| Literature DB >> 27729034 |
Tianmu Chen1, Haogao Gu2, Ross Ka-Kit Leung3,4,5, Ruchun Liu2, Qiuping Chen6,7, Ying Wu7, Yaman Li2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In resource-limited settings where laboratory capacity is limited and response strategy is non-specific, delayed or inappropriate intervention against outbreaks of Norovirus (NoV) are common. Here we report interventions of two norovirus outbreaks, which highlight the importance of evidence-based modeling and assessment to identify infection sources and formulate effective response strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Mathematical model; Norovirus; Outbreak; Water disinfection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27729034 PMCID: PMC5059926 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3716-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Spatiotemporal information of reported cases and the water distribution network of the village outbreak
Fig. 2Distribution of cases by date of illness onset. a the school outbreak. b the village outbreak
Comparison between reported data and simulated results by different interventions implemented in two outbreaks in Changsha, 2014
| Intervention | TARa (%) | Cumulative cases | DOc(day) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95 % CIb | |||
| Outbreak 1 | ||||
| Reported data | 24.73 | 24.35-25.11 | 159 | 23 |
| Isolation | 69.99 | 69.34-70.64 | 450 | 190 |
| Water disinfection | 53.89 | 53.32-54.46 | 346 | 43 |
| Isolation + Water disinfection | 24.93 | 24.54-25.32 | 160 | 23 |
| None | 70.00 | 69.35-70.65 | 450 | 103 |
| Outbreak 2 | ||||
| Reported data | 2.14 | 2.06-2.22 | 30 | 16 |
| Isolation | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| School closure (7 days) | 67.23 | 66.80-67.66 | 941 | 50 |
| School closure (8 days) | 67.22 | 66.79-67.65 | 941 | 52 |
| School closure (9 days) | 67.21 | 66.78-67.64 | 941 | 54 |
| School closure (10 days) | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| Isolation + School closure (7 days) | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| Isolation + School closure (8 days) | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| Isolation + School closure (9 days) | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| Isolation + School closure (10 days) | 2.26 | 2.18-2.34 | 32 | 15 |
| None | 67.45 | 67.02-67.88 | 944 | 39 |
aTotal attack rate; bconfidence interval; cduration of outbreak
Fig. 3Permutation test results by random walk modeling for incidents 1 (a-d) and 2 (e-h). a The observed number of 19 cases in incident 1 was unlikely to be due to pure waterborne infections. b-d Simulated number of cases by different probability of interpersonal transmission from 1000 experiments. e The observed number of 12 cases in incident 2 was unlikely to be due to random infections. f-h Simulated number of cases by different relative visit frequency intensity from 1000 experiments
Fig. 4Probable locations of infection of the school outbreak