Planning for pandemics: Lessons from the past decade

It is now 10 years since the disease we now know as SARS-severe acute respiratory syndrome-caused more than 700 deaths around the world and made more than 8,000 people ill. More recently, in 2009 the global community experienced the first influenza pandemic of the 21st century-the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This paper analyses the major developments in international public health law relating to infectious diseases in the period since SARS and considers their implications for pandemic planning.

Antimicrobial treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

Bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis is characterized by chronic wet or productive cough, recurrent exacerbations and irreversible bronchial dilatation. After antibiotics and vaccines became available and living standards in affluent countries improved, its resulting reduced prevalence meant bronchiectasis was considered an ‘orphan disease’. This perception has changed recently with increasing use of CT scans to diagnose bronchiectasis, including in those with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or ‘difficult to control’ asthma, and adds to its already known importance in non-affluent countries and disadvantaged Indigenous communities. Following years of neglect, there is renewed interest in identifying the pathogenetic mechanisms of bronchiectasis, including the role of infection, and conducting clinical trials. This is providing much needed evidence to guide antimicrobial therapy, which has relied previously upon extrapolating treatments used in cystic fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. While many knowledge gaps and management challenges remain, the future is improving for patients with bronchiectasis.

Acute infectious diarrhea lessons learned from the past?

The Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (JPGN) has been at the forefront of many of the seminal advances into research on infectious diarrhea. In 1982, the first article of the JPGN was entitled “Oral Therapy for Dehydration in Diarrheal Diseases as a Global Problem” and has set the scene for several thousand subsequent articles. In his initial editorial, Finberg (1) posed several questions, which still have relevance 30 years later: 1. When is oral rehydration not appropriate, if ever? 2. What should be the composition of the oral solution and should there be more than one? 3. Should recommended practice be different in lesser-developed countries from those in developed countries? 4. Should the salts and glucose be prepackaged or should home supplies be used by instructed mothers? 5. When should standard feedings be resumed?

The significance of controlled conditions in lentiviral vector titration and in the use of multiplicity of infection (MOI) for predicting gene transfer events

Background: Although lentiviral vectors have been widely used for in vitro and in vivo gene therapy researches, there have been few studies systematically examining various conditions that may affect the determination of the number of viable vector particles in a vector preparation and the use of Multiplicity of Infection (MOI) as a parameter for the prediction of gene transfer events. Methods: Lentiviral vectors encoding a marker gene were packaged and supernatants concentrated. The number of viable vector particles was determined by in vitro transduction and fluorescent microscopy and FACs analyses. Various factors that may affect the transduction process, such as vector inoculum volume, target cell number and type, vector decay, variable vector - target cell contact and adsorption periods were studied. MOI between 0-32 was assessed on commonly used cell lines as well as a new cell line. Results: We demonstrated that the resulting values of lentiviral vector titre varied with changes of conditions in the transduction process, including inoculum volume of the vector, the type and number of target cells, vector stability and the length of period of the vector adsorption to target cells. Vector inoculum and the number of target cells determine the frequencies of gene transfer event, although not proportionally. Vector exposure time to target cells also influenced transduction results. Varying these parameters resulted in a greater than 50-fold differences in the vector titre from the same vector stock. Commonly used cell lines in vector titration were less sensitive to lentiviral vector-mediated gene transfer than a new cell line, FRL 19. Within 0-32 of MOI used transducing four different cell lines, the higher the MOI applied, the higher the efficiency of gene transfer obtained. Conclusion: Several variables in the transduction process affected in in vitro vector titration and resulted in vastly different values from the same vector stock, thus complicating the use of MOI for predicting gene transfer events. Commonly used target cell lines underestimated vector titre. However, within a certain range of MOI, it is possible that, if strictly controlled conditions are observed in the vector titration process, including the use of a sensitive cell line, such as FRL 19 for vector titration, lentivector-mediated gene transfer events could be predicted. © 2004 Zhang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Development of a vaccine for Chlamydia trachomatis: Challenges and current progress

Chlamydia trachomatis remains an enigmatic bacterial pathogen with no vaccine yet available to treat human ocular and genital tract infections caused by tissue-tropic serovars of the organism. Globally, it is the leading cause of preventable blindness as well as the leading cause of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. The pathogen has a range of virulence factors that enable it to successfully evade both the innate and adaptive immune system of the host. The host immune system, although protective, paradoxically is also associated closely with the pathologies of trachoma and pelvic inflammatory disease – disease sequelae of some chlamydial infections and reinfections in some genetically susceptible hosts. In this review, we focus on what is known currently about the pathogenesis of ocular and genital infections caused by this mucosal pathogen. We also discuss novel insights into the pathogenesis of infections caused by the genital and ocular serovars of C. trachomatis, including a discussion of both pathogen and host factors, such as the human microbiota at these mucosal sites as well as the current immunological challenges facing vaccine development. Finally, we discuss the current progress toward development of a vaccine against C. trachomatis. A wide range of recombinant protein antigens are being identified and, hence, are available for vaccine trials. A plasmid-free live strain has recently been produced and evaluated in the mouse (Chlamydia muridarum) and monkey (C. trachomatis) models. The data for ocular infections in the monkey model was particularly encouraging, although the path to regulatory approval of a live vaccine is still uncertain. While still a major challenge, vaccines for ocular and genital C. trachomatis infections are looking more promising.

Beyond vaccination: The benefits of having a pharmacist behind the syringe

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. Aim: An aim of the pilot was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records and 8737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of participants lived with a chronic illness, and 22.5% took concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the influenza vaccination, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the pharmacist vaccination service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Preparing pharmacists to vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot

Background: In November 2013, the Queensland Department of Health announced its intention to pilot pharmacist vaccination for influenza in the 2014 flu season. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Queensland Branch was tasked with developing a training program for the pilot. Aim: The aim was to develop, implement and evaluate a training program for pharmacist vaccination relevant to the needs of Australian pharmacists. Method: Background content was delivered via two online modules, while training for practical injection skills and anaphylaxis management were provided in a face-to-face workshop. Participants were required to complete the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) anaphylaxis e-training for pharmacists, and hold a current First-Aid and CPR certificate. On completion of the course, pharmacists were asked to evaluate the training program. Results: Overall, 157 pharmacists across Queensland completed the training. Participants rated the training highly on a 5-point Likert scale (>4.4 for all fields) for relevance to practice, comfort with the skill, confidence to do the task and relevance of the learning objectives to the training. Qualitative feedback indicated that a key component of the training was the ability to practice injections on each other. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate participants felt prepared for vaccination following completion of the training program, as reflected in the high level of confidence reported. A follow-up post-pilot will explore if this confidence was translated into practice during the implementation phase.

Who was vaccinated in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. Aim: The aim was to explore demographics of people vaccinated by a pharmacist, and their satisfaction with the service. Method: Demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software, and participants completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ after their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records were analysed and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure who had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the state.

Who did pharmacists vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Introduction: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) began in April 2014, and was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. An aim of QPIP was to investigate participants’ satisfaction with the service, and their overall experience with the service. Method: Patient demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. After receiving the influenza vaccine from the pharmacist, participants were asked to complete a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction questionnaire’. Results: A total of 10,889 participants received influenza vaccinations from a pharmacist, and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Almost half of the participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%), and most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 7% were unsure which healthcare professional had vaccinated them, and 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination. It was also noteworthy that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination under the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have paved the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the country. The pilot has now been expanded to include the administration of vaccinations for measles and pertussis.

Pharmacist vaccination – an Australian first, but what was the impact?

Introduction/background/issues The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot is Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. The pilot ran between April 1st 2014 and August 31st 2014, with pharmacists administering influenza vaccination during the flu season. The aim of this work was to investigate the benefits of trained registered pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results/discussions A total of 10,889 participant records were analysed. Females accounted for 63% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure which health professional had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Over 8,000 participants took part in the post-vaccination survey, 93% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future while 94% would recommend this service to other people. The remaining 7% and 6% respectively had omitted to fill in those questions. Conclusions/implications These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across Australia. Key message • Scope of practice and ability for health providers like pharmacists to provide services such as vaccination in primary care. • New service delivery to improve access to service, and increase immunisation rates.

The health professional behind the syringe: Benefits of a pharmacist vaccination program

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. An aim of QPIP was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10,889 participant records and 8,737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of the participants reported living with a chronic illness, and 22.5% were taking concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the vaccine, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the QPIP service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Human papillomavirus infection and vaccination: Awareness and knowledge of HPV and acceptability of HPV vaccine among mothers of teenage daughters in Weihai, Shandong, China

In preparation for the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, we investigated awareness and knowledge of HPV/HPV vaccine and potential acceptability to HPV vaccine among mothers with a teenage daughter in Weihai, Shandong, China. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2013 with a sample of 1850 mothers who had a daughter (aged 9–17 years) attending primary, junior and senior high schools. In the final sample (N = 1578, response rate 85.30%), awareness of HPV was reported by 305 (19.32%) mothers. Awareness varied significantly by daughter’s age (P<0.01), mother’s education level (P<0.01), mother’s occupation (P<0.01), household income (P<0.01) and residence type (P<0.01). Knowledge about HPV/HPV vaccine was poor with a mean total score of 3.56 (SD = 2.40) out of a possible score of 13. Mothers with a higher education level reported higher levels of knowledge (P = 0.02). Slightly more than one-fourth (26.49%) of mothers expressed their potential acceptability of HPV vaccine for their daughters. Acceptability increased along with increased daughters’ age (P<0.01), household income (P<0.01) and knowledge level (P<0.01). House wives and unemployed mothers had the highest acceptability (P<0.01). The most common reasons for not accepting HPV vaccination were “My daughter is too young to have risk of cervical cancer (30.95%)”, “The vaccine has not been widely used, and the decision will be made after it is widely used (24.91%)”, “Worry about the safety of the vaccine (22.85%)”. Awareness and knowledge of HPV/HPV vaccines are poor and HPV vaccine acceptability is low among these Chinese mothers. These results may help inform appropriate health education programs in this population.

Risk assessment for airborne infectious diseases between natural ventilation and split-system air conditioner in a university classroom

Indoor air quality is a critical factor in the classroom due to high people concentration in a unique space. Indoor air pollutant might increase the chance of both long and short-term health problems among students and staff, reduce the productivity of teachers and degrade the student’s learning environment and comfort. Adequate air distribution strategies may reduce risk of infection in classroom. So, the purpose of air distribution systems in a classroom is not only to maximize conditions for thermal comfort, but also to remove indoor contaminants. Natural ventilation has the potential to play a significant role in achieving improvements in IAQ. The present study compares the risk of airborne infection between Natural Ventilation (opening windows and doors) and a Split-System Air Conditioner in a university classroom. The Wells-Riley model was used to predict the risk of indoor airborne transmission of infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and tuberculosis. For each case, the air exchange rate was measured using a CO2 tracer gas technique. It was found that opening windows and doors provided an air exchange rate of 2.3 air changes/hour (ACH), while with the Split System it was 0.6 ACH. The risk of airborne infection ranged between 4.24 to 30.86 % when using the Natural Ventilation and between 8.99 to 43.19% when using the Split System. The difference of airborne infection risk between the Split System and the Natural Ventilation ranged from 47 to 56%. Opening windows and doors maximize Natural Ventilation so that the risk of airborne contagion is much lower than with Split System.

Vaccination status of Australian community pharmacy

From the moment Queensland's Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeannette Young, laid down the gauntlet to Queensland pharmacists kicking off the Queensland Pharmacists Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) for the 2014 influenza season, community pharmacy in Australia was never going to be the same.