| Literature DB >> 27814756 |
Yong Ping Lin1,2, Zi Feng Yang3, Ying Liang1, Zheng Tu Li3, Helen S Bond4, Huiying Chua4, Ya Sha Luo5, Yuan Chen1, Ting Ting Chen3, Wen Da Guan3, Jimmy Chun Cheong Lai6, Yu Lam Siu7, Si Hua Pan3, J S Malik Peiris4,7,8, Benjamin J Cowling9,10, Chris Ka Pun Mok11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the identification in early 2013 of severe disease caused by influenza A(H7N9) virus infection, there have been few attempts to characterize the full severity profile of human infections. Our objective was to estimate the number and severity of H7N9 infections in Guangzhou, using a serological study.Entities:
Keywords: Avian influenza A(H7N9); Public health; Serology; Severity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27814756 PMCID: PMC5097368 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1983-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Age and sex distribution of residual sera collected from Guangzhou
| Characteristic | Phase 1 (December 2013 through April 2014) ( | Phase 2 (October 2014 through December 2014) ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age group, years | ||
| 0–14 | 185 (7.0 %) | 140 (5.2 %) |
| 15–24 | 415 (15.6 %) | 445 (16.6 %) |
| 25–54 | 1137 (42.7 %) | 1166 (43.5 %) |
| 55–64 | 340 (12.8 %) | 397 (14.8 %) |
| ≥ 65 | 583 (21.9 %) | 532 (19.9 %) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 1336 (50.2 %) | 1240 (46.3 %) |
| Female | 1324 (49.8 %) | 1440 (53.7 %) |
Fig. 1Timing of collection of residual sera from 5340 patients in Guangzhou in two phases (black lines), and the detection of severe cases of infection with influenza A(H7N9) virus in Guangzhou (gray bars) described in a separate study [8]
Fig. 2The prior and posterior distributions of the overall age-standardized cumulative incidence of H7N9 infections, assuming that antibody titers wane exactly 6 months (26 weeks) after infection. The most credible estimate of the overall age-standardized cumulative incidence of H7N9 infections between December 2013 and April 2014 was 0.43 % (95 % credibility interval: 0.05, 1.32 %)
Results of main analyses and sensitivity analyses
| Main analysis | Sensitivity analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative models including 2 specimens with HI and neutralization titers ≥40 | Main model with alternative prior for cumulative incidence | Main model including three specimens with HI titers ≥40 | ||||
| Model | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Estimated overall cumulative incidence, | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.43 |
| Estimated total number of infections | 55,385 | 66,441 | 21,638 | 52,507 | 51,644 | 55,481 |
| ISR (per 10,000 infections) | 5.90 | 5.02 | 14.17 | 5.66 | 5.82 | 5.89 |
| IFR (per 10,000 infections) | 4.07 | 3.45 | 9.75 | 3.89 | 4.11 | 4.06 |
The main analysis was repeated to compare four alternative assumptions of expected scaled seroprevalence, x ' . Sensitivity analyses aimed at comparing 1. main models using Jeffrey’s prior distribution (beta(0.5, 0.5)) versus flat beta prior distribution (i.e. beta(1, 1)) for cumulative incidence, θ, and 2. main models which considered two sera versus three sera that tested positive for H7N9 at a HI titer of ≥40. Note: All results are expressed in the most credible estimate (95 % credibility interval), ISR infection-severity risk, IFR infection-fatality risk