| Literature DB >> 18826814 |
Joel M Montgomery1, Mohamed J Hossain, E Gurley, Gurley D S Carroll, A Croisier, E Bertherat, N Asgari, P Formenty, N Keeler, J Comer, M R Bell, K Akram, A R Molla, K Zaman, Mohamed R Islam, K Wagoner, J N Mills, P E Rollin, T G Ksiazek, R F Breiman.
Abstract
Nipah virus (NiV) is a paramyxovirus that causes severe encephalitis in humans. During January 2004, twelve patients with NiV encephalitis (NiVE) were identified in west-central Bangladesh. A case-control study was conducted to identify factors associated with NiV infection. NiVE patients from the outbreak were enrolled in a matched case-control study. Exact odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using a matched analysis. Climbing trees (83% of cases vs. 51% of controls, OR 8.2, 95% CI 1.25-infinity) and contact with another NiVE patient (67% of cases vs. 9% of controls, OR 21.4, 95% CI 2.78-966.1) were associated with infection. We did not identify an increased risk for NiV infection among persons who had contact with a potential intermediate host. Although we cannot rule out person-to-person transmission, case-patients were likely infected from contact with fruit bats or their secretions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18826814 PMCID: PMC2609878 DOI: 10.3201/eid1410.060507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Top: Distribution of Nipah virus case (n = 12) and control (n = 36) households within the outbreak/study site of Goalando township, Bangladesh, January 2004. Number in the yellow triangle corresponds to household no. in Figure 2. Map also shows extreme habitat disturbance; areas under cultivation (for rice, sugar cane) are highlighted with “C,” and remaining trees (fruit trees and bamboo stands) with “T.” Bottom: Location of outbreak village.
Figure 2Epidemic curve of Nipah virus outbreak in Goalando, Bangladesh, in 2004, demonstrating household clustering. Households 1 and 4 each had 2 cases, household 5 had 3 cases, and all other households, single cases.
Descriptive characteristics of Nipah virus case-patients and controls, Bangladesh, January 2004
| Characteristic | No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Case-patients, n = 12 | Controls, n = 36 | |
| Sex | ||
| M | 9 (75) | 27 (75) |
| F | 3 (25) | 9 (25) |
| Age group, y | ||
| 1–5 | 1 (8) | 3 (8) |
| 6–10 | 4 (33) | 12 (33) |
| 11–15 | 6 (50) | 18 (50) |
| 16–20 | 0 | 0 |
| 21–25 | 0 | 0 |
| 26–30 | 1 (8) | 3 (8) |
| Interview type | ||
| Proxy | 10 (83) | 30 (83) |
| Self | 2 (17) | 6 (17) |
Exposures and activities associated with Nipah virus infection, Bangladesh, December 2003–January 2004*
| Exposure or activity | No. (%) study participants with reported exposure or activity† | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case-patients, n = 12 | Controls, n = 36 | OR (95% CI) | p value‡ | |
| Animal exposure | ||||
| Touched any ill animal§ | 9 (75) | 31 (85) | 1.8 (0.29–8.52) | 0.613 |
| Touched or observed a dead animal§ | 6/10 (60) | 12 (34) | 2.4 (0.4–616.5) | 0.392 |
| Killed any animal§ | 3 (25) | 6 (16) | 1.8 (0.2–79.51) | 0.670 |
| Other animal exposures | ||||
| Contact with animal stool | 2/9 (22) | 12 (35) | 0.5 (0.05–3.04) | 0.679 |
| Visited a poultry farm | 3 (25) | 13 (37) | 0.6 (0.08–3.29) | 0.740 |
| Observed fruit bats around household at night
(1 mo before outbreak) | 4/11 (36) | 7 (19) | 4.1 (0.27–261.9) | 0.491 |
| Outdoor activity | ||||
| Climbed trees | 10 (83) | 19 (51) | 8.2 (1.25–∞) | 0.025 |
| Picked fruit from trees | 8 (67) | 18 (49) | 3.2 (0.54–36.0) | 0.262 |
| Picked fruit from the ground | 7/11 (64) | 27 (74) | 0.79 (0.13–6.09) | 1.000 |
| Fished | 6 (50) | 10 (28) | 4.5 (0.69–49.7) | 0.139 |
| Hunted | 2/10 (20) | 10 (28) | 7.3 (0.38–432.6) | 0.240 |
| Played hide and seek | 8/11 (73) | 21 (58) | 4.3 (0.38–∞) | 0.256 |
| Played cricket | 4 (33) | 18 (51) | 0.5 (0.09–2.76) | 0.552 |
| Played soccer | 5 (42) | 9 (24) | 2.4 (0.44–16.9) | 0.403 |
| Exposure to human illness | ||||
| Had contact with a suspect or probable Nipah virus encephalitis case-patient | 8 (67) | 3 (9) | 21.4 (2.78–966.1) | <0.001 |
| Visiting a hospital | 12 (100) | 7 (19) | 32.4 (5.18–∞) | <0.0001 |
| Consumption of fruit | ||||
| Bananas¶ | 11 (92) | 24 (67) | 4.9 (0.61–226.7) | 0.199 |
|
| 7 (58) | 28 (77) | 0.4 (0.078–2.37) | 0.433 |
|
| 3 (25) | 14 (40) | 0.49 (0.08–2.24) | 0.497 |
|
| 2 (17) | 12 (33) | 0.5 (0.05–2.70) | 0.608 |
|
| 1 (8) | 2 (5) | 2.0 (0.03–38.4) | 0.976 |
|
| 1 (8) | 3 (9) | 1.0 (0.006–165.9) | 1.000 |
| Other environmental exposures | ||||
| Drinking raw DPS | 10/11 (91) | 26 (72) | 4.1 (0.47–197.0) | 0.328 |
| Harvesting DPS | 3 (25) | 3 (8) | 3.4 (0.37–43.6) | 0.365 |
| Drinking DPS from collection vessel | 5/10 (50) | 12 (32) | 1.7 (0.36–8.34) | 0.612 |
| Someone in household collects DPS | 4 (33) | 5 (15) | 2.3 (0.38–13.3) | 0.454 |
*OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; DPS, date palm sap. †Data are no. of study participants responding affirmatively/total no. responding (%) unless otherwise noted. ‡Exact method using univariate conditional logistic regression. §Cows, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, ducks, chickens, dogs, cats, or fruit bats. ¶Fruit was obtained from a market or another person, if not picked directly from the tree or ground.