2014 Update of the Chinese Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Avian Influenza A(H7n9) Virus Infection
Shen Yinzhong,Lu Hongzhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20140763
IF: 6.133
2014-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:The National Health and Family Planning Commission of China published an updated guidance (2014 version) on clinical management in Chinese on January 26, 2014.1 The guidelines come as human cases of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus infection undergo a seasonal spike. As of February 26, 2014, 237 cases have been detected in the outbreak's second wave, which began in October, compared with 136 in the first wave last spring.2 As of April 21, 2014, a total of 414 human cases of avian influenza A(H7N9) have been confirmed in the mainland of China, including Zhejiang (138 cases), Guangdong (103 cases), Jiangsu (52 cases), Shanghai (41 cases), Fujian (22 cases), Hunan (22 cases), Anhui (13 cases), Jiangxi (six cases), Beijing (four cases), Henan (four cases), Guangxi (three cases), Shandong (three cases), Guizhou (one case, imported from Zhejiang), Hebei (one case) and Jilin (one case).3 There has been no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission, and current epidemiologic trends indicate that a large-scale H7N9 epidemic in China is unlikely. However, it is likely that sporadic H7N9 cases will continue in China in the future. Up to now, the Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus infection have been updated twice, according to the evolution of the H7N9 epidemic. The original version of the guidelines was published on April 2, 2013, when China reported three H7N9 cases. Because there was no experience about the disease's diagnosis and treatment, the original version was developed according to the data and knowledge from avian influenza A(H5N1) and seasonal influenza, including influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. The second updated version was published on April 10, 2013 when the confirmed case numbers were 33 patients including 9 deaths. The previous two versions of H7N9 guidelines have had a substantial role in the management of the human cases in the first wave. The 2014 version of guidelines was the second update. Since the first wave period, many clinical and basic research studies have been published and there has been a growing clinical expertise and demand a subsequent update of the guidelines. The newly published guidance provides updated knowledge on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of human infection with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus in China. It will continue to play an important role in the control and prevention of current H7N9 epidemic in China. It is very important for clinicians to understand and use the guidance to manage H7N9 cases. However, clinicians should manage the patients individually while accumulating experience continues to inform clinical practice. More research is urgently needed to investigate the optimal diagnostic methods and treatments. We anticipate that these guidelines will also be updated periodically, based on evolving clinical practice experience and findings from ongoing research. What is new in the 2014 version of guidelines The National Health and Family Planning Commission and subject matter experts are committed to timely changes in this document because so many health care providers, patients, and policy experts rely on this source for vital clinical information. Major revisions in the 2014 version of guidelines are as follows: Pathogenesis and pathology The 2014 version of guidelines have added a new section on pathogenesis and pathology, which reflects the research progress in the pathogenesis of H7N9. The subtype of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus has not previously caused human infection. China confirmed the first three human cases of novel avian influenza A(H7N9) infection in Shanghai and Anhui on March 31, 2013.4 This is the first time infection with this virus has been found in humans. Most H7 viruses and other subtypes cause mild respiratory illness or conjunctivitis in people. However, according to the clinical observations on the cases reported in the first wave, H7N9 patients have frequently presented with fever, cough but then have rapidly progressed to severe pneumonia, with a relative lack of prior upper respiratory symptoms.5-7 Severe cases are often complicated by respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), septic shock and multi-organ failure requiring intensive care and mechanical ventilation.5-7 Clinicians find that specimens from the lower respiratory tract/deep tracheal aspirations are more likely to yield positive results than those from upper respiratory tract. Sequence analyses have shown that the genes of the H7N9 viruses from China are of avian origin, but with signs of adaptation to mammalian species.4,7,8 The adaptation includes increased ability to bind to mammalian cell receptors, and to grow at temperatures close to the normal body temperature of mammals, which is lower than that of birds.7-9 Novel H7N9 virus can bind to both avian-type (α-2,3-linked sialic acid) and human-type (α-2,6-linked sialic acid) receptors.8,10 It can invade epithelial cells in the human lower respiratory tract and type II pneumonocytes in alveoli, and replicate efficiently in ex vivo lung and trachea explant culture and several mammalian cell lines.8 H7N9 virus might replicate more eciently in the lower respiratory tract, where both α-2,3-linked and α-2,6-linked sialic acid receptors are found.7 The molecular and biologic features of the H7N9 virus were associated with the clinical manifestations of the disease. Similar to H5N1 infection, which mainly affects the lower respiratory tract, sputum and endotracheal aspirates might be better than nasopharyngeal and throat swabs for detection of influenza A(H7N9).7 In some severe cases, positive virus detection in the lower respiratory tract samples may last for over three weeks.11 These observations and research results indicate that lower respiratory tract samples (tracheal aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, induced sputum) have higher diagnostic yield comparing to upper respiratory tract samples (e.g. throat swabs). The clinicians should collect the lower respiratory tract samples for etiological tests, whenever and as early as possible. Chemokines and cytokines play an important role in the pathogenesis of H7N9 virus infection. In acute serum samples of H7N9-infected patients, increased levels of the chemokines and cytokines IP-10, MIG, MIP-1β, MCP-1, IL-6, IL-8 and IFN-α were detected. In some severely ill patients, cytokine levels are very high during the early stage of illness leading to a "cytokine storm" that can contribute to disease severity and comparable to that occasionally seen in H5N1 infections.7,8 These results suggest that controlling hypercytokinaemia might be a target for future therapeutic interventions. The new section can help clinicians better understand the features of H7N9 virus infection. The scientific advances in the pathogenesis mechanism of H7N9 virus may translate into more effective diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Understanding the pathogenesis and pathology of this novel virus infection should be further enhanced in the future. Incubation period The 2014 version of guidelines said that the incubation period of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus infection is generally three to four days. This is significantly different from the previous two versions, in which the incubation period is within seven days. According to the new guidelines, the revision was made based on the incubation period of seasonal influenza virus infection and the current investigation results from human infection with H7N9 avian influenza virus. Research has shown that there are minor differences in incubation period of H7N9 disease according to the study patients, the type of exposure, and estimating method.5-7,12-16Table 1 summarizes the current literature on H7N9 incubation period, suggesting that the incubation period appears to be within a week. However, the most recent data indicate an incubation period that may extend to seven days or beyond.13,16 The 2014 version guidance "shortens" the incubation period, clinicians must catch up the major opportunity to recognize, diagnose and treat the H7N9 patients as early as possible in order to reduce the case mortality.Table 1: Current literature of the H7N9 disease's incubation periodThe clarification of the incubation period distribution has important implications. Based on most research results, quarantine or medical surveillance for close contacts need not last longer than one week. The 2014 guidelines shortened the disease's incubation period from seven days to three to four days, may lead to a shortened quarantine time in hospital for suspected exposures. However, the Prevention and Control Protocol for Human Infections with Avian Influenza A(H7N9) (3rd edition), issued by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, still recommends close contacts of the H7N9 patients should receive seven days of medical observation.17 The WHO also recommends that persons who have had unprotected close contact with a patient with confirmed H7N9 virus infection or exposure to poultry, live poultry market or environments contaminated by H7N9 virus should be monitored for seven days after the last known exposure.18 The recent investigation findings suggest the necessity for public health authorities to extend the period of medical surveillance from seven days to 10 days.13,16 Severe case definition The 2014 version of guidelines defines the diagnostic criteria for severe case of H7N9 virus infection. According to the guidelines, patients who meet diagnostic criteria for H7N9 influenza and have at least one of the following are classified as severe cases: multi-lobar involvement or rapid progression in pulmonary lesions (over 50% increase) within 48 hours on X-ray; difficulty in breathing with respiratory rate over 24/min; severe hypoxemia with SpO2, ≤92% at oxygen intake flow rates of 3-5 L/min; or with shock, ARDS or multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Novel reassortant H7N9 viruses are associated with severe and frequently fatal respiratory disease in humans. Nearly all patients diagnosed with H7N9 infection have been admitted to hospital and most have become critically ill.4-7 The case-fatality rate among those admitted to hospital is approximately 36%; lower than that for influenza A(H5N1) (60%-65%), but higher than that for the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic virus (21%).19 Successful management of severe cases is the key to reducing the case-fatality rate. It is very important to identify and effectively treat the severe cases as early as possible. The definition can help clinicians diagnose the severe cases. In order to identify the severe cases at early stage, the new guidelines also define risk factors for developing severe illness, which include older age (>60 years old), severe underlying medical conditions, sustained high fever, sustained lymphopenia, sustained elevated C reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and elevated creatine kinase (CK) and pneumonia on chest X-ray. Patients with any one of the above risk factors may probably develop severe illness or die and should be kept under close medical observation. Further studies are needed to identify or clarify certain risk factors for severe cases of H7N9 virus infection. A comparative analysis shows that patients hospitalized with H7N9 virus infection share some risk factors with those hospitalized with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection but have a clinical profile more closely resembling that of H5N1 patients.20 Another study showed that C-reactive protein level, myoglobin level and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) duration may be associated with treatment outcomes of H7N9 infection.21 A study showed that increased age accompanied by co-morbidities was associated with increased the risk of death of H7N9 patients. The severity of lung infection at admission, the persistence of lymphocytopenia, and the extended duration of lower oxygenation index all contributed to worsened outcomes of patients with H7N9 virus infection.22 Another study showed that the presence of coexisting medical conditions was the only independent risk factor for moderate-to-severe ARDS, and that shock was the only predictor of death of H7N9 patients.5 These research results indicate importance of identifying coexisting medical conditions as a mechanism to identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes. The guidelines emphasize early diagnosis and antiviral treatment Studies showed that cases reported in the first H7N9 wave had a significant delay between the onset of symptoms, presentation, diagnosis and initiation of antiviral treatment; highlighting an area for both public and health care worker education.4-7,23 The new guidelines ask clinicians to pay more attention to patients with influenza-like illness and normal or lower white blood cells, who should receive etiological testing for influenza A virus or influenza A(H7N9) virus. RT-PCR testing for H7N9 virus nucleic acid is the recommended test for confirmation of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus infection. Medical facilities which are not able to conduct RT-PCR testing may do the rapid antigen test for influenza A virus first. Given the limited sensitivity of the rapid antigen test, negative test results do not exclude an influenza diagnosis and should not be used to guide decisions on antiviral therapy. The 2014 guidelines emphasize early use of antiviral treatment for avian influenza A(H7N9). Individuals who are at high risk for severe illness from avian influenza A(H7N9) should be given antiviral treatment as soon as possible, even before confirmatory laboratory results are available. The new guidance emphasizes the importance of prompt treatment for high-risk individuals. The updated guidance suggests treatment with antivirals for patients with confirmed, probable, or suspected avian influenza A(H7N9), and for individuals who are at increased risk for influenza-related complications. Antiviral treatment should be started for any patients with a clinical diagnosis or suspected to have H7N9 virus infection, without waiting for the results of influenza testing. A study showed that reduction of viral load following antiviral treatment correlated with improved outcome of human disease caused by novel influenza A(H7N9) virus.24 A previous report found that the risk of death was increased among patients in whom antiviral therapy was initiated more than 5 days after the onset of symptoms.5 That study also showed that the median times from the onset of illness and from the initiation of antiviral therapy to a negative test result on daily real-time RT-PCR assay were 11 days and 6 days, respectively.5 A study on timing of oseltamivir administration and outcomes in hospitalized adults with pandemic 2009 influenza A(H1N1) virus infection showed that time from onset of symptoms to oseltamivir administration was associated with a prolonged duration of fever, prolonged hospital length of stay, and higher mortality.25 A similar study showed that early oseltamivir treatment as an independent variable associated with reduced intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.26 A recently published very large meta-analysis of patient level data from more than 29 000 hospitalized patients with 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza from 36 countries have reported that neuraminidase inhibitor treatment of influenza can reduce severe outcomes, including mortality, especially when treatment is started as early as possible.27 These findings suggest that early oseltamivir administration is associated with favourable outcomes among patients with influenza including avian influenza A(H7N9). Therefore, early treatment of suspected or confirmed cases of avian influenza A(H7N9) is strongly recommended. We need more China updated its guidance for diagnosis and treatment of H7N9 influenza based on clinical data and experiences from last year's epidemic. However, most recommendations of the guidelines come from experts, and more evidence is needed to support and strengthen these recommendations. Currently, though the H7N9 virus is still sensitive to neuraminidase inhibitors, we should know that some patients did not respond to the antiviral treatment, and viral resistance to oseltamivir has also been reported.24 In patients who have persistent severe illness despite oseltamivir treatment, there are few licensed alternative antiviral treatments. In these situations, clinicians have considered intravenous administration of alternative antiviral drugs such as zanamivir, peramivir, ribavirin, combination therapy, or other experimental treatments (e.g., convalescent plasma therapy, should this become available). The use of such treatments should ideally be done only in the context of prospective clinical and virological data collection. Optimal antiviral treatment regimens should be further investigated. We need more clinical trials to update the clinical management of H7N9 virus infection. Conclusions Since March 2013, China has experienced two waves of the H7N9 epidemic. The increasing number of new H7N9 cases and high mortality rate has caused concern and there is an ongoing global concern of further spread outside of China. While prevention of infection is the most important mechanism to reduce the impact of H7N9 in humans, early diagnosis and antiviral treatment and excellent supportive care are the keys to reducing the case fatality rate among those infected. China has updated its guidance for diagnosis and treatment of H7N9 influenza based on clinical data, basic research results and experiences from 2013 epidemic. The 2014 guidelines emphasize early diagnosis and use of antiviral treatment for avian influenza A(H7N9). However, most recommendations of the guidelines come from experts, and more evidence is needed to support and strengthen these recommendations. The optimal treatment for severe cases, patients who do not respond to the current antiviral treatment, and cases with oseltamivir resistance should be further investigated. The guidance on clinical management of H7N9 virus infection should be periodically updated based on a comprehensive review of the recent literature, including data from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, cohort, prospective and retrospective studies. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the review for this manuscript by Rob Fowler (World Health Organisation, Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases; and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada).