| Literature DB >> 29891781 |
Jundi Liu1, Yu Deng2, Qinlong Jing3, Xiashi Chen4, Zhicheng Du5, Tianzhu Liang6, Zhicong Yang7, Dingmei Zhang8, Yuantao Hao9.
Abstract
The majority of dengue virus infections are asymptomatic, which could potentially facilitate the transmission of dengue fever and increase the percentage of sever dengue fever manifestations. This cross-sectional study explored the sero-prevalence of dengue virus infection in Guangzhou to clarify the infection spectrum. In total, 2085 serum samples were collected from residents of 34 communities. All samples were selected from a 200,000-sample database holding serum collected from community residents living in Liwan and Yuexiu districts of Guangzhou between September 2013 and August 2015, and 17 to 28 individuals of each age group were chosen per month. Dengue immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Symptomatic infected individuals were identified via follow-up questionnaires. Among 2085 serum samples, anti-dengue IgG and IgM positive rates were 11.80% and 3.98%, respectively. The IgG antibody positive rate increased with age and was higher in poorly educated people than in highly educated people and in married individuals than in single individuals. Approximately 96.71% of dengue virus infections and an estimated 13.68% of the whole population were asymptomatic. Such high asymptomatic-infection rates have an impact on the local spread of dengue fever. Stricter surveillance, such as a network of rapid diagnostic laboratories, screening of residents in the epidemic season, and other integrated control measures are necessary.Entities:
Keywords: asymptomatic-infection; dengue virus antibody; infection spectrum; seroepidemiology
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29891781 PMCID: PMC6025390 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The distribution of residents whose serum samples were collected. The location of community health service centers collecting serum samples from administered residents. Numbers in parentheses indicate how many samples were collected. (a), The situation of Liwana District and Yuexiu District. (b), The distribution of sampling community health service centers in Liwan District. (c), The distribution of sampling community health service centers in Yuexiu District.
Demographic distribution of IgG and IgM
| Variables | Number | Dengue IgG | Dengue IgM | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Percentage %) | Positive Number | Positive rate % | Odds ratio | Positive Number | Positive rate % | Odds ratio | |||
| Total number | 2085 | 246 | 11.80 (10.41–13.18) | 83 | 3.98 (3.14–4.82) | ||||
| Gender | 0.212 | 0.575 | |||||||
| Male | 764 (36.6) | 99 | 12.96 (10.57–15.34) | 1 (referent) | 28 | 3.66 (2.33–5.00) | 1 (referent) | ||
| Female | 1321 (63.4) | 147 | 11.13 (9.43–12.83) | 0.84 (0.64–1.10) | 55 | 4.16 (3.08–5.24) | 1.14 (0.72–1.82) | ||
| Age (years old) | 0.000 | 0.399 | |||||||
| <19 | 416 (20) | 7 | 1.68 (0.44–2.92) | 1 (referent) | 18 | 4.33 (2.36–6.30) | 1 (referent) | ||
| 19–40 | 433 (20.8) | 22 | 5.08 (3.00–7.16) | 3.13 (1.32–7.40) | 14 | 3.23 (1.56–4.91) | 0.73 (0.36 –1.51) | ||
| 41–65 | 879 (32.6) | 48 | 7.07 (5.14 –9.00) | 4.45 (1.99 –9.92) | 33 | 4.86 (3.24 –6.48) | |||
| >65 | 557 (26.7) | 169 | 30.34 (26.51 –34.17) | 25.45 (11.80 –54.89) | 18 | 3.23 (1.76 –4.70) | 0.74 (0.38 –1.44) | ||
| Educational status | 0.000 | 0.081 | |||||||
| Illiterate | 159 (7.6) | 23 | 14.47 (8.94–19.99) | 1 (referent) | 6 | 3.77 (0.78–6.77) | 1 (referent) | ||
| Primary | 437 (21) | 71 | 16.25 (12.78–19.72) | 1.15 (0.69–1.91) | 18 | 4.12 (2.25–5.99) | 1.1 (0.43–2.81) | ||
| Junior high school | 426 (20.4) | 59 | 13.85 (10.56–17.14) | 0.95 (0.56–1.60) | 15 | 3.52 (1.76–5.28) | 0.93 (0.35–2.44) | ||
| Senior high school | 497 (23.8) | 41 | 8.25 (5.82–10.68) | 0.53 (0.31–0.92) | 30 | 6.04 (3.94–8.14) | 1.64 (0.67–4.01) | ||
| Diploma and above | 247 (11.8) | 20 | 8.1 (4.67–11.52) | 0.52 (0.28–0.98) | 8 | 3.24 (1.02–5.46) | 0.85 (0.29–2.51) | ||
| Unknown | 319 (15.3) | 32 | 10.03 (6.72–13.35) | 0.66 (0.37–1.17) | 6 | 1.88 (0.38–3.38) | 0.49 (0.16–1.54) | ||
| Marital Status | 0.000 | 0.340 | |||||||
| Single | 534 (25.6) | 14 | 2.62 (1.26–3.98) | 1 (referent) | 19 | 3.56 (1.98–5.13) | 1 (referent) | ||
| Married | 1270 (60.9) | 177 | 13.94 (12.03–15.84) | 6.01 (3.46–10.47) | 58 | 4.42 (3.28–5.55) | 1.3 (0.76–2.20) | ||
| Widowed | 121 (5.8) | 36 | 29.75 (21.49–38.02) | 15.73 (8.14–30.39) | 2 | 1.65 (0.45–5.83) | 0.46 (0.10–1.98) | ||
| Divorced | 18 (0.9) | 3 | 16.67 (5.84–39.22) | 7.43 (1.93–28.61) | 1 | 5.56 (0.99–25.76) | 1.59 (0.20–12.61) | ||
| Unknown | 142 (6.8) | 16 | 11.27 (6.00–16.53) | 4.72 (2.24–9.92) | 3 | 2.11 (0.72–6.03) | 0.59 (0.17–2.00) | ||
Significance difference where p-value is less than 0.05. 95% confidence interval
Detection results for different time periods
| Antibody | Time Period | Guangzhou | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Positive Number | Positive rate % | Odds ratio | |||
| IgG | 09/2013–12/2013 | 349 | 37 | 10.60 (7.66–14.12) | 0.011 | 1 (referent) |
| 01/2014–08/2014 | 871 | 95 | 10.91 (8.95/13.09) | 1.03 (0.69–1.54) | ||
| 09/2014–12/2014 | 353 | 60 | 17.00 (13.32–21.15) | 1.73 (1.11–2.68) | ||
| 01/2015–08/2015 | 512 | 54 | 10.55 (8.08–13.40) | 0.99 (0.64–1.55) | ||
| IgM | 09/2013–12/2013 | 349 | 7 | 2.01 (0.87–3.84) | 0.000 | 1 (referent) |
| 01/2014–08/2014 | 871 | 20 | 2.30 (1.44–3.43) | 1.15 (0.48–2.74 | ||
| 09/2014–12/2014 | 353 | 33 | 9.35 (6.61–12.68) | 5.04 (2.20–11.55) | ||
| 01/2015–08/2015 | 512 | 23 | 4.49 (2.92–6.52) | 2.30 (0.98–5.42) | ||
95% confidence interval. Significance difference between four time periods where the p-value of the antibody positive rate in Guangzhou is less than 0.05.