Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 19, Number 1—January 2013
Research

Seroepidemiologic Effects of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore

James M. TrauerComments to Author , Don Bandaranayake, Robert Booy, Mark I. Chen, Michelle Cretikos, Gary K. Dowse, Dominic E. Dwyer, Michael E. Greenberg, Q. Sue Huang, Gulam Khandaker, Jen Kok, Karen L. Laurie, Vernon J. Lee, Jodie McVernon, Scott Walter, Peter G. Markey, and for the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore Pandemic Serosurveillance Study Group
Author affiliations: Author affiliations: Melbourne Sleep Disorders Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (J.M. Trauer); Environmental Science and Research, Wallaceville, New Zealand (D. Bandaranayake, Q.S. Huang); National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia (R. Booy, G. Khandaker); National University Health System, Singapore (M.I. Chen); University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (M. Cretikos); Communicable Disease Control Directorate, Shenton Park, Western Australia, Australia (G.K. Dowse); Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead (D.E. Dwyer, J. Kok); CSL Limited, Parkville, Victoria, Australia (M.E. Greenberg); World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research in Influenza, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (K.L. Laurie); World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (V.J. Lee); Melbourne School of Population Health, Parkville (J. McVernon); Centre for Epidemiology and Research, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (S. Walter; Centre for Disease Control, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia (P.G. Markey)

Main Article

Table 5

Multivariate logistic regression models comparing specific collections on outcome of seropositivity, with exposures of region, age group, and sex, in community-based studies of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, winter 2009*

Collections compared
 No. assays included Characteristics of model
 ORs (95% CIs) for exposure variables
Comp. Ref. Restrictions to inclusion Rationale Male sex Age† Comp. group/study compared with ref. group/study
K N 493 Residence in NSW; post; age 16–78 y Stored pathology specimens survey vs. survey of blood donors (NSW) 0.98 (0.65–1.49); p = 0.93 0.74 (0.66–0.84); p<0.001 1.37 (0.89–2.09); p = 0.15
R N 204 Residence in WA; post Patients voluntarily enrolled in RCT vs. blood donors (WA) 1.05 (0.56–1.98); p = 0.88 1.06 (0.86–1.31) p = 0.56 1.48 (0.79–2.79); p = 0.22
D K 278 Pre; age ≥58 y Persons in res. care vs. community control group (NSW) 0.49 (0.31–0.79); p = 0.003 2.79 (2.01–3.86); p<0.001 0.34 (0.15–0.79); p = 0.01
M K 278 Post; age 19–77 y Persons with HIV infection vs. community control group (NSW) 1.43 (0.80–2.57); p = 0.23 0.74 (0.61–0.90); p = 0.003 1.26 (0.66–2.41); p = 0.48
Q K 192 Post; age 43–88 y Hemo. patients vs. community control group (NSW) 0.90 (0.42–1.95); p = 0.79 0.91 (0.68–1.21); p = 0.50 1.65 (0.75–3.63); p = 0.21
J N, R 316 Res. in WA; post; age 21–45 y Preg. women vs. community control group (WA) . 0.72 (0.48–1.06); p = 0.10 0.44 (0.24–0.81); p = 0.008
C B 1,316 Post; age >21 HCWs vs. community control group (NZ) 0.92 (0.70–1.22); p = 0.56 0.95 (0.88–1.03); p = 0.26 1.09 (0.83–1.42); p = 0.54
F E 1,080 Post HCWs vs. community control group (Sing.) 1.12 (0.74–1.71); p = 0.59 0.78 (0.66–0.93); p = 0.006 0.65 (0.41–1.01); p = 0.06
H E 996 Post; age 21–62 Military personnel vs. community control group (Sing.) 1.19 (0.75–1.88); p = 0.45 0.71 (0.58 – 0.85); p<0.001 0.97 (0.58–1.60); p = 0.89
G E 858 Post Res. care group vs. community control group (Sing.) 1.38 (0.89–2.16); p = 0.15 0.81 (0.68–0.96); p= 0.02 0.44 (0.22–0.90); p = 0.03
P P 1,689 Post Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders vs. nonindig. people (NT) 0.95 (0.74–1.22); p = 0.68 0.88 (0.82–0.94); p<0.001 2.67 (2.08–3.42); p<0.001
B B 1,147 Post Maori vs nonindig. people (NZ) 0.95 (0.73–1.22); p = 0.66 0.86 (0.82–0.91); p <0.001 1.17 (0.83–1.64); p = 0.38
B B 966 Post Pacific Peoples vs. nonindig. people (NZ) 1.04 (0.78–1.37); p = 0.80 0.87 (0.82–0.92);p<0.001 1.99 (1.41–2.82); p<0.001

*ORs, odds ratios; comp., comparison; ref., referent; NSW, New South Wales; post, postpandemic phase; WA, Western Australia; RCT, randomized controlled trial; pre, prepandemic phase; res., residence/residential; hemo., hemodialysis; preg., pregnant; HCWs, health care workers; NZ, New Zealand; NT, Northern Territory; nonindig., nonindigenous. The 13 regression models are displayed horizontally.
†Age considered a continuous variable with OR for each decade of increasing age.

Main Article

1A list of the group’s members can be found at the end of this article.

Page created: December 20, 2012
Page updated: December 20, 2012
Page reviewed: December 20, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external