Cargando…

Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9

BACKGROUND: The ecology of influenza may be more complex than is usually assumed. For example, despite multiple waves in the influenza pandemic of 1918-19, many people in urban locations were apparently unaffected. Were they unexposed, or protected by pre-existing cross-immunity in the first wave, b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathews, John D, McBryde, Emma S, McVernon, Jodie, Pallaghy, Paul K, McCaw, James M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497585
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-128
_version_ 1782182896677683200
author Mathews, John D
McBryde, Emma S
McVernon, Jodie
Pallaghy, Paul K
McCaw, James M
author_facet Mathews, John D
McBryde, Emma S
McVernon, Jodie
Pallaghy, Paul K
McCaw, James M
author_sort Mathews, John D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The ecology of influenza may be more complex than is usually assumed. For example, despite multiple waves in the influenza pandemic of 1918-19, many people in urban locations were apparently unaffected. Were they unexposed, or protected by pre-existing cross-immunity in the first wave, by acquired immunity in later waves, or were their infections asymptomatic? METHODS: We modelled all these possibilities to estimate parameters to best explain patterns of repeat attacks in 24,706 individuals potentially exposed to summer, autumn and winter waves in 12 English populations during the 1918-9 pandemic. RESULTS: Before the summer wave, we estimated that only 52% of persons (95% credibility estimates 41-66%) were susceptible, with the remainder protected by prior immunity. Most people were exposed, as virus transmissibility was high with R(0 )credibility estimates of 3.10-6.74. Because of prior immunity, estimates of effective R at the start of the summer wave were lower at 1.57-3.96. Only 25-66% of exposed and susceptible persons reported symptoms. After each wave, 33-65% of protected persons became susceptible again before the next wave through waning immunity or antigenic drift. Estimated rates of prior immunity were less in younger populations (19-59%) than in adult populations (38-66%), and tended to lapse more frequently in the young (49-92%) than in adults (34-76%). CONCLUSIONS: Our model for pandemic influenza in 1918-9 suggests that pre-existing immune protection, presumably induced by prior exposure to seasonal influenza, may have limited the pandemic attack-rate in urban populations, while the waning of that protection likely contributed to recurrence of pandemic waves in exposed cities. In contrast, in isolated populations, pandemic attack rates in 1918-9 were much higher than in cities, presumably because prior immunity was less in populations with infrequent prior exposure to seasonal influenza. Although these conclusions cannot be verified by direct measurements of historical immune mechanisms, our modelling inferences from 1918-9 suggest that the spread of the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic has also been limited by immunity from prior exposure to seasonal influenza. Components of that immunity, which are measurable, may be short-lived, and not necessarily correlated with levels of HI antibody.
format Text
id pubmed-2891754
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28917542010-06-25 Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9 Mathews, John D McBryde, Emma S McVernon, Jodie Pallaghy, Paul K McCaw, James M BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: The ecology of influenza may be more complex than is usually assumed. For example, despite multiple waves in the influenza pandemic of 1918-19, many people in urban locations were apparently unaffected. Were they unexposed, or protected by pre-existing cross-immunity in the first wave, by acquired immunity in later waves, or were their infections asymptomatic? METHODS: We modelled all these possibilities to estimate parameters to best explain patterns of repeat attacks in 24,706 individuals potentially exposed to summer, autumn and winter waves in 12 English populations during the 1918-9 pandemic. RESULTS: Before the summer wave, we estimated that only 52% of persons (95% credibility estimates 41-66%) were susceptible, with the remainder protected by prior immunity. Most people were exposed, as virus transmissibility was high with R(0 )credibility estimates of 3.10-6.74. Because of prior immunity, estimates of effective R at the start of the summer wave were lower at 1.57-3.96. Only 25-66% of exposed and susceptible persons reported symptoms. After each wave, 33-65% of protected persons became susceptible again before the next wave through waning immunity or antigenic drift. Estimated rates of prior immunity were less in younger populations (19-59%) than in adult populations (38-66%), and tended to lapse more frequently in the young (49-92%) than in adults (34-76%). CONCLUSIONS: Our model for pandemic influenza in 1918-9 suggests that pre-existing immune protection, presumably induced by prior exposure to seasonal influenza, may have limited the pandemic attack-rate in urban populations, while the waning of that protection likely contributed to recurrence of pandemic waves in exposed cities. In contrast, in isolated populations, pandemic attack rates in 1918-9 were much higher than in cities, presumably because prior immunity was less in populations with infrequent prior exposure to seasonal influenza. Although these conclusions cannot be verified by direct measurements of historical immune mechanisms, our modelling inferences from 1918-9 suggest that the spread of the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic has also been limited by immunity from prior exposure to seasonal influenza. Components of that immunity, which are measurable, may be short-lived, and not necessarily correlated with levels of HI antibody. BioMed Central 2010-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC2891754/ /pubmed/20497585 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-128 Text en Copyright ©2010 Mathews et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mathews, John D
McBryde, Emma S
McVernon, Jodie
Pallaghy, Paul K
McCaw, James M
Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title_full Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title_fullStr Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title_full_unstemmed Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title_short Prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
title_sort prior immunity helps to explain wave-like behaviour of pandemic influenza in 1918-9
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497585
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-128
work_keys_str_mv AT mathewsjohnd priorimmunityhelpstoexplainwavelikebehaviourofpandemicinfluenzain19189
AT mcbrydeemmas priorimmunityhelpstoexplainwavelikebehaviourofpandemicinfluenzain19189
AT mcvernonjodie priorimmunityhelpstoexplainwavelikebehaviourofpandemicinfluenzain19189
AT pallaghypaulk priorimmunityhelpstoexplainwavelikebehaviourofpandemicinfluenzain19189
AT mccawjamesm priorimmunityhelpstoexplainwavelikebehaviourofpandemicinfluenzain19189