| Literature DB >> 25417752 |
Jussi Sane, Johan Reimerink, Margriet Harms, Jacinta Bakker, Lapo Mughini-Gras, Barbara Schimmer, Wilfrid van Pelt.
Abstract
We report the recent epidemiology and estimated seroprevalence of human hantavirus infections in the Netherlands. Sixty-two cases were reported during December 2008-December 2013. The estimated seroprevalence in the screened municipalities in 2006-2007 was 1.7% (95% CI 1.3%-2.3%). Findings suggest that hantavirus infections are underdiagnosed in the Netherlands.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25417752 PMCID: PMC4257821 DOI: 10.3201/eid2012.131886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Municipalities sampled in the Pienter 2 study and subset of municipalities included in the seroprevalence study of hantavirus infections, the Netherlands.
Figure 2Reported cases of hantavirus infection (n = 62) by year, the Netherlands, December 2008–2013.
Selected factors associated with positivity for IgG against Puumala virus, the Netherlands, December 2008–December 2013*
| Factor |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aOR (95% CI)† | p value | aOR (95% CI)‡ | p value | |||
| Sex | ||||||
| M | 9/1,368 (0.66) | Reference | Reference | NA | ||
| F | 18/1,565 (1.15) | 1.79 (0.89–3.57) | 0.10 |
| 1.87 (0.97–3.61) | 0.06 |
| Age, y | ||||||
| 0–15 | 7/824 (0.84) | Reference | Reference | NA | ||
| 16–40 | 7/822 (0.85) | 1.03 (0.36–2.93) | 0.96 | 1.0 (0.33–3.07) | 0.99 | |
| 41–60 | 5/585 (0.85) | 0.91 (0.26–3.19) | 0.88 | 0.86 (0.22–3.32) | 0.82 | |
| >60 | 8/702 (1.14) | 1.32 (0.48–3.62) | 0.59 |
| 1.69 (0.51–5.56) | 0.39 |
| Owning ≥1 dog | ||||||
| No | 12/2147 (0.56) | Reference | Reference | NA | ||
| Yes | 15/786 (1.53) | 4.51 (1.81–11.30) | 0.001 |
| 3.49 (1.50–8.14) | 0.004 |
| Owning any livestock§ | ||||||
| No | 19/2,706 (0.70) | Reference | Reference | NA | ||
| Yes | 8/227 (3.52) | 6.97 (2.45–19.82) | <0.001 |
| 4.79 (1.69–13.57) | 0.003 |
| Net monthly income, Euros | ||||||
| <1,150 | 11/426 (2.58) | Reference | NA | NA | ||
| 1,151–3,050 | 9/1,539 (5.84) | 0.27 (0.05–1.47) | 0.13 | NA | NA | |
| >3,501 | 1/242 (0.41) | 0.21 (0.03–1.79) | 0.15 |
| NA | NA |
| Occupational exposure to any animal | ||||||
| No | 25/2794 (0.89) | Reference | NA | NA | ||
| Yes | 2/139 (1.43) | 1.72 (0.25–11.77) | 0.58 | NA | NA | |
*IFA, indirect immunofluorescence assay; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; NA, not applicable. The municipality-level random effect was significant (p = 0.001, by log-likelihood ratio test). †Adjusted for age, sex, and clustering at municipality level (random effect). ‡Adjusted for age, sex, clustering at municipality level (random effect), and the other covariates included in the multivariable model. §Cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and other livestock.