Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020
Policy Review
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—International Travel-Related Measures
Table 2
Overall summary of effectiveness international travel-related non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing influenza transmission
Objective | Screening travelers | Travel restriction | Border closure |
---|---|---|---|
Delaying introduction of case |
• Likely delay by 4 d with detection rate of 37% travelers identified from the port of entry at the border (10)*
• Associated with mean additional delay of case importation (7–12 d, 95% CI 0–30days, 2009 H1N1 pandemic) (11)*
• Might delay 3 d reaching 20 infected cases at risk-country (R0 = 1.5 with 400 travelers/day) (12)
• Might delay importation of infected case-patientss (21–1555 d, 2009 H1N1 pandemic) (13) |
• The mean time delays for exporting the infected case is 5.3 d (80% restriction), 11.7 d (90%), and 131.7 d (99%) (R0 = 1.8 with implementation of 20 d from first case occurred) (20)*
• Among 17 Pacific Island countries and territories, with 99% restriction, 6 countries (with R0 = 1.5) and 4–5 countries (with R0 >2.25) would likely escape the pandemic influenza with >50% probability (implemented at very beginning of pandemic) (21)
• Full children-selective travel restriction might delay an epidemic by 19–35 d (R0 = 1.2), and less than 15 d (R0 = 1.6 and 2.0, implemented after pandemic declared) (22)
• Mean delay of the first imported case in influenza-unaffected countries was estimated <3 d (40% restriction), and ≈2 weeks (90% restriction) with R0 = 1.7 and implementation after pandemic declared (23)
• Likely delay interval between first global case and the importation of the first cases by 7–37 d (R0 = 1.4, 1.7, or 2; 90% or 99% restriction; implemented 30 d after first global case occurrence) (24)
• Might delay the first passage time of infected case-patient from 18 d to 31 d (outbreak originated from Hong Kong) and from 7 d to 27 d (from Sydney) with R0 = 1.7 (25)
• A 99% restriction of air-only, both air and land, and all modes of transportation might delay the interval between the first imported case and 100 infected case-patients passed the border by a week, 1–2 weeks, and 2 mo, respectively (R0 = 1.4; implemented on the day after the first global case reported) (26) |
• Arrival of influenza pandemic was significantly delayed and reduced compare with the other Pacific Island Jurisdictions (29)* |
Delaying the epidemic peak |
• Not available |
• Imported infections might delay the epidemic peak of the United States by 1.5 wks (90% restriction), 3 wks (99%), or 6 wks (99.9%) with R0 = 1.4–2.0 (implemented 30 d into global pandemic) (19)
• Might delay pandemic peak by 6–39 d (R0 = 1.4, 1.7, or 2; 90% or 99% restriction; implemented 30 d after first global case occurrence) (24)
• Might delay epidemic peak by 2 wks (99% air travel restriction), 3.5 wks (99% air and land travel restriction), and 12 wks (99% all mode of transportation) with R0 = 1.4 (26)
• Might delay median epidemic peak by 7–102 d (R0 = 1.8–5; 50%–99.9% restriction) (27)
• Peak of influenza mortality delayed by 2 wks (27% international flight volume reduction) (28) |
• Not available |
Reducing the size of the peak | • Not available | • Not available | • Not available |
*Epidemiology study.
References
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. How to be ready for the next influenza pandemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:697. DOI
- Smith RD, Keogh-Brown MR, Barnett T, Tait J. The economy-wide impact of pandemic influenza on the UK: a computable general equilibrium modelling experiment. BMJ. 2009;339(nov19 1):b4571.
- World Health Organization. Draft thirteenth general programme of work, 2019–2023. 2018 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_4-en.pdf
- Bell D, Nicoll A, Fukuda K, Horby P, Monto A, Hayden F, et al.; World Health Organization Writing Group. Non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza, national and community measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:88–94.PubMed
- European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola virus disease: entry and exit screening measures. 2014 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/infection-prevention-and-control-measures-ebola-virus-disease-entry-and-exit
- US Homeland Security Council. National strategy for pandemic influenza implementation plan. 2006 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pandemic-influenza-implementation.pdf
- World Health Organization. Comparative analysis of national pandemic influenza preparedness plans. 2011 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://www.who.int/influenza/resources/documents/comparative_analysis_php_2011_en.pdf
- World Health Organization. Ethical consideration in developing a public health response to pandemic influenza. 2007 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_EPR_GIP_2007_2c.pdf
- World Health Organization. Guidance for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks. 2016 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/250580
- World Health Organization. Pandemic influenza risk management. 2017 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/pandemic/influenza_risk_management
- World Health Organization. International Health Regulations (2005), 3rd edition. 2016 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/246107
Page created: April 16, 2020
Page updated: April 16, 2020
Page reviewed: April 16, 2020
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.