Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base.
BACKGROUND
In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemic despite concerns about the poor quality of the literature, combining available evidence with expert opinion about the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza may lead to a more informed and widely accepted set of recommendations. We evaluated the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. Then, based on the collective evidence, we identified a set of recommendations for and against interventions that are specific to both the setting in which an intervention may be used and the pandemic phase, and which can be used by policymakers to prepare for a pandemic until scientific evidence can definitively respond to planners' needs.


METHODS
Building on reviews of past pandemics and recent historical inquiries, we evaluated the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions by combining available evidence from the literature with qualitative and quantitative expert opinion. Specifically, we reviewed the recent scientific literature regarding the prevention of human-to-human transmission of pandemic influenza, convened a meeting of experts from multiple disciplines, and elicited expert recommendation about the use of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions in a variety of settings (healthcare facilities; community-based institutions; private households) and pandemic phases (no pandemic; no US pandemic; early localized US pandemic; advanced US pandemic).


RESULTS
The literature contained a dearth of evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of most non-pharmaceutical interventions for influenza. In an effort to inform decision-making in the absence of strong scientific evidence, the experts ultimately endorsed hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, surveillance and case reporting, and rapid viral diagnosis in all settings and during all pandemic phases. They also encouraged patient and provider use of masks and other personal protective equipment as well as voluntary self-isolation of patients during all pandemic phases. Other non-pharmaceutical interventions including mask-use and other personal protective equipment for the general public, school and workplace closures early in an epidemic, and mandatory travel restrictions were rejected as likely to be ineffective, infeasible, or unacceptable to the public.


CONCLUSIONS
The demand for scientific evidence on non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for influenza is pervasive, and present policy recommendations must rely heavily on expert judgment. In the absence of a definitive science base, our assessment of the evidence identified areas for further investigation as well as non-pharmaceutical public health interventions that experts believe are likely to be beneficial, feasible and widely acceptable in an influenza pandemic.
Aledort
Julia E
JE
RAND Center for Domestic and International Health Security, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, California, USA. Julia_Aledort@rand.org
Lurie
Nicole
N
Wasserman
Jeffrey
J
Bozzette
Samuel A
SA
D003140:Communicable Disease Control / Q000379:methods*; D032921:Consensus; D004196:Disease Outbreaks / Q000517:prevention & control*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007251:Influenza, Human / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011635:Public Health Administration
Lancet. 1998 Feb 14;351(9101):467-71
9482437
JAMA. 2001 Dec 5;286(21):2711-7
11730447
Am J Infect Control. 2003 Oct;31(6):364-70
14608304
J Pediatr Health Care. 1997 Jan-Feb;11(1):26-31
9052131
Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 Mar-Apr;7(2):234-40
11294714
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Jan;12(1):81-7
16494722
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):228-31
15090107
Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Oct 15;37(8):1094-101
14523774
Commun Dis Intell. 1997 Nov 27;21(22):333-7
9409066
N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul 9;327(2):88-93
1285746
N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 22;353(25):2633-6
16371626
Lancet. 2003 May 3;361(9368):1519-20
12737864
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Mar;20(3):200-2
10100548
Am J Nurs. 1989 Jul;89(7):934-9
2735355
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Oct;30(4):542-4
3789690
Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 2):991-4
7971087
Lancet. 2005 Jul 16-22;366(9481):225-33
16023513
Pediatrics. 2005 Sep;116(3):587-94
16140697
Science. 2006 Nov 10;314(5801):929
17095681
Am J Infect Control. 2005 Mar;33(2):67-77
15761405
Emerg Infect Dis. 2003 Sep;9(9):1042-5
14519237
Am J Infect Control. 1999 Jun;27(3):258-61
10358229
Biosecur Bioterror. 2006;4(4):366-75
17238820
Am J Infect Control. 2001 Aug;29(4):207-10
11486255
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Dec;12(12):1961-4
17326953
Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Apr 1;38(7):925-31
15034821
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Jan;12(1):88-94
16494723
J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jun;30 Suppl:140-55
7560944
Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Aug;11(8):1303-5
16102326
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490
15205295
JAMA. 2003 Dec 24;290(24):3215-21
14693874
J Public Health (Oxf). 2004 Sep;26(3):288-92
15454599
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002 Mar;(47):1-11
11979732
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Apr 11;103(15):5935-40
16585506
Nature. 2005 Sep 8;437(7056):209-14
16079797
Epidemiology. 1999 May;10(3):219-27
10230828
Int J Nurs Pract. 2004 Feb;10(1):3-9
14764017
N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29;353(13):1374-85
16192482
JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1700-4
16609092
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004 Jul;23(7):675-7
15247610
Glob Public Health. 2006;1(2):178-93
19153906