Norio Sugaya

Pandemics of respiratory illness with devastating societal impact have been recognized since antiquity. This article reviews how, in the last 100 years, the response to influenza pandemics has gradually evolved from fragmented crisis response to vaccines and direct acting antivirals (DAAs).The first pandemic to make use of mass antiviral prophylaxis and treatment was in 2009. Introduction of DAAs for seasonal influenza management in 1999/2000 provided a foundation for use in the pandemic response. Lessons from the 2009 pandemic helped inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. DAAs, antibody therapies, and immune modulators may all have a role to play in minimizing the severity of disease from a pandemic virus strain. Rapid clinical studies evaluating potential therapeutic options will likely be necessary; an agile research infrastructure is a crucial element of a pandemic response capability. Preplanning different pandemic influenza scenarios and the likely treatment uncertainties will help maintain healthcare system preparedness.

Significance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are of concern, with the P.1 variants dominating in Brazil. Brazil is now seeing a record number of deaths. Here, we report that the pathogenicity in hamsters of a P.1 variant is similar to that of nonvariant SARS-CoV-2. However, it has an expanded host range as shown by its replication in mice. Prior infection with nonvariant SARS-CoV-2 strains efficiently prevented replication of the P.1 variant in the lower respiratory tract of hamsters upon reinfection. Convalescent sera from patients infected with nonvariants or sera from messenger RNA vaccinees showed comparable neutralization titers among the P.1 and previously circulating strains. These results suggest that previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccines based on the original SARS-CoV-2 will provide some protection against P.1 infection.

During influenza epidemics, Japanese clinicians routinely conduct rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) in patients with influenza-like illness, and patients with positive test results are treated with anti-influenza drugs within 48 h after the onset of illness. We assessed the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children (6 months–15 years old, N = 4243), using a test-negative case-control design based on the results of RIDTs in the 2018/19 season. The VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm and A(H3N2) was analyzed separately using an RIDT kit specifically for detecting A(H1N1)pdm09. The adjusted VE against combined influenza A (H1N1pdm and H3N2) and against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%–46%) and 74% (95% CI, 39%–89%), respectively. By contrast, the VE against non-A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza A (presumed to be H3N2) was very low at 7%. The adjusted VE for preventing hospitalization was 56% (95% CI, 16%–77%) against influenza A. The VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 was consistently high in our studies. By contrast, the VE against A(H3N2) was low not only in adults but also in children in the 2018/19 season.

During influenza epidemics, Japanese clinicians routinely perform rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) in the examination of patients who have an influenza-like illness, and patients with positive test results, including otherwise healthy individuals, are treated with anti-influenza drugs. However, it was recently reported that the sensitivity of RIDTs was extremely low in adult patients. We examined the sensitivity and specificity of an RIDT that is widely used in Japan, ImunoAce Flu (TAUNS, Shizuoka, Japan), in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The sensitivity and specificity of the ImunoAce Flu test were 97.1% (95%CI: 93.8–98.9) and 89.2% (95%CI: 84.1–93.1), respectively. The ImunoAce Flu test is designed to not only detect influenza A or B, but also to detect H1N1pdm09 with the use of an additional test kit (Linjudge FluA/pdm). Its sensitivity and specificity for A/H1N1pdm09 were 97.6% (95%CI: 87.4–99.9) and 92.6% (95%CI: 82.1–97.9), respectively. Thus, by consecutively testing patients with the ImunoAce Flu test followed by the Linjudge FluA/pdm test, we are able to diagnose whether a patient has A/H1N1pdm09 or A/H3N2 infection within a short time. The reliability of rapid test results seems to be much higher in Japan than in other countries, because approximately 90% of influenza patients are tested and treated within 48 hours after the onset of illness, when the influenza viral load in the upper respiratory tract is high. From the Japanese experience, RIDTs are sufficiently sensitive and highly useful, if patients are tested within 48 hours after the onset of illness.

The A(H1N1)pdm09 virus emerged in 2009 and continues to circulate in human populations. Recent A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, that is, A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses circulating in the post-pandemic era, can cause more or less severe infections than those caused by the initial pandemic viruses. To evaluate the changes in pathogenicity of the A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses during their continued circulation in humans, we compared the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of ten A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses isolated in Japan between 2009 and 2015, and experimentally infected mice with each virus. The severity of infection caused by these Japanese isolates ranged from milder to more severe than that caused by the prototypic pandemic strain A/California/04/2009 (CA04/09); however, specific mutations responsible for their pathogenicity have not yet been identified.

The 2014/15 influenza season in Japan was characterised by predominant influenza A(H3N2) activity; 99% of influenza A viruses detected were A(H3N2). Subclade 3C.2a viruses were the major epidemic A(H3N2) viruses, and were genetically distinct from A/New York/39/2012(H3N2) of 2014/15 vaccine strain in Japan, which was classified as clade 3C.1. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children aged 6 months to 15 years by test-negative case–control design based on influenza rapid diagnostic test. Between November 2014 and March 2015, a total of 3,752 children were enrolled: 1,633 tested positive for influenza A and 42 for influenza B, and 2,077 tested negative. Adjusted VE was 38% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 28 to 46) against influenza virus infection overall, 37% (95% CI: 27 to 45) against influenza A, and 47% (95% CI: -2 to 73) against influenza B. However, IIV was not statistically significantly effective against influenza A in infants aged 6 to 11 months or adolescents aged 13 to 15 years. VE in preventing hospitalisation for influenza A infection was 55% (95% CI: 42 to 64). Trivalent IIV that included A/New York/39/2012(H3N2) was effective against drifted influenza A(H3N2) virus, although vaccine mismatch resulted in low VE.

We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza in children 6 months to 15 years of age in 22 hospitals in Japan during the 2013–14 season. Our study was conducted according to a test-negative case-control design based on influenza rapid diagnostic test (IRDT) results. Outpatients who came to our clinics with a fever of 38°C or over and had undergone an IRDT were enrolled in this study. Patients with positive IRDT results were recorded as cases, and patients with negative results were recorded as controls. Between November 2013 and March 2014, a total of 4727 pediatric patients (6 months to 15 years of age) were enrolled: 876 were positive for influenza A, 66 for A(H1N1)pdm09 and in the other 810 the subtype was unknown; 1405 were positive for influenza B; and 2445 were negative for influenza. Overall VE was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39–52). Adjusted VE against influenza A, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza B was 63% (95% CI, 56–69), 77% (95% CI, 59–87), and 26% (95% CI, 14–36), respectively. Influenza vaccine was not effective against either influenza A or influenza B in infants 6 to 11 months of age. Two doses of influenza vaccine provided better protection against influenza A infection than a single dose did. VE against hospitalization influenza A infection was 76%. Influenza vaccine was effective against influenza A, especially against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, but was much less effective against influenza B.