Department of Paediatrics, Charité University Berlin, Germany; Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Mar;25(3):380.e9-380.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.05.023. Epub 2018 Jun 12.
Hospital-based surveillance of influenza and acute respiratory infections relies on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes and hospital laboratory reports (Standard-of-Care). It is unclear how many cases are missed with either method, i.e. remain undiagnosed/coded as influenza and other respiratory virus infections. Various influenza-like illness (ILI) definitions co-exist with little guidance on how to use them. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of standard surveillance methods with a prospective quality management (QM) programme at a Berlin children's hospital with the Robert Koch Institute.
Independent from routine care, all patients fulfilling pre-defined ILI-criteria (QM-ILI) participated in the QM programme. A separate QM team conducted standardized clinical assessments and collected nasopharyngeal specimens for blinded real-time quantitative PCR for influenza A/B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, rhinovirus and human metapneumovirus.
Among 6073 individuals with ILI qualifying for the QM programme, only 8.7% (528/6073) would have undergone virus diagnostics during Standard-of-Care. Surveillance based on ICD codes would have missed 61% (359/587) of influenza diagnoses. Of baseline ICD codes, 53.2% (2811/5282) were non-specific, most commonly J06 ('acute upper respiratory infection'). Comparison of stakeholder case definitions revealed that QM-ILI and the WHO ILI case definition showed the highest overall sensitivities (84%-97% and 45%-68%, respectively) and the CDC ILI definition had the highest sensitivity for influenza infections (36%, 95% CI 31.4-40.8 for influenza A and 48%, 95% CI 40.5-54.7 for influenza B).
Disease-burden estimates and surveillance should account for the underreporting of cases in routine care. Future studies should explore the effect of ILI screening and surveillance in various age groups and settings. Diagnostic algorithms should be based on the WHO ILI case definition combined with targeted testing.
基于国际疾病分类(ICD)编码和医院实验室报告(标准护理)的医院流感和急性呼吸道感染监测,并不清楚这两种方法各遗漏了多少病例,即仍未诊断/编码为流感和其他呼吸道病毒感染。各种流感样疾病(ILI)定义并存,但如何使用这些定义的指导很少。我们将柏林一家儿童医院与罗伯特·科赫研究所的标准监测方法与前瞻性质量管理(QM)计划进行了比较。
独立于常规护理,所有符合预先定义的 ILI 标准(QM-ILI)的患者都参加了 QM 计划。一个单独的 QM 团队进行了标准化的临床评估,并收集了鼻咽标本,用于进行盲法实时定量 PCR,以检测流感 A/B 病毒、呼吸道合胞病毒、腺病毒、鼻病毒和人偏肺病毒。
在符合 QM 计划的 6073 名 ILI 患者中,只有 8.7%(528/6073)在标准护理期间接受了病毒诊断。基于 ICD 编码的监测将错过 61%(359/587)的流感诊断。在基线 ICD 编码中,53.2%(2811/5282)是非特异性的,最常见的是 J06(“急性上呼吸道感染”)。利益相关者病例定义的比较表明,QM-ILI 和世界卫生组织 ILI 病例定义具有最高的总体敏感性(分别为 84%-97%和 45%-68%),而 CDC ILI 定义对流感感染具有最高的敏感性(36%,95%CI 31.4-40.8 为流感 A,48%,95%CI 40.5-54.7 为流感 B)。
疾病负担估计和监测应考虑到常规护理中病例报告的不足。未来的研究应探讨在不同年龄组和环境中实施 ILI 筛查和监测的效果。诊断算法应基于世界卫生组织 ILI 病例定义,并结合针对性检测。