be differentiated from the infected ones.
Broadly speaking, the results obtained in Italy with the DIVA strategy were satisfactory and they were well accepted also at
the international level. Nevertheless, this strategy was not able to prevent the very recent low pathogenic avian influenza
outbreak which has occurred in Lombardy (April 2005). However, the strict surveillance led to the early detection of the
virus and the vaccination programme probably contributed to containing it. These are key elements to prevent the virus from
mutating into its highly pathogenic form.
The Commission proposal takes into account all experiences gained related to disease control and provides for a more flexible
approach to vaccination. However, it must be noted that there are still many constraints to vaccination and that this tool is
not a panacea to solve all problems.
What is the EU doing to help Asia tackle the current outbreak there?
The ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza in Asia has lead to the death or the killing and destruction of
over 125 million birds, economic losses estimated at Ђ8-12 billion and the death of around 50 people. Furthermore, there are
fears that this particular virus strain may eventually lead to a human flu pandemic.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Animal
Health Organisation (OIE) have called for decisive action by governments to help the countries affected to limit the scale of
the bird flu outbreak and so also reduce the risk for public health in Asia.
In coordination with the relevant international organisations, the European Commission has already provided some emergency
technical and financial support to the concerned countries, Vietnam in particular, to help to control the disease in poultry
and other birds and prevent as much as possible the spread of the virus to humans. However, the eradication of avian flu from
Asia cannot be considered a realistic short-term objective and adequate planning and co-ordination of future actions and
control measures is essential.
The FAO is currently finalising a regional master plan including a road map and time frame, within which framework the
concerned countries can than draft their own country plans. This FAO master plan and the country plans will be carefully
studied as soon as available, in view of possible support by the Commission.
How would our new legislation help prevent serious outbreaks such as the one currently seen in Asia?
Avian flu viruses circulate worldwide in migratory waterfowl, such as ducks and geese. However, at that stage the viruses are
not able to cause serious disease; they are defined as low pathogenic viruses. Only after the spread from wild birds to
domestic poultry and circulation in the poultry populations, the low pathogenic viruses may mutate into highly pathogenic
viruses, like the one that is causing major disease problems in parts of Asia and that is also affecting humans.
The new proposed legislation will require EU Member States to introduce and reinforce surveillance and control measures
against the low-pathogenic viruses, aiming in particular at preventing virus circulation in domestic poultry, so that virus
mutation and highly pathogenic forms of disease are prevented.
Which Asian countries are currently blocked for what exports?
The Commission has undertaken a number of actions to protect the EU from disease introduction from Asia. Imports of live
birds and risky poultry products such as fresh poultry meat and untreated feathers from the concerned countries have been
prohibited. However, this ban does not concern heat-treated poultry meat, as the heat-treatment (70 degrees) destroys the
avian influenza virus.
The disease situation in Asia is regularly reviewed at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, where the
safeguard measures taken are updated as appropriate. At present, the import ban concerns Cambodia, China including Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam.
More information:
Avian Influenza -
Introduction from the European Commission
europa.eu.int
среда, 1 июня 2011 г.
WHO Expert To Edit First International Influenza Title As Pandemic Fears Grow
One of the world's leading flu experts, Alan Hampson, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Influenza Taskforce and advisor to the Australian Government, is to edit the first international journal dedicated to the subject.
He has been appointed Editor of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, which is being launched by Blackwell Publishing amid growing international concerns about the possibility of an influenza pandemic.
"Alan Hampson is an ideal choice, as he is a WHO Expert Advisor on influenza and was, until recently, Deputy Director and operational head of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne, Australia" says Renй Olivieri, CEO of Blackwell Publishing.
"He is also an influenza advisor to the Australian Government, a Member of the Australian National Influenza Pandemic Action Committee and Convenor of the Australian Influenza Specialist Group."
The development of influenza vaccines, how viruses are evolving and the scale of the global problem will be just three of the subject areas tackled by the first issue when it debuts in October 2006.
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses will also cover a range of other respiratory viruses, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (commonly known as SARS), Respiratory Syncytial Virus and parainfluenza viruses.
The journal is being published on behalf of the UK-based International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases (ISIRV), which was established in September 2005.
"There is considerable concern among experts working in the fields of influenza and respiratory medicine that there is an urgent need for international collaboration on research and development" says Alan Hampson.
"The development of avian flu and conditions like SARS have given added impetus to the very real concern about the potential risk of an influenza pandemic.
"Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses will provide an international platform for information and discussion among experts who will help to shape international responses to any outbreak."
The prestigious editorial line-up will also include Dr Geoffrey Schild, Chair of ISIRV, who has been appointed Deputy Editor.
Dr Schild is a former Director of the UK National Institute for Biological Standards and Control and a WHO consultant. He was also Chair of the European Commission Biological Working Party in Brussels for seven years and Director of the Medical Research Council World Influenza Centre for ten.
"ISIRV is delighted to be working with Blackwell Publishing to launch this journal, which will have a major contribution to play in bringing together international knowledge and expertise in these vital fields.
"The threat of a global pandemic cannot be underestimated and, while we do not wish to cause undue alarm, we must make sure that we are as well prepared as possible for any eventuality.
"That is why we formed the ISIRV last year and why we are so delighted to play a key role in this new journal."
Influenza and Other Respiratory Diseases will be published six times a year on behalf of the UK-based International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Edited by influenza expert Alan Hampson, it is aimed at microbiologists, scientists and consultants working in infectious disease (including vaccine development), epidemiologists, public health advisers and those working in the fields of zoonoses and animal disease.
Annette Whibley
wordwizardclara
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
blackwellpublishing
He has been appointed Editor of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, which is being launched by Blackwell Publishing amid growing international concerns about the possibility of an influenza pandemic.
"Alan Hampson is an ideal choice, as he is a WHO Expert Advisor on influenza and was, until recently, Deputy Director and operational head of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne, Australia" says Renй Olivieri, CEO of Blackwell Publishing.
"He is also an influenza advisor to the Australian Government, a Member of the Australian National Influenza Pandemic Action Committee and Convenor of the Australian Influenza Specialist Group."
The development of influenza vaccines, how viruses are evolving and the scale of the global problem will be just three of the subject areas tackled by the first issue when it debuts in October 2006.
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses will also cover a range of other respiratory viruses, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (commonly known as SARS), Respiratory Syncytial Virus and parainfluenza viruses.
The journal is being published on behalf of the UK-based International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases (ISIRV), which was established in September 2005.
"There is considerable concern among experts working in the fields of influenza and respiratory medicine that there is an urgent need for international collaboration on research and development" says Alan Hampson.
"The development of avian flu and conditions like SARS have given added impetus to the very real concern about the potential risk of an influenza pandemic.
"Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses will provide an international platform for information and discussion among experts who will help to shape international responses to any outbreak."
The prestigious editorial line-up will also include Dr Geoffrey Schild, Chair of ISIRV, who has been appointed Deputy Editor.
Dr Schild is a former Director of the UK National Institute for Biological Standards and Control and a WHO consultant. He was also Chair of the European Commission Biological Working Party in Brussels for seven years and Director of the Medical Research Council World Influenza Centre for ten.
"ISIRV is delighted to be working with Blackwell Publishing to launch this journal, which will have a major contribution to play in bringing together international knowledge and expertise in these vital fields.
"The threat of a global pandemic cannot be underestimated and, while we do not wish to cause undue alarm, we must make sure that we are as well prepared as possible for any eventuality.
"That is why we formed the ISIRV last year and why we are so delighted to play a key role in this new journal."
Influenza and Other Respiratory Diseases will be published six times a year on behalf of the UK-based International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Edited by influenza expert Alan Hampson, it is aimed at microbiologists, scientists and consultants working in infectious disease (including vaccine development), epidemiologists, public health advisers and those working in the fields of zoonoses and animal disease.
Annette Whibley
wordwizardclara
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
blackwellpublishing
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)