Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 17, Number 6—June 2011
Research

Use of Antiviral Drugs to Reduce Household Transmission of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United Kingdom1

Richard G. PebodyComments to Author , Ross Harris, George Kafatos, Mary Chamberland, Colin Campbell, Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam, Estelle McLean, Nick Andrews, Peter J. White, Edward Wynne-Evans, Jon Green, Joanna Ellis, Tim Wreghitt, Sam Bracebridge, Chikwe Ihekweazu, Isabel Oliver, Gillian E. Smith, Colin Hawkins, Roland Salmon, Brian Smyth, Jim McMenamin, Maria Zambon, Nick F. Phin, and John M. Watson
Author affiliations: Author affiliations: Health Protection Agency, London, UK (R.G. Pebody, R. Harris, G. Kafatos, M. Chamberland, C. Campbell, J.S. Nguyen-Van-Tam, E. McLean, N. Andrews, P.J. White, E. Wynne-Evans, J. Green, J. Ellis, T. Wreghitt, S. Bracebridge, C. Ihekweazu, I. Oliver, G. Smith, C. Hawkins, M. Zambon, N. Phin, J.M. Watson); Imperial College, London (P.J. White); Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK (R. Salmon); Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, Belfast, Northern Ireland (B. Smyth); Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, Scotland (J. McMenamin)

Main Article

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate analysis of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection SAR for virologically confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection, by gender, age group, and prophylaxis, United Kingdom, 2009*

Variable
 No. contacts†
 No. secondary
case-patients
 Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
SAR, % (95% CI)
 p value‡
 OR (95% CI)
 p value
Sex, n = 745
M 364 37 10.2 (7.5–13.7) 1.0, baseline
F
 381
 25
 6.6 (4.0–10.7)
 0.08
1.0 (0.5–2.0)
 0.96
Age, y
<16 212 40 18.9 (14.2–24.7) 18.2 (3.9–85.5)
16–49 378 20 5.3 (3.1–9.0) 3.5 (0.7–16.2)
>50
 171
 2
 1.2 (0.3–4.7)
 <0.001
1.0, baseline
 <0.001
Prophylaxis, n = 587
No 143 45 31.5 (24.4–39.5) 1.0, baseline
Yes
 444
 8
 1.8 (0.8–3.9)
 <0.001
0.05 (0.02–0.09)
 <0.001
Primary case-patient treatment
>48 h 453 48 10.6 (8.1–13.8) 1.0, baseline
<48 h
 308
 14
 4.5 (2.5–8.1)
 0.003
0.30 (0.13–0.68)
 0.004
Total 761 62 8.1 (6.4–10.3)

*n = 761 except as indicated. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for multivariate model, p = 0.751. SAR, secondary attack rate; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
†Excludes co-primary cases.
‡Indicates overall p value for differences by group.

Main Article

1Elements of this work were presented at the Health Protection Agency Annual Conference in 2009. An abstract was presented at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2010.

Page created: August 03, 2011
Page updated: August 03, 2011
Page reviewed: August 03, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external