Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, G012, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4N1.
Vaccine. 2014 Apr 17;32(19):2143-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.02.059. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
To assess the utility of "influenza-like illness" (ILI) and whether it appropriately tests influenza vaccine effectiveness.
The WHO and CDC definitions of "influenza-like illness" are similar. However many studies use other definitions, some not specifying a temperature and requiring specific respiratory and/or systemic symptoms, making many samples non-comparable. Most ILI studies find less than 25% of cases are RT-PCR-positive, those which test for other viruses and bacteria usually find multiple other pathogens, and most identify no pathogen in about 50% of cases. ILI symptom and symptom combinations do not have high sensitivity or specificity in identifying PCR-positive influenza cases. Rapid influenza diagnostic tests are increasingly used to screen ILI cases and they have low sensitivity and high specificity when compared to RT-PCR in identifying influenza.
The working diagnosis of ILI presumes influenza may be involved until proven otherwise. Health care workers would benefit by renaming the WHO and CDC ILI symptoms and signs as "acute respiratory illness" and also using the WHO acute severe respiratory illness definition if the illness is severe and meets this criterion. This renaming would shift attention to identify the viral and bacterial pathogens in cases and epidemics, identify new pathogens, implement vaccination plans appropriate to the identified pathogens, and estimate workload during the viral season. Randomised controlled trials testing the effectiveness of influenza vaccine require all participants to be assessed by a gold standard (RT-PCR). ILI has no role in measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness. ILI is well established in the literature and in the operational definition of many surveillance databases and its imprecise definition may be inhibiting progress in research and treatment. The current ILI definition could with benefit be renamed "acute respiratory illness," with additional definitions for "severe acute respiratory illness" (SARI) with RT-PCR testing for pathogens to facilitate prevention and treatment.
评估“流感样疾病”(ILI)的效用,以及它是否能适当检测流感疫苗的效果。
世界卫生组织(WHO)和疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)对“流感样疾病”的定义相似。然而,许多研究使用其他定义,有些未指定体温,且需要特定的呼吸道和/或全身症状,这使得许多样本无法进行比较。大多数 ILI 研究发现,不到 25%的病例是 RT-PCR 阳性的,那些检测其他病毒和细菌的研究通常会发现多种其他病原体,且约 50%的病例无法确定病原体。ILI 症状和症状组合在识别 PCR 阳性流感病例方面没有高敏感性或特异性。快速流感诊断测试越来越多地用于筛选 ILI 病例,与 RT-PCR 相比,它们在识别流感方面具有较低的敏感性和较高的特异性。
ILI 的临床诊断假定可能涉及流感,直到有其他证据证明。如果疾病严重且符合这一标准,卫生保健工作者将受益于将世界卫生组织和疾病控制与预防中心的 ILI 症状和体征重新命名为“急性呼吸道疾病”,并使用世界卫生组织急性严重呼吸道疾病的定义。这种重新命名将把注意力转移到识别病例和流行中的病毒和细菌病原体上,识别新的病原体,实施针对已识别病原体的疫苗接种计划,并估计病毒季节的工作量。随机对照试验测试流感疫苗的有效性需要所有参与者都通过金标准(RT-PCR)进行评估。ILI 在衡量流感疫苗效果方面没有作用。ILI 在文献和许多监测数据库的操作定义中已经确立,其不精确的定义可能会阻碍研究和治疗的进展。目前的 ILI 定义可以受益于重新命名为“急性呼吸道疾病”,并增加对“严重急性呼吸道疾病”(SARI)的定义,包括对病原体进行 RT-PCR 检测,以促进预防和治疗。