Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1997 Apr;47(417):217–220.

Influenza and influenza-like illness in general practice: drawing lessons for surveillance from a pilot study in Paris, France.

F Carrat 1, A Tachet 1, B Housset 1, A J Valleron 1, C Rouzioux 1
PMCID: PMC1312945  PMID: 9196963

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are two types of inflenza surveillance techniques: qualitative laboratory-based surveillance and quantitative medical practice-based surveillance. The former is of great importance in isolating new strains of the virus, which helps in the decision-making process concerning the composition of the vaccine, and the latter provides estimates of morbidity, mortality or economic impact as a result of infection from the influenza virus. Rapid methods such as immunoflourescence (IF) or immunocapture assays (ICA) are now available for diagnosis of influenza infections. However, little is known about the use of these methods for influenza surveillance purposes. AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility of a rapid influenza diagnosis in ambulatory conditions, and to investigate the therapeutical outcomes of patients suffering from influenza-like illness (ILI) in relation to the virological diagnoses. METHOD: During the 1994-1995 influenza season, 130 patients presenting with ILI symptoms (< 36 hours) to 33 general practitioners (GPs) were included in a prospective study. Two nasal swabs and one throat swab per patient were collected and sent to the laboratory within 12 hours. Information concerning therapeutical outcomes was recorded during examination. Specimens were analysed using the immunofluorescence (IF) method and antigen immunocapture assay (ICA). RESULTS: Sixteen influenza A (12%) and 19 influenza B (15%) infections were diagnosed. The overall rate of influenza positive specimens was 17% in the pre-epidemic period and 31% during the epidemic (P = 0.1). The rates of usable specimens for IF assay, nasal ICA and throat ICA were 46%, 100% and 99% respectively. The combination of these three collections ensured a highly sensitive influenza virological diagnosis. There were no differences in therapeutical outcomes between the influenza positive and negative cases. The GPs prescribed antibiotics in 60% of the cases for a mean duration of 7 days (+/- 1.2). The mean duration of sick leave was 3.4 days (+/- 1.6). Twelve patients (four influenza positive, eight influenza negative) had been vaccinated at the beginning of the winter. The practitioner's intuition concerning 'which patient should be tested for influenza virus' did not prove useful in improving the aptness of virological diagnoses in the field of influenza surveillance. CONCLUSION: The only way to estimate the true impact of influenza is to carry out a systematic virological sampling based on a sensitive clinical definition and using sensitive laboratory methods.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (44.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barker W. H., Menegus M. A., Hall C. B., Betts R. F., Freundlich C. B., Long C. E., O'Brien D. H., Weiner L. B., Cunningham C., Bonville C. A. Communitywide laboratory-based influenza surveillance focused on older persons, 1989-1992. Am J Prev Med. 1995 May-Jun;11(3):149–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chomel J. J., Thouvenot D., Onno M., Kaiser C., Gourreau J. M., Aymard M. Rapid diagnosis of influenza infection of NP antigen using an immunocapture ELISA test. J Virol Methods. 1989 Jul;25(1):81–91. doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(89)90102-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Costagliola D., Flahault A., Galinec D., Garnerin P., Menares J., Valleron A. J. A routine tool for detection and assessment of epidemics of influenza-like syndromes in France. Am J Public Health. 1991 Jan;81(1):97–99. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.1.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cox N. J., Brammer T. L., Regnery H. L. Influenza: global surveillance for epidemic and pandemic variants. Eur J Epidemiol. 1994 Aug;10(4):467–470. doi: 10.1007/BF01719678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Döller G., Schuy W., Tjhen K. Y., Stekeler B., Gerth H. J. Direct detection of influenza virus antigen in nasopharyngeal specimens by direct enzyme immunoassay in comparison with quantitating virus shedding. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Apr;30(4):866–869. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.4.866-869.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Everett M. T. The 'flu-like illness. Practitioner. 1977 Nov;219(1313):699–711. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fleming D. M., Chakraverty P., Sadler C., Litton P. Combined clinical and virological surveillance of influenza in winters of 1992 and 1993-4. BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):290–291. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Glezen W. P. Serious morbidity and mortality associated with influenza epidemics. Epidemiol Rev. 1982;4:25–44. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grandien M., Pettersson C. A., Gardner P. S., Linde A., Stanton A. Rapid viral diagnosis of acute respiratory infections: comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the immunofluorescence technique for detection of viral antigens in nasopharyngeal secretions. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Nov;22(5):757–760. doi: 10.1128/jcm.22.5.757-760.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Levy E., Levy P. La vaccination contre la grippe des personnes d'âge actif (25-64 ans): une étude coût-bénéfice. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1992;40(5):285–295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Monto A. S., Ohmit S. E., Margulies J. R., Talsma A. Medical practice-based influenza surveillance: viral prevalence and assessment of morbidity. Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Mar 15;141(6):502–506. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Monto A. S. Studies of the community and family: acute respiratory illness and infection. Epidemiol Rev. 1994;16(2):351–373. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Monto A. S., Sullivan K. M. Acute respiratory illness in the community. Frequency of illness and the agents involved. Epidemiol Infect. 1993 Feb;110(1):145–160. doi: 10.1017/s0950268800050779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ordobás M. A., Zorrilla B., Arias P. Influenza in Madrid, Spain, 1991-92: validity of the sentinel network. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Aug;49 (Suppl 1):14–16. doi: 10.1136/jech.49.suppl_1.14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Szecsenyi J., Uphoff H., Ley S., Brede H. D. Influenza surveillance: experiences from establishing a sentinel surveillance system in Germany. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Aug;49 (Suppl 1):9–13. doi: 10.1136/jech.49.suppl_1.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. van Casteren V., Leurquin P. Eurosentinel: development of an international sentinel network of general practitioners. Methods Inf Med. 1992 Jun;31(2):147–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES