Recent media attention has focused on the findings of a Canadian study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which profiled the ugly face of H1N1. This study, which reported on otherwise healthy women having died from this disease in Canadian intensive care units (some pregnant, many others not), made headlines last week.
It’s important to reflect on a key limitation of this study: it was not intended to look at the population as a whole. Instead, it described the most severe cases observed and treated in a referral centre with a huge catchment area (most of Manitoba, and some of Northwestern Ontario). Many “otherwise healthy” patients had underlying risk factors for a bad outcome, such as obesity or asthma. So to extrapolate from this study that otherwise healthy women are at high risk of severe disease, or that women are at greater risk than men, is nothing more than misleading.
While the virus is making a comeback in British Columbia, flu activity is remarkably cool in Canada overall -– so far, the second wave has no semblance of 1918, 1957, or even the mild pandemic of 1968. (I often wonder if the WHO will ultimately downgrade the current pandemic from “moderate” to “mild”, as it continues to underperform these previous pandemics, some of which have been called “mild”). No mass absenteeism has been observed with the current second wave, and despite dire predictions to the contrary, no one has been left to languish in hospital hallways for want of intensive unit care. Fewer than a dozen Canadians have died during the second wave, but these are early days still.
The Australians just finished facing H1N1 “full blast” without a vaccine in hand. While a few unfortunate expectant Australian women did succumb to H1N1, the actual numbers were not staggering, even if slightly worse than seasonal flu. Yes, a vaccine, had it been available to Australians during their first wave, may have averted some of these deaths. For the same reason, it follows that the vaccine should be available sooner rather than later for Canadians to address the current wave. It takes two weeks for the vaccine to protect, so the vaccine needs to get off the shelves and into peoples arms as soon as possible.
All the same, there’s more good news out there: the virus has not changed! It has not acquired new genes to make it more virulent or deadly. It has not “drifted” from its original form to render current vaccine production ineffectual. Despite sporadic reports of resistance to antivirals (specifically Tamiflu®), resistance has not become widespread. Good stewardship and the limited use of antivirals keeps it as a viable option to be deployed for severely afflicted individuals at this time.
So what should pregnant women do? It’s still not clear. We also don’t know if expectant mothers will have access to the non-adjuvant form of the vaccine at the same time that the adjuvant form becomes available.
Option A: Do nothing. Although pregnant women are at four times the risk of severe H1N1 disease as compared with the general population, the decision to receive the vaccine still depends on the perception of this nonetheless small risk. The same relative increased risk of severe disease in pregnant women has long applied to seasonal flu, yet only 1 in 7 pregnant American women routinely obtained the seasonal flu vaccine until now. Given that H1N1 compares similarly to seasonal flu, the otherwise healthy might reasonably choose to take a pass on the vaccine altogether, and visit their doctor for an antiviral prescription if a typical flu-like illness develops and does not improve within 48 hours.
Option B (cautious approach): Pending availability of non-adjuvant vaccine, obtain an advance prescription or supply of an antiviral drug (e.g. Tamiflu®), to be taken in future in consultation with the treating physician (The Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has made this recommendation). Self-prescription certainly has its flaws, and is the antithesis of good drug stewardship.
Option C (even more cautious): Option B plus get whatever form of vaccine becomes available - sooner rather than later, especially if flu activity is picking up.
While Canadian expectant women waiting longer than their American counterparts for a vaccine makes for bad optics -- giving the vaccine to the most vulnerable sooner rather than later will make good on a huge investment and effort. Bad optics aside, the disease has not changed and mass casualty will not ensue -– vaccine or not.