Literature DB >> 27058346

Effects of Mother's Illness and Breastfeeding on Risk of Ebola Virus Disease in a Cohort of Very Young Children.

Hilary Bower1, Sembia Johnson2, Mohamed S Bangura2, Alie Joshua Kamara2, Osman Kamara2, Saidu H Mansaray2, Daniel Sesay2, Cecilia Turay2, Francesco Checchi3, Judith R Glynn1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Young children who contract Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) have a high case fatality rate, but their sources of infection and the role of breastfeeding are unclear. METHODS/PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Household members of EVD survivors from the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Centre in Sierra Leone were interviewed four to 10 months after discharge to establish exposure levels for all members of the household, whether or not they became ill, and including those who died. We analysed a cohort of children under three years to examine associations between maternal illness, survival and breastfeeding, and the child's outcome. Of 77 children aged zero to two years in the households we surveyed, 43% contracted EVD. 64 children and mothers could be linked: 25/40 (63%) of those whose mother had EVD developed EVD, compared to 2/24 (8%) whose mother did not have EVD, relative risk adjusted for age, sex and other exposures (aRR) 7·6, 95%CI 2·0-29·1. Among those with mothers with EVD, the risk of EVD in the child was higher if the mother died (aRR 1·5, 0·99-2·4), but there was no increased risk associated with breast-feeding (aRR 0·75, 0·46-1·2). Excluding those breastfed by infected mothers, half (11/22) of the children with direct contact with EVD cases with wet symptoms (diarrhoea, vomiting or haemorrhage) remained well. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This is the largest study of mother-child pairs with EVD to date, and the first attempt at assessing excess risk from breastfeeding. For young children the key exposure associated with contracting EVD was mother's illness with EVD, with a higher risk if the mother died. Breast feeding did not confer any additional risk in this study but high risk from proximity to a sick mother supports WHO recommendations for separation. This study also found that many children did not become ill despite high exposures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27058346      PMCID: PMC4825998          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis        ISSN: 1935-2727


Introduction

Young children experience a high case fatality rate from Ebola, but the incidence of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in children appears to be lower than in adults.[1-4] Young children may have limited exposure outside the home, but within the household maintaining hygiene in young children is difficult, although efforts may be made to keep children away from those who are sick. For very young children who need to be fed and held, contact with sick caregivers may be unavoidable. Breastfeeding is a possible additional source of infection for young children: Ebola has been found in breast milk, but the risk to breastfed babies and the contribution of breastfeeding to transmission is poorly understood.[5,6] An investigation of household contacts following the Ebola outbreak in Gulu, Uganda in 2000 included five infants whose mother had EVD: three of four infants who were breastfed developed EVD.[7] The other infant was reported to have been separated from his mother early in the course of her illness and remained well; it is not clear if he was breastfed. Two recent systematic reviews of transmission of Ebola did not did not mention risks associated with breastfeeding.[8,9] As part of a study of transmission patterns in Sierra Leone we collected data on exposure patterns and outcomes of all individuals present in the households of EVD survivors. In this analysis we sought to identify likely sources of infection and characterise risk of transmission to young children, including those breastfed by mothers with EVD.

Methods

In July-September 2015, interviews were sought with the household members of all individuals who were discharged from the Ebola Treatment Centre in Kerry Town, Sierra Leone (“Ebola survivors”) from November 2014 to March 2015. Contact was made through members of the survivor support team who were involved in their reintegration into the community. An initial approach was made to explain the study. If the household head agreed, an interview was arranged at a community centre or other meeting place and all who were in the household at the time that members of the households had Ebola were encouraged to attend. At the interview, individual informed written consent to participate in the study was sought from all adults, and from parents or guardians for children (< 18 years), with assent from children of 12 years or older. An inventory was drawn up of all household members who had been present in the household at the time that one or more household members were ill with EVD, including any who had died or were not present at the interview. For each member we asked whether they had had Ebola. We asked relatives whether any deceased had died of Ebola. Household members were asked to describe what happened when Ebola came to their household, including who became ill first, whether those with Ebola had any diarrhoea, vomiting or bleeding while they were at home, and who looked after them. They were encouraged to tell the narrative in their own words, with probing questions to clarify who had been exposed and how. For each household member (including those who had died, but excluding any absent members or those who refused consent) we sought to establish the highest-risk exposure. Reported exposures were ranked a priori from highest to lowest as: contact with the body of someone who died of Ebola; direct contact with body fluids of someone with Ebola, including breastfeeding, or other direct contact with “wet” cases (i.e. those with diarrhoea, vomiting or bleeding); direct contact with “dry” cases (i.e. those without diarrhoea, vomiting or bleeding); indirect contact with a wet case (e.g. washing their clothes); indirect contact with a dry case; minimal contact (e.g. shared utensils); and no known contact. For each mother-baby pair who both had EVD we attempted to ascertain from the narratives who was affected first. All survivors from the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Centre had EVD confirmed by PCR. We did not have laboratory data for those from other treatment centres or for those who died, so have relied on the families’ reports. For individuals who were not reported as having had Ebola we asked about symptoms at the time that Ebola was in the household. For the analysis they were classified as not having had Ebola if they were asymptomatic or had symptoms that did not fulfil the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation case definition for “probable” Ebola,[10] or had had a negative test; and as having had Ebola if they were symptomatic and fulfilled the case definition for probable Ebola and were not tested. The case definition was contact with a case plus fever or miscarriage or unexplained bleeding; or contact plus three or more symptoms (of fatigue, headache, loss of appetite, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, muscle or joint pain, sore throat or pain on swallowing, hiccups). In this analysis we concentrate on risks to children aged less than three years at the time Ebola reached their household in order to include all those who were breast fed, and examine attack rates, case fatality rates and the role of breast feeding. Proportions were compared using Χ2 or Fisher’s exact test. Analyses used multivariable logistic regression. Because the outcome is very common we have presented the results as risk ratios (RR) using marginal standardization to estimate RRs, and the delta method to estimate 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).[11-13] We repeated the analysis calculating risk ratios using Poisson regression with robust error variance.[14] Crowding (number of people per room) and sanitation (access to water, soap and latrine) were considered as possible confounders, in addition to age, sex and the exposure variables. The effects of clustering by household were explored using generalised estimation equations in logistic regression: the results were very similar to analyses ignoring clustering so clustering is not included in the models. Analyses used STATA 14.

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee and the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. At the interview, individual written informed consent to participate in the study was sought from all adults, and from parents or guardians for children (< 18 years), with assent from children of 12 years or older.

Results

One hundred and fifty one survivors were discharged from Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Centre from November 2014 through March 2015, of whom 138 were still living in the Western Area of Sierra Leone when sought for interview in July-September 2015. Twelve were uncontactable and a further two were known to have bad relationships with their households so were not approached. We contacted and interviewed 123 Kerry Town survivors, living in 94 households. Only one contacted survivor refused to be interviewed, and only two of 526 household members refused to participate. A further 37 members were not available to attend the interview. Some households also included survivors who had been treated in other facilities. The households contained 77 children aged less than three years: 43% (33/77) got EVD, including four who fitted the case definition but were not diagnosed at the time. The risk of EVD was 54% (13/24) in those under one year; 40% (12/30) in those aged one year and 35% (8/23) in those aged two years (p-value for trend = 0.2). The risk was slightly higher in males than in females: 51·4% (18/35) vs 35·7% (15/42), p = 0.2. Three of the children were primary or co-primary cases in their household. Overall, 24 children under three years died of EVD, giving a case fatality rate of 73%: 85% (11/13), 75% (9/12) and 50% (4/8) at ages under-one, one, and two respectively (p-value for trend = 0·1). Among the 77 children were 13 whose mothers were not present (including two mothers who had died in other households), or were not clearly identified: six (46%) of these children developed EVD and five died compared to 27 cases (42%) and 19 deaths among the 64 children who could be linked to their mothers. Details of the mother-child pairs for whom the outcome of both mother and child are known are shown in Table 1 for the 40 whose mothers had EVD, in Table 2 for the 24 whose mothers had no symptoms, and in summary for all 64 in Table 3. The highest level of exposure is shown, in terms of direct or indirect exposure to those with EVD in the home or outside. None of the children had direct contact with dead bodies. Breastfeeding was taken as the highest exposure if the mother had EVD unless the child developed symptoms before or at the same time as the mother.
Table 1

Details of exposure and outcomes in mother-child pairs in which the mother had Ebola.

Child’s age in yearsMother’s outcomeChild's exposureOther Ebola casesNo. of people in householdChild's outcomeTiming
Breast fed
<1Survivorbreastfed410Wellmother first
<1Survivorbreastfed614Survivormother first
<1Survivorbreastfed012Survivorunclear
<1Survivorbreastfed1526Death EVDmother first
<1Survivorbreastfed26Death EVDmother first
<1Survivorbreastfed915Death EVDmother first
<1Death EVDbreastfed410Death EVD1mother first
<1Death EVDbreastfed1117Death EVDmother first
<1Death EVDbreastfed1826Death EVDunclear
<1Death EVDbreastfed1013Death EVDmother first
1Survivorbreastfed315Wellmother first
1Survivorbreastfed03Wellmother first
1Survivorbreastfed19Wellmother first
1Survivorbreastfed913Death EVDmother first
1Death EVDbreastfed311Wellmother first
1Death EVDbreastfed1327Survivormother first
Breast fed, child ill before or same time as mother
1Survivorindirect contact wet case19Death EVDchild first
2Survivordirect contact wet case47Death EVDsame time
Not breast fed
<1Death EVDdirect contact wet case1216Death EVDunclear
1SymCD/NoTest2direct contact body fluids311Wellunclear
1Survivordirect contact body fluids413Death EVDunclear
1Survivordirect contact wet case915Death EVDmother first
1Survivordirect contact wet case410Wellmother first
1Survivordirect contact wet case49SymCD/NoTest3mother first
1Survivordirect contact dry case1526Death EVDunclear
1Survivordirect contact dry case412Death EVDunclear
1Death EVDdirect contact dry case1519Headache/ cough onlyunclear
1Death EVDdirect contact dry case1526Death EVDunclear
2SymCD/NoTest4direct contact dry case515Wellunclear
2Survivordirect contact wet case311Wellunclear
2Survivordirect contact wet case1926Headache onlyunclear
2Survivordirect contact wet case47Survivormother first
2Survivordirect contact dry case914Wellunclear
2Survivordirect contact dry case15SymCD/NegTest2unclear
2Survivorindirect contact dry case1626Well5unclear
2Death EVDdirect contact body fluids58SymCD/NoTest6mother first
2Death EVDdirect contact body fluids58SymCD/NoTest6mother first
2Death EVDdirect contact wet case36Death EVDmother first
2Death EVDminimal contact419Well5unclear
2Death EVDminimal contact26SymCD/NoTest2mother first

Death EVD = death from Ebola; Survivor = Survived Ebola; SymCD/NoTest = fulfilled case definition for Ebola, not tested; SymCD/NegTest = fulfilled case definition for Ebola but tested negative

1 Possibly infected in utero or perinatally.

2 Fever only

3 Multiple symptoms, not tested because of nurses’ strike

4 Fever and headache

5 Moved out of household after first case

6 Multiple symptoms

Table 2

Details of exposures and outcomes in mother-child pairs in which the mother did not have Ebola.

Child's age (years)Child's exposureOther Ebola cases in householdNo. of people in householdChild's outcome
<1direct contact wet case1926Death EVD
<1direct contact wet case1415Death EVD
<1direct contact wet case612Well
<1direct contact wet case113Well
<1direct contact dry case618Well
<1direct contact dry case513Well
<1direct contact dry case214Well
<1direct contact dry case19Well
<1minimal contact618Well
<1minimal contact311Well
<1minimal contact28Well
1direct contact wet case612Well
1direct contact wet case113Well
1direct contact dry case211Well
1direct contact dry case112Well
1direct contact dry case13Well
1direct contact dry case14Headache only
1minimal contact27Well
1minimal contact68Well1
2direct contact wet case16Well
2direct contact wet case113Well
2direct contact wet case113Well
2direct contact dry case211Well
2minimal contact311Well

Death EVD = death from Ebola

1 Moved out of household after first case

Table 3

Associations with Ebola in children under three years.

Child's outcome
Ebola /Total%RR (95% CI)RR adjusted age and sexFull modelP (full model)
All mother-baby pairs
Mother had Ebola
 No2/248.3111<0.001
 Yes25/4062.57.5 (1.9–28.9)9.4 (2.6–34.0)7.6 (2.0–29.1)1
Child’s age
  < 1yr12/2254.61110.03
 1 yr9/2437.50.69 (0.36–1.3)0.67 (0.35–1.3)0.54 (0.33–0.88)1
 2 yrs6/1833.30.61 (0.29–1.3)0.59 (0.28–1.3)0.51 (0.27–0.96)1
Child’s sex
 Female11/3135.51110.2
 Male16/3348.51.4 (0.76–2.5)1.4 (0.80–2.6)1.4(0.87–2.2)1
Child exposure level
 breastfeeding11/1668.8
 direct wet11/2250.0
 direct dry3/1618.80.68 (0.50–0.94)20.70 (0.51–0.95)0.93 (0.76–1.1)10.5
 indirect wet1/1100
 indirect dry0/10.0
 minimal1/812.5
Among those with mothers with Ebola3
All
 Mother survived12/2450.0111
 Mother died11/1478.61. 6 (0.97–2.6)1.5 (0.98–2.3)1.5 (0.99–2.4)40.06
Under 2s
 Not breastfed7/1070.0111
 Breastfed11/1668.80.98 (0.58–1.7)0.76 (0.46–1.2)0.75 (0.46–1.2)50.3

1 Model included age, sex, mother’s Ebola, and exposure level

2 Modelled as a linear term across categories

3 Excluding two in which the child was ill first/at the same time

4 Adjusted for age, sex, and exposure level

5 Adjusted for age, sex, and mother's death

Death EVD = death from Ebola; Survivor = Survived Ebola; SymCD/NoTest = fulfilled case definition for Ebola, not tested; SymCD/NegTest = fulfilled case definition for Ebola but tested negative 1 Possibly infected in utero or perinatally. 2 Fever only 3 Multiple symptoms, not tested because of nurses’ strike 4 Fever and headache 5 Moved out of household after first case 6 Multiple symptoms Death EVD = death from Ebola 1 Moved out of household after first case 1 Model included age, sex, mother’s Ebola, and exposure level 2 Modelled as a linear term across categories 3 Excluding two in which the child was ill first/at the same time 4 Adjusted for age, sex, and exposure level 5 Adjusted for age, sex, and mother's death EVD in the children was much more likely among those whose mother had EVD (25/40, 63%) than among those whose mother did not get EVD (2/24, 8%, risk ratio (RR) 7·5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9–28.9, p<0.0001, Table 3). The RR remained high after adjusting for age and sex of the child (RR 9·4, 95% CI 2·6–34·0), and after additionally adjusting for maximum exposure level (RR 7·6, 95%CI 2·0–29·1). Household crowding and sanitation were not associated with EVD in the child, and adjusting for them made little difference to the results. After adjusting for mother’s EVD status and exposure levels, the risk of EVD in the child decreased with age (Table 3). After adjusting for mother’s EVD, age, and sex, there was no effect of exposure level. Among those whose mother had EVD, excluding the two pairs in which the children were ill first, the risk of EVD in the child was higher if the mother died (79% vs 50%, Table 3), giving a relative risk of 1·6 (95% CI 0·97–2·6). This association was similar after adjusting for the child’s age and sex and additionally for exposure level. Of the 13 children who did not get EVD whose mother survived, five had contact with the mother when she was a wet case and five only when she was a dry case (unknown for three). As the only child over two years who was breastfed got ill at the same time as the mother and was therefore excluded, the analysis of breastfeeding was restricted to the under two’s. We also excluded the child who became ill first (Table 1), leaving 26 children. The proportion of children with EVD was very similar in those who were or were not breast fed (69% vs 70%, Table 3), RR 0·98, 0·58–1·7. There was no evidence of increased risk from breastfeeding after adjusting for age and sex (RR 0·76, 0·46–1·2) or for whether the mother died (Table 3). The analyses were re-run excluding the six mother-child pairs for which either the mother or the child was classified as having EVD on the basis of symptoms (Table 1). The associations with having a mother with EVD (fully adjusted RR 6.5, 1·6–26·0) and with breastfeeding (fully adjusted RR 0·74 (0·47–1·2) were similar to the main analysis, but the effect of having a mother who died of Ebola was lost (fully adjusted RR 1·3, 0·76–2·1). The analyses were also rerun using Poisson regression. The results were similar to the main analysis. Among the children under three years whose mother did not get EVD, only two children got EVD. Both were aged under one year, from households with many EVD cases (Table 2), and both were reported to have had close contact with wet cases in the household. Seven other children whose mother did not have EVD and 4 whose mother had EVD but were not breastfed, had direct contact with wet cases and did not get ill. Overall, excluding children breastfed by mothers with EVD, half (11/22) of the children who had direct contact with wet cases or fluids remained well. These contacts included sharing beds with and embracing close relatives who suffered from vomiting and/or diarrhoea.

Discussion

Among the very young children in this study the risk of EVD depended largely on whether their mother developed EVD, with an additional risk for those whose mothers died of Ebola. The high risk in those with sick mothers is expected, and the higher risk in those with mothers who died may reflect higher viral loads and/or viral shedding in these mothers. The low risk in children in Ebola-affected households when the mother was not ill is surprising, and cannot all be explained by low exposure in the children. Overall, nearly two thirds of under-three year olds had direct contact with wet cases in the household or their body fluids. While the risk of disease decreased with decreasing exposure, half of the young children with direct exposure to wet cases remained well. Only three children were deliberately sent out of the household to reduce exposure, and for all three there was some exposure before they left. The opportunities for households to protect children from exposure are limited, particularly as more and more cases arise, and young children share beds with sick relatives. While a ‘no touch policy’ may be understood by older children, it is impossible to explain to an infant. Among children whose mothers had EVD, being breastfed did not appear to increase the risk. Numbers were small and risks were already high in this group so there was limited power to detect an association. Current WHO guidelines recommend that asymptomatic breastfed infants of Ebola-infected mothers should be separated from their mothers and replacement fed.[15] Although we found no excess risk from breastfeeding, further studies, ideally with larger, pooled datasets, are needed to assess this further before suggesting any changes to the recommendation. The high risk from proximity to a sick mother supports the need for separation. The children in this study all came from households with at least one survivor. This may mean small households and households with fewer cases are underrepresented, as there would be a lower chance for small households to include a survivor, and households in which all cases of EVD died are missed. This might underestimate the case fatality rate and overestimate attack rates, but should not bias the relative risks by age and exposure. This study shows the remarkable resilience of some young children despite apparent exposure to Ebola. This could be dose-related—we do not know the actual viral exposure through contact or breastfeeding—but in other contexts some people seem to be infected from minimal exposures. Relative resistance to Ebola could be influenced by genetic factors,[16] though the correlation between infections in mothers and children is more likely to reflect exposure patterns than shared genes. It is possible that there is some protection through maternal antibody from breastfeeding (perhaps more in mothers who survive) that counteracts any increased risk from transmission via breastmilk. This is much the largest study of mother-child pairs with EVD to date, and the first attempt to assess any excess risk from breastfeeding. By visiting households after transmission had ceased and talking to all members we were able to determine exposure in much more detail than is possible in an acute epidemic situation. And because we included all children in these households, including those who were not sick, we have been able to calculate age and exposure-specific attack rates. In these households the risk to young children was largely dependent on whether their mother had EVD, regardless of whether they were breastfed.

STROBE checklist.

Completed STROBE checklist. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file.
  13 in total

1.  A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.

Authors:  Guangyong Zou
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Age-specific incidence of Ebola virus disease.

Authors:  Judith R Glynn
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Relative risks and confidence intervals were easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression.

Authors:  A Russell Localio; David J Margolis; Jesse A Berlin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Lactating mothers infected with Ebola virus: EBOV RT-PCR of blood only may be insufficient.

Authors:  M Moreau; C Spencer; J G Gozalbes; R Colebunders; A Lefevre; S Gryseels; B Borremans; S Gunther; D Becker; J A Bore; F R Koundouno; A Di Caro; R Wölfel; T Decroo; M Van Herp; L Peetermans; A M Camara
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2015-01-22

5.  Assessment of the risk of Ebola virus transmission from bodily fluids and fomites.

Authors:  Daniel G Bausch; Jonathan S Towner; Scott F Dowell; Felix Kaducu; Matthew Lukwiya; Anthony Sanchez; Stuart T Nichol; Thomas G Ksiazek; Pierre E Rollin
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  Ebola virus disease among children in West Africa.

Authors:  Junerlyn Agua-Agum; Archchun Ariyarajah; Isobel M Blake; Anne Cori; Christl A Donnelly; Ilaria Dorigatti; Christopher Dye; Tim Eckmanns; Neil M Ferguson; Robert A Fowler; Christophe Fraser; Tini Garske; Wes Hinsley; Thibaut Jombart; Harriet L Mills; Srinivas Murthy; Gemma Nedjati Gilani; Pierre Nouvellet; Louise Pelletier; Steven Riley; Dirk Schumacher; Anita Shah; Maria D Van Kerkhove
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  A review of epidemiological parameters from Ebola outbreaks to inform early public health decision-making.

Authors:  Maria D Van Kerkhove; Ana I Bento; Harriet L Mills; Neil M Ferguson; Christl A Donnelly
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 6.444

8.  Ebola hemorrhagic fever transmission and risk factors of contacts, Uganda.

Authors:  Paolo Francesconi; Zabulon Yoti; Silvia Declich; Paul Awil Onek; Massimo Fabiani; Joseph Olango; Roberta Andraghetti; Pierre E Rollin; Cyprian Opira; Donato Greco; Stefania Salmaso
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.883

9.  Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data.

Authors:  Carlos Antônio S T Santos; Rosemeire L Fiaccone; Nelson F Oliveira; Sérgio Cunha; Maurício L Barreto; Maria Beatriz B do Carmo; Ana-Lucia Moncayo; Laura C Rodrigues; Philip J Cooper; Leila D Amorim
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Sequence-based human leukocyte antigen-B typing of patients infected with Ebola virus in Uganda in 2000: identification of alleles associated with fatal and nonfatal disease outcomes.

Authors:  Anthony Sanchez; Kent E Wagoner; Pierre E Rollin
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 5.226

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Ebola virus disease and pregnancy: A review of the current knowledge of Ebola virus pathogenesis, maternal, and neonatal outcomes.

Authors:  Lisa M Bebell; Titilope Oduyebo; Laura E Riley
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 2.344

2.  Ebola Virus Shedding and Transmission: Review of Current Evidence.

Authors:  Pauline Vetter; William A Fischer; Manuel Schibler; Michael Jacobs; Daniel G Bausch; Laurent Kaiser
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 5.226

3.  Risk ratios for contagious outcomes.

Authors:  Olga Morozova; Ted Cohen; Forrest W Crawford
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 4.293

4.  Variability in Intrahousehold Transmission of Ebola Virus, and Estimation of the Household Secondary Attack Rate.

Authors:  Judith R Glynn; Hilary Bower; Sembia Johnson; Cecilia Turay; Daniel Sesay; Saidu H Mansaray; Osman Kamara; Alie Joshua Kamara; Mohammed S Bangura; Francesco Checchi
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.226

5.  Surviving Ebola: A historical cohort study of Ebola mortality and survival in Sierra Leone 2014-2015.

Authors:  Kevin Wing; Shefali Oza; Catherine Houlihan; Judith R Glynn; Sharon Irvine; Clare E Warrell; Andrew J H Simpson; Sabah Boufkhed; Alieu Sesay; Lahai Vandi; Sahr Charles Sebba; Pranav Shetty; Rachael Cummings; Francesco Checchi; Catherine R McGowan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Qualitative evidence syntheses of attitudes and preferences to inform guidelines on infant feeding in the context of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) transmission risk.

Authors:  Fiona Campbell; Andrew Booth; Christopher Carroll; Andrew Lee; Clare Relton
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2022-03-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.