PMC:2854337 / 16203-17938 JSONTXT

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"19941171-16585506-28350082","span":{"begin":882,"end":884},"obj":"16585506"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"Targeted antiviral prophylaxis\nIn the TAP intervention strategy, patients with symptoms as well as persons in close contact with them are treated with antiviral drugs in accordance with the “Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Action Plan” [5]. TAP is regarded as an important intervention in the early phase of an influenza epidemic in the “Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Pandemic Influenza” [25]. In this model, it was assumed that a patient with symptoms would be treated with an antiviral drug just being diagnosed with a novel influenza infection, that all members of his/her household would be dosed with an antiviral drug for prophylaxis on that same day of diagnosis or thereafter, and that a person belonging to the same social activity group as the diagnosed patient would be traced, if possible, and treated with an antiviral drug within a few days of contact [12]. In this strategy, no members of the casual contact group could be traced. One of the advantages of TAP intervention is the small amount of antiviral drugs that are distributed for prophylaxis.\nThe model limits the possible number of symptomatic cases for whom members of the social activity group can be traced for close contact to ten persons for each ward per day because of the limited capacity of the healthcare center (only one center for each ward in Sapporo city) [32]. During the swine flu A (H1N1) outbreak in Japan, not all of the persons in close contact with an infected person could be traced and, moreover, some traced persons refused to take antiviral drugs [36]. Various situations with respect to the proportion of identifiable close contact persons (30, 50, and 70%) and necessary tracing periods (2, 4, and 6 days) were examined."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"19941171-16585506-28350082","span":{"begin":882,"end":884},"obj":"16585506"}],"text":"Targeted antiviral prophylaxis\nIn the TAP intervention strategy, patients with symptoms as well as persons in close contact with them are treated with antiviral drugs in accordance with the “Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Action Plan” [5]. TAP is regarded as an important intervention in the early phase of an influenza epidemic in the “Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Pandemic Influenza” [25]. In this model, it was assumed that a patient with symptoms would be treated with an antiviral drug just being diagnosed with a novel influenza infection, that all members of his/her household would be dosed with an antiviral drug for prophylaxis on that same day of diagnosis or thereafter, and that a person belonging to the same social activity group as the diagnosed patient would be traced, if possible, and treated with an antiviral drug within a few days of contact [12]. In this strategy, no members of the casual contact group could be traced. One of the advantages of TAP intervention is the small amount of antiviral drugs that are distributed for prophylaxis.\nThe model limits the possible number of symptomatic cases for whom members of the social activity group can be traced for close contact to ten persons for each ward per day because of the limited capacity of the healthcare center (only one center for each ward in Sapporo city) [32]. During the swine flu A (H1N1) outbreak in Japan, not all of the persons in close contact with an infected person could be traced and, moreover, some traced persons refused to take antiviral drugs [36]. Various situations with respect to the proportion of identifiable close contact persons (30, 50, and 70%) and necessary tracing periods (2, 4, and 6 days) were examined."}