BACKGROUND: Coxsackievirus A16 (Cox A16) and enterovirus 71 (EV71) are common pathogens causing hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) in pediatric population. Little is known about the basic reproductive number (R0) for these enteroviruses. METHODS: We estimated the R0 of EV71 and of Cox A16 from laboratory-confirmed HFMD outbreaks reported to the Department of Health, from 2004 to 2009. We derived a mathematical model and calculated R₀ based on the cumulative number of cases at the initial growth phase of the outbreaks, as determined by the epidemic curves. We tested the association of R₀ with settings and sizes of the institution and total number of persons affected. RESULTS: We analyzed 34 outbreaks, 27 caused by Cox A16 and 7 caused by EV71. Assuming the incubation period to be 5 days, the median R₀ of EV71 was 5.48 with an interquartile range of 4.20 to 6.51, whereas the median R₀ of Cox A16 was 2.50 with an interquartile range of 1.96 to 3.67. The R₀ of EV71 was significantly higher than that of CoxA16, P = 0.002; and sensitivity analysis showed the same results. The R₀ was not associated with outbreak settings, sizes of the institutions, or number of persons affected. CONCLUSIONS: The R₀ for EV71 and for Cox A16 was determined using a model which showed that the R₀ for EV71 was higher than that of Cox A16. This finding helps better understand the transmission dynamics of HFMD outbreaks and formulate public health measures for controlling the disease.
BACKGROUND:Coxsackievirus A16 (Cox A16) and enterovirus 71 (EV71) are common pathogens causing hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) in pediatric population. Little is known about the basic reproductive number (R0) for these enteroviruses. METHODS: We estimated the R0 of EV71 and of Cox A16 from laboratory-confirmed HFMD outbreaks reported to the Department of Health, from 2004 to 2009. We derived a mathematical model and calculated R₀ based on the cumulative number of cases at the initial growth phase of the outbreaks, as determined by the epidemic curves. We tested the association of R₀ with settings and sizes of the institution and total number of persons affected. RESULTS: We analyzed 34 outbreaks, 27 caused by Cox A16 and 7 caused by EV71. Assuming the incubation period to be 5 days, the median R₀ of EV71 was 5.48 with an interquartile range of 4.20 to 6.51, whereas the median R₀ of Cox A16 was 2.50 with an interquartile range of 1.96 to 3.67. The R₀ of EV71 was significantly higher than that of CoxA16, P = 0.002; and sensitivity analysis showed the same results. The R₀ was not associated with outbreak settings, sizes of the institutions, or number of persons affected. CONCLUSIONS: The R₀ for EV71 and for Cox A16 was determined using a model which showed that the R₀ for EV71 was higher than that of Cox A16. This finding helps better understand the transmission dynamics of HFMD outbreaks and formulate public health measures for controlling the disease.
Authors: Wendong Liu; Hong Ji; Jun Shan; Jin Bao; Yan Sun; Juan Li; Changjun Bao; Fenyang Tang; Kun Yang; Robert Bergquist; Zhihang Peng; Yefei Zhu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jemma L Geoghegan; Le Van Tan; Denise Kühnert; Rebecca A Halpin; Xudong Lin; Ari Simenauer; Asmik Akopov; Suman R Das; Timothy B Stockwell; Susmita Shrivastava; Nghiem My Ngoc; Le Thi Tam Uyen; Nguyen Thi Kim Tuyen; Tran Tan Thanh; Vu Thi Ty Hang; Phan Tu Qui; Nguyen Thanh Hung; Truong Huu Khanh; Le Quoc Thinh; Le Nguyen Thanh Nhan; Hoang Minh Tu Van; Do Chau Viet; Ha Manh Tuan; Ho Lu Viet; Tran Tinh Hien; Nguyen Van Vinh Chau; Guy Thwaites; Bryan T Grenfell; Tanja Stadler; David E Wentworth; Edward C Holmes; H Rogier Van Doorn Journal: J Virol Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 5.103