| Literature DB >> 28287496 |
Ming-Tao Li1,2, Gui-Quan Sun3, Wen-Yi Zhang4, Zhen Jin5.
Abstract
Brucellosis, the most common zoonotic disease worldwide, represents a great threat to animal husbandry with the potential to cause enormous economic losses. Brucellosis has become a major public health problem in China, and the number of human brucellosis cases has increased dramatically in recent years. In order to evaluate different intervention strategies to curb brucellosis transmission in China, a novel mathematical model with a general indirect transmission incidence rate was presented. By comparing the results of three models using national human disease data and 11 provinces with high case numbers, the best fitted model with standard incidence was used to investigate the potential for future outbreaks. Estimated basic reproduction numbers were highly heterogeneous, varying widely among provinces. The local basic reproduction numbers of provinces with an obvious increase in incidence were much larger than the average for the country as a whole, suggesting that environment-to-individual transmission was more common than individual-to-individual transmission. We concluded that brucellosis can be controlled through increasing animal vaccination rates, environment disinfection frequency, or elimination rates of infected animals. Our finding suggests that a combination of animal vaccination, environment disinfection, and elimination of infected animals will be necessary to ensure cost-effective control for brucellosis.Entities:
Keywords: basic reproduction number; brucellosis; control strategy; dynamic modeling
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28287496 PMCID: PMC5369131 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14030295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Spatiotemporal distribution of annual human brucellosis cases, by province, in China, 2004–2014.
Figure 2Transmission diagram on the dynamical transmission of brucellosis.
Model selection table for mainland China.
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5583 (0.5522–0.5643) | 0.7401 (0.7328–0.7475) | 0.7580 (0.7545–0.7615) | |
| 0.1125 (0.1086–0.1165) | 0.2761 (0.2713–0.2809) | 0.2798 (0.2788–0.2808) | |
| 0.0676 (0.0662–0.0691) | 0.0942 (0.0924–0.0960) | 0.0752 (0.0727–0.0777) | |
| - | 1.1846 (1.1844–1.1848) | - | |
| - | - | 1.2911 (1.2910–1.2912) | |
| 177.9735 | 180.0358 | 179.9576 | |
| 181.4021 | 186.7025 | 186.6243 | |
| Δ | 0 | 5.3004 | 5.2222 |
Figure 3Brucellosis model fitting for the annual cases of human brucellosis infection with different Cases. The light grey shaded area shows the 95% confident interval (CI) for all 1000 simulations, and the blue circles mark the reported data for human brucellosis cases. Let represent annual cases of brucellosis infection, and , where .
Figure 4Brucellosis model fitting for cases of human brucellosis infection in mainland China and 11 selected provinces. The light grey shaded area shows the 95% CI for all 1000 simulations, and the blue circles mark the reported data for human brucellosis cases.
Estimated values of , , and their 95% confidence intervals.
| 95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mainland China | 0.6185 | (0.6118-0.6252) | 0.5193 | (0.5013–0.5475) | 1.1379 | (1.1131–1.1727) |
| Xinjiang | 0.2864 | (0.1916–0.3812) | 1.5131 | (1.4110–1.6157) | 1.7995 | (1.6025–1.9970) |
| Shandong | 0.4347 | (0.2987–0.5706) | 1.1812 | (1.0474–1.3179) | 1.6159 | (1.3461–1.8885) |
| Liaoning | 0.1886 | ( 0.1148–0.2625) | 1.2482 | (1.1835–1.3125) | 1.4369 | (1.2983–1.5750) |
| Henan | 0.2213 | (0.1694–0.2733) | 1.3132 | (1.2024–1.2789) | 1.5346 | (1.3719–1.6973) |
| Ningxia | 0.4417 | (0.2469–0.6365) | 1.2931 | (1.2013–1.8051) | 1.8348 | (1.4482–2.4417) |
| Shanxi | 0.7623 | (0.7120–0.8127) | 0.4456 | (0.3579–0.5324) | 1.2079 | (1.0699–1.3451) |
| Hebei | 0.5012 | (0.4341–0.5683) | 0.6208 | (0.5210–0.7203) | 1.1220 | (0.9550–1.2886) |
| Heilongjiang | 0.4808 | (0.4039–0.5577) | 0.6946 | (0.6183–0.7714) | 1.1754 | (1.0222–1.3292) |
| Shaanxi | 0.6708 | (0.5869–0.7546) | 0.3519 | (0.2595–0.4443) | 1.0227 | (0.8464-1.1990) |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.6135 | (0.5896–0.6375) | 0.5854 | (0.5475–0.6233 ) | 1.1989 | (1.1371–1.2608) |
| Jilin | 0.6974 | (0.4775–0.9174) | 1.0782 | (0.9005–1.2559 ) | 1.7756 | (1.3780–2.1734) |
Estimates of minimum vaccination coverage rate v, removal rate α, and disinfection frequency l.
| Vaccination Rate | Removal Rate | Disinfection Frequency ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mainland China | 0.1478 | 0.1245 | 3 |
| Xinjiang | 0.5418 | 0.6686 | 9 |
| Shandong | 0.4648 | 0.8132 | 8 |
| Liaoning | 0.3708 | 0.4331 | 4 |
| Henan | 0.4248 | 0.5770 | 5 |
| Ningxia | 0.5549 | 0.7108 | 11 |
| Shanxi | 0.2099 | 0.1058 | 7 |
| Hebei | 0.1326 | 0.1512 | 2 |
| Heilongjiang | 0.1820 | 0.1379 | 3 |
| Shaanxi | 0.0271 | 0.0154 | 1 |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.2023 | 0.2034 | 4 |
| Jilin | 0.5327 | 0.5847 | 19 |