| Literature DB >> 29614809 |
Bin Zhu1,2, Jinlin Liu3, Yang Fu4, Bo Zhang5, Ying Mao6.
Abstract
Viral hepatitis, as one of the most serious notifiable infectious diseases in China, takes heavy tolls from the infected and causes a severe economic burden to society, yet few studies have systematically explored the spatio-temporal epidemiology of viral hepatitis in China. This study aims to explore, visualize and compare the epidemiologic trends and spatial changing patterns of different types of viral hepatitis (A, B, C, E and unspecified, based on the classification of CDC) at the provincial level in China. The growth rates of incidence are used and converted to box plots to visualize the epidemiologic trends, with the linear trend being tested by chi-square linear by linear association test. Two complementary spatial cluster methods are used to explore the overall agglomeration level and identify spatial clusters: spatial autocorrelation analysis (measured by global and local Moran's I) and space-time scan analysis. Based on the spatial autocorrelation analysis, the hotspots of hepatitis A remain relatively stable and gradually shrunk, with Yunnan and Sichuan successively moving out the high-high (HH) cluster area. The HH clustering feature of hepatitis B in China gradually disappeared with time. However, the HH cluster area of hepatitis C has gradually moved towards the west, while for hepatitis E, the provincial units around the Yangtze River Delta region have been revealing HH cluster features since 2005. The space-time scan analysis also indicates the distinct spatial changing patterns of different types of viral hepatitis in China. It is easy to conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all plan for the prevention and control of viral hepatitis in all the provincial units. An effective response requires a package of coordinated actions, which should vary across localities regarding the spatial-temporal epidemic dynamics of each type of virus and the specific conditions of each provincial unit.Entities:
Keywords: China; HAV; HBV; HCV; HEV; Moran’s I; space-time scan; spatial autocorrelation; spatio-temporal epidemiology; viral hepatitis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29614809 PMCID: PMC5923703 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Four types of spatial clusters detected by local Moran’s I.
Figure 2Box plots of the incidence of different types of viral hepatitis from 2003 to 2015.
Growth of incidence of viral hepatitis in China and linear test (1/100,000) 1.
| Region | Hepatitis A | Hepatitis B | Hepatitis C | Hepatitis E | Unspecificied Hepatitis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03 | 09 | 03 | 09 | 03 | 09 | 03 | 09 | 03 | 09 | |
| Beijing | 0.92 | 16.48 | 1.56 | |||||||
| Tianjin | 0.31 | 23.05 | 3.38 | |||||||
| Hebei | 82.00 | 0.56 | 1.16 | |||||||
| Shanxi | 125.34 | 0.20 | 2.85 | |||||||
| Neimenggu | 2.00 | 0.23 | 2.47 | |||||||
| Liaoning | 3.36 | |||||||||
| Jilin | 65.18 | 26.74 | 0.79 | 1.05 | ||||||
| Heilongjiang | 57.27 | 13.84 | 0.85 | |||||||
| Shanghai | 1.29 | 16.87 | 30.20 | 3.04 | 2.69 | |||||
| Jiangsu | 18.40 | 18.60 | 4.22 | |||||||
| Zhejiang | 66.17 | 3.78 | 2.41 | 3.73 | ||||||
| Anhui | 2.27 | 3.98 | 3.82 | |||||||
| Fujian | 1.83 | |||||||||
| Jiangxi | 59.54 | 81.33 | 1.07 | 4.96 | ||||||
| Shandong | 0.55 | 31.89 | 0.91 | 1.27 | ||||||
| Henan | 24.21 | 0.42 | 2.18 | |||||||
| Hubei | 5.79 | |||||||||
| Hunan | 3.29 | 3.15 | ||||||||
| Guangdong | 2.00 | 1.85 | 137.10 | 2.39 | 3.81 | 3.43 | ||||
| Guangxi | 85.21 | 16.89 | 4.48 | 4.33 | ||||||
| Hainan | 5.88 | 52.09 | ||||||||
| Chongqing | 81.55 | 74.10 | ||||||||
| Sichuan | 44.78 | |||||||||
| Guizhou | 17.71 | 0.60 | 4.02 | |||||||
| Yunnan | 45.75 | |||||||||
| Xizang | 14.15 | 14.04 | 64.42 | 1.21 | 0.49 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.73 | ||
| Shaanxi | 0.41 | |||||||||
| Gansu | 18.61 | 25.17 | 3.49 | |||||||
| Qinghai | 18.64 | 33.47 | ||||||||
| Ningxia | 24.36 | 130.09 | 0.50 | 5.19 | ||||||
| Xinjiang | 11.24 | 8.88 | 40.02 | 5.73 | 3.06 | |||||
| SUM | 1.53 | |||||||||
1 Growth rates in parentheses, units which displayed a significant linear trend during the subperiod are in bold. * Statistical significance at 10% level; ** Statistical significance at 5% level; *** Statistical significance at 1% level.
Global spatial autocorrelation analysis and test results 2.
| Year | Hepatitis A | Hepatitis B | Hepatitis C | Hepatitis E | Unclassified Hepatitis | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | ||||||
| 2003 | 0.4605 | 4.3622 | 0.0002 | 0.3486 | 3.4146 | 0.0029 | 0.5125 | 5.0126 | 0.0003 | 0.2093 | 2.3184 | 0.0256 | 0.3084 | 3.3259 | 0.0054 |
| 2004 | 0.5586 | 5.1435 | 0.0002 | 0.3801 | 3.6752 | 0.0013 | 0.4496 | 4.2313 | 0.0005 | 0.2941 | 3.0198 | 0.0083 | 0.3298 | 3.8927 | 0.0020 |
| 2005 | 0.5082 | 5.2675 | 0.0001 | 0.3446 | 3.3712 | 0.0017 | 0.3965 | 3.7419 | 0.0008 | 0.3620 | 3.5710 | 0.0024 | 0.3279 | 3.5401 | 0.0041 |
| 2006 | 0.5262 | 5.1908 | 0.0001 | 0.3172 | 3.1546 | 0.0046 | 0.2800 | 2.7817 | 0.0069 | 0.3868 | 3.7780 | 0.0011 | 0.3369 | 3.5350 | 0.0035 |
| 2007 | 0.3813 | 3.8694 | 0.0022 | 0.3317 | 3.2922 | 0.0027 | 0.2709 | 2.7911 | 0.0072 | 0.3577 | 3.3243 | 0.0029 | 0.2346 | 2.6270 | 0.0108 |
| 2008 | 0.5486 | 5.1385 | 0.0001 | 0.3186 | 3.2575 | 0.0029 | 0.2585 | 2.7350 | 0.0085 | 0.3990 | 3.7677 | 0.0009 | 0.2724 | 3.1474 | 0.0049 |
| 2009 | 0.4961 | 4.7851 | 0.0002 | 0.2510 | 2.8569 | 0.0066 | 0.2835 | 2.8584 | 0.0072 | 0.4314 | 4.1267 | 0.0005 | 0.1994 | 2.4228 | 0.0160 |
| 2010 | 0.4449 | 5.0161 | 0.0005 | 0.2881 | 2.9339 | 0.0060 | 0.2670 | 2.6532 | 0.0104 | 0.4378 | 4.0594 | 0.0003 | 0.1668 | 2.1739 | 0.0245 |
| 2011 | 0.5467 | 5.5616 | 0.0006 | 0.3382 | 3.3336 | 0.0028 | 0.2438 | 2.5212 | 0.0133 | 0.4265 | 4.1490 | 0.0004 | 0.1880 | 2.3237 | 0.0175 |
| 2012 | 0.6636 | 6.8015 | 0.0001 | 0.2644 | 2.6571 | 0.0101 | 0.2317 | 2.4156 | 0.0164 | 0.3042 | 2.9360 | 0.0044 | 0.1463 | 2.1520 | 0.0208 |
| 2013 | 0.6226 | 6.4308 | 0.0002 | 0.1740 | 1.8903 | 0.0420 | 0.2293 | 2.4237 | 0.0146 | 0.2898 | 2.8619 | 0.0055 | 0.0943 | 1.3990 | 0.0812 |
| 2014 | 0.2434 | 4.7610 | 0.0006 | 0.2247 | 2.2409 | 0.0209 | 0.2245 | 2.3661 | 0.0151 | 0.2885 | 2.8319 | 0.0064 | 0.1152 | 1.4535 | 0.0821 |
| 2015 | 0.4039 | 5.1859 | 0.0005 | 0.2565 | 2.5737 | 0.0097 | 0.2209** | 2.2592 | 0.0199 | 0.3572 | 3.4000 | 0.0013 | 0.1402 | 1.5063 | 0.0648 |
2 Tibet was excluded in the calculation of global Moran’s I for the incidence of hepatitis E in 2004, 2008, and 2010 due to the lack of data.
Figure 3The hierarchy maps of the incidence rate of all types of viral hepatitis in 2003, 2009, 2015.
Figure 4Spatial clusters of all type of viral hepatitis in 2003, 2009, 2015.
Figure 5The spatial-temporal clusters detected by the space-scan statistics.
The mostly likely clusters and secodary clusters of viral hepatitis in China 3.
| Type of Viral Hepatitis | Cluster Type | Location | Location IDs Included | Coordinates | Radius (Km) | Time (Year) | Number of Cases | Expected Cases | Annual Cases/100,000 | RELATIVE RISK | LLR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Most likely cluster | Xizang | Xizang, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, Ningxia, Guizhou, Chongqing | 31.1 N, 89.1 E | 1790.28 | 2003–2008 | 225,471 | 61,027.91 | 14.7 | 5.02 | 154,163.66 | <0.001 |
| A | Secondary cluster | Henan | Henan, Hubei, Anhui, Shaanxi | 33.8 N, 113.6 E | 445.66 | 2003–2004 | 40,424 | 20,496.61 | 7.8 | 2.03 | 7829.79 | <0.001 |
| B | Most likely cluster | Gansu | Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Qinghai, Chongqing, Shanxi, Neimenggu, Henan, Hubei | 36.0 N, 103.8 E | 1023.00 | 2006–2011 | 3,010,858 | 1,839,009.52 | 127.0 | 1.82 | 374,337.42 | <0.001 |
| B | Secondary cluster | Hainan | Hainan, Guangxi, Guangdong | 19.2 N, 109.8 E | 583.68 | 2010–2015 | 1,160,486 | 754,743.36 | 119.3 | 1.59 | 100,129.46 | <0.001 |
| B | Secondary cluster | Heilongjiang | Heilongjiang | 46.8 N, 127.9 E | — | 2004–2005 | 63,354 | 59,295.19 | 82.9 | 1.07 | 136.47 | <0.001 |
| C | Most likely cluster | Xizang | Xizang, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, Ningxia, Guizhou, Chongqing, Shaanxi, Guangxi, Hunan, Shanxi, Neimenggu, Hubei, Henan, Hainan | 31.1 N, 89.1 E | 2454.71 | 2010–2015 | 743,192 | 366,284.22 | 19.7 | 2.86 | 209,702.96 | <0.001 |
| E | Most likely cluster | Fujian | Fujian, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Anhui, Hunan, Shanghai, Hubei, Jiangsu | 26.0 N, 118.0 E | 742.95 | 2010–2015 | 95,534 | 52769.84 | 3.0 | 2.22 | 18,154.26 | <0.001 |
| E | Secondary cluster | Liaoning | Liaoning | 41.5 N, 123.5 E | — | 2003–2008 | 13,013 | 4225.54 | 5.1 | 3.18 | 5988.83 | <0.001 |
| E | Secondary cluster | Chongqing | Chongqing | 29.8 N, 107.8 E | — | 2013–2015 | 2759 | 1483.82 | 3.1 | 1.87 | 438.96 | <0.001 |
| E | Secondary cluster | Xinjiang | Xinjiang | 42.0 N, 85.7 E | — | 2015 | 535 | 388.91 | 2.3 | 1.38 | 24.57 | <0.001 |
| Unspeficied | Most likely cluster | Zhejiang | Zhejiang, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Fujian | 29.1 N, 120.1 E | 400.88 | 2003–2008 | 129,643 | 43,380.75 | 12.1 | 3.44 | 61,614.92 | <0.001 |
| Unspeficied | Secondary cluster | Guizhou | Guizhou, Chongqing, Guangxi, Hunan, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guangdong, Hubei, Shaanxi, Hainan, Jiangxi | 26. 7 N, 106.6 E | 899.36 | 2003–2007 | 127,014 | 110,380.63 | 4.7 | 1.18 | 1432.19 | <0.001 |
| Unspeficied | Secondary cluster | Xinjiang | Xinjiang | 42.0 N, 85.7 E | — | 2004–2007 | 6704 | 3297.72 | 8.3 | 2.04 | 1358.39 | <0.001 |
3 The radius is reported only when the cluster areas include more than 1 units, and the criteria for Reporting Secondary Clusters is “no geographical overlap”.