| Literature DB >> 28820130 |
Emily S Gurley, Sonia T Hegde, Kamal Hossain, Hossain M S Sazzad, M Jahangir Hossain, Mahmudur Rahman, M A Yushuf Sharker, Henrik Salje, M Saiful Islam, Jonathan H Epstein, Salah U Khan, A Marm Kilpatrick, Peter Daszak, Stephen P Luby.
Abstract
Preventing emergence of new zoonotic viruses depends on understanding determinants for human risk. Nipah virus (NiV) is a lethal zoonotic pathogen that has spilled over from bats into human populations, with limited person-to-person transmission. We examined ecologic and human behavioral drivers of geographic variation for risk of NiV infection in Bangladesh. We visited 60 villages during 2011-2013 where cases of infection with NiV were identified and 147 control villages. We compared case villages with control villages for most likely drivers for risk of infection, including number of bats, persons, and date palm sap trees, and human date palm sap consumption behavior. Case villages were similar to control villages in many ways, including number of bats, persons, and date palm sap trees, but had a higher proportion of households in which someone drank sap. Reducing human consumption of sap could reduce virus transmission and risk for emergence of a more highly transmissible NiV strain.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; NiV; Nipah virus; bats; case–control study; convergence; culture; date palm sap; epidemiology; human behavior; humans; infections; trees; vector-borne infections; virus transmission; viruses; zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28820130 PMCID: PMC5572889 DOI: 10.3201/eid2309.161922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1A) Locations of identified bat-to-human transmission of Nipah virus and spatial intensity of transmission events, Bangladesh, 2001–2012. B) Relative sizes of the Pteropus medius bat populations in case and control villages (including within 5 km of each village). C) Proportion of households in case and control villages with persons who regularly consume fresh date palm sap.
Characteristics of villages with cases of Nipah virus infection and control villages, Bangladesh 2011–2013*
| Characteristic | Villages with cases, n = 60 | Nearby control villages, n = 73 | p value† | Distant control villages, n = 74 | p value‡ |
| Human population | |||||
| No. persons in village | 1,476 (1,202–1,749) | 1.389 (1,102–1,676) | 0.20 | 1,392 (1,010–1,774) | 0.10 |
| No. persons/km2 | 1,168 (1,167–2,169) | 1,173 (592–1,754) | 0.78 | 1,335 (456–2,213) | 0.95 |
| Proportion of villages where | 0.85 (0.76–0.94) | 0.86 (0.78–0.94) | 0.86 | 0.76 (0.66–0.86) | 0.19 |
| No. bats roosting in village or within 5 km of village boundary | 554 (319–789) | 620 (364–875) | 0.60 | 407 (226–587) | 0.37 |
| Proportion of respondents reporting large fruit bats | |||||
| Roosted nearby during the day in past month | 0.25 (0.17–0.34) | 0.37 (0.29–0.45) | 0.060 | 0.40 (0.31–0.49) | 0.024 |
| Fly overhead at dusk | 0.51 (0.43–059) | 0.64 (0.56–0.70) | 0.019 | 0.77 (0.71–0.83) | <0.001 |
| Visit fruit trees at night | 0.43 (0.35–0.51) | 0.52 (0.45–0.60) | 0.10 | 0.53 (0.45–0.61) | 0.090 |
| Date palm sap and fruiting trees | |||||
| No. trees in village within a 500-m radius of village boundary | 120 (88–152) | 95 (78–111) | 0.91 | 101 (65–138) | 0.14 |
| Proportion of households with fruiting trees on premises | 0.97 (0.94–0.99) | 0.97 (0.94–0.98) | 0.81 | 0.94 (0.92–0.96) | 0.14 |
| No. fruiting trees on each household premise | 56 (46–68) | 52 (43–61) | 0.81 | 108 (45–170) | 0.47 |
| Human behavior | |||||
| Proportion of villages with | 0.60 (0.47–0.63) | 0.40 (0.29–0.52) | 0.026 | 0.51 (0.40–0.63) | 0.32 |
| No. sap collectors in villages | 4.5 (1.8–7.3) | 2.3 (1.0–3.6) | 0.41 | 3.7 (1.9–5.6) | 0.54 |
| Proportion of villages with | 0.38 (0.28–0.51) | 0.32 (0.21–0.43) | 0.45 | 0.39 (0.26–0.51) | 0.92 |
| No. (%) fresh sap sellers in villages | 1.9 (0.6) | 0.9 (0.2) | 0.16 | 2.4 (0.6) | 0.47 |
| Proportion of households where | 0.61 (0.54–0.68) | 0.49 (0.42–0.56) | 0.014 | 0.31 (0.24–0.39) | <0.001 |
| Proportion of households where someone drank raw sap >1×/wk during the past harvest season | 0.35 (0.27–0.43) | 0.29 (0.23–0.35) | 0.26 | 0.21 (0.16–0.27) | 0.005 |
| No. household residents who drank | 3.3 (2.7–3.9) | 2.1 (1.8–2.5) | 0.001 | 1.5 (1.1–1.9) | <0.001 |
| Proportion of villages where >1 household fed raw date palm sap to livestock | 0.16 (0.10–0.21) | 0.12 (0.06–0.18) | 0.66 | 0.14 (0.08–0.21) | 0.78 |
| Proportion of villages where | 0.53 (0.40–0.66) | 0.64 (0.53–0.75) | 0.22 | 0.27 (0.17–0.38) | 0.002 |
| Proportion of households that reported residents ate bitten fruits dropped on the ground | 0.42 (0.37–0.48) | 0.58 (0.53–0.62) | <0.001 | 0.66 (0.61–0.71) | <0.001 |
*Values are mean (95% CI) except as indicated. †Comparison of villages with cases of Nipah virus infections with nearby control villages by using generalized linear models that account for correlations within villages for characteristics measured in household surveys. ‡Comparison of villages with cases of Nipah virus infections with distant control villages by using generalized linear models that account for correlations within villages for characteristics measured in household surveys.
Figure 2Comparisons of villages with Nipah virus infections with nearby and distant control villages, Bangladesh, 2011–2013. A) Human population size, B) Pteropus medius bat population size, C) no. date palm trees, D) proportion of households with members who consume fresh date palm sap, E) average no. of persons per household who consume fresh date palm sap, and F) proportion of households that reported their residents eat bitten fruits dropped on the ground. Gray shading in violin plots indicates distribution of values for each variable. Box plots indicate 25th and 75th percentiles (bottom and top lines), medians (horizontal lines within boxes), and 95 CIs (whiskers). Red dots indicate maximum (outlier) values.
Odds ratios from logistic regression models estimating associations between village characteristics and Nipah virus spillovers, Bangladesh, 2011–2013*
| Characteristic | OR (95% CI) for villages with NiV infections vs. nearby control villages | p value | OR (95% CI) for villages with NiV infections vs. distant control villages | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per each order of magnitude increase in no. persons in village | 1.36 (0.90–2.07) | 0.14 | 1.57 (0.90–2.6) | 0.12 |
| Per each order of magnitude increase in no. bats | 1.00 (0.86–1.16) | 0.97 | 1.18 (1.02–1.37) | 0.029 |
| Per each order of magnitude increase in no. date palm sap trees | 0.75 (0.49–1.12) | 0.16 | .69 (0.45–1.04) | 0.078 |
| Per each 10% increase in households reporting that someone consumed raw date palm sap during the harvest season | 6.39 (1.61–25.40) | 0.008 | 26.97 (5.98–121.67) | <0.001 |
| Per each 1% increase in villages reporting that someone hunts bats | NA | NA | 1.80 (0.80–4.06) | 0.16 |
*CIs were calculated by using robust variance. NA, not applicable; NiV, Nipah virus; OR, odds ratio.