| Literature DB >> 30668565 |
Aubree Gordon1, Lionel Gresh2, Sergio Ojeda2, Leah C Katzelnick3, Nery Sanchez2, Juan Carlos Mercado2,4, Gerardo Chowell5, Brenda Lopez2, Douglas Elizondo2, Josefina Coloma3, Raquel Burger-Calderon2,3, Guillermina Kuan6, Angel Balmaseda4, Eva Harris3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zika virus (ZIKV) emerged in northeast Brazil in 2015 and spread rapidly across the Americas, in populations that have been largely exposed to dengue virus (DENV). The impact of prior DENV infection on ZIKV infection outcome remains unclear. To study this potential impact, we analyzed the large 2016 Zika epidemic in Managua, Nicaragua, in a pediatric cohort with well-characterized DENV infection histories. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30668565 PMCID: PMC6342296 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002726
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Participant characteristics, Managua, Nicaragua, January 2016–February 2017.
| Characteristic | Full cohort | Zika cases | Non-cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 1,944 (49.9) | 309 (55.2) | 1,635 (49.0) |
| Male | 1,949 (50.1) | 251 (44.8) | 1,698 (51.0) |
| 2–5 | 1,146 (29.4) | 128 (22.9) | 1,018 (30.5) |
| 6–9 | 1,249 (32.1) | 205 (36.6) | 1,044 (31.3) |
| 10–14 | 1,498 (38.5) | 227 (40.5) | 1,271 (38.1) |
Data presented as n (percent).
Fig 1Classification tree showing the algorithm for distinguishing symptomatic Zika cases, dengue cases, and non-cases (negative cases) based on serological data.
Results from 5 serological assays (ZIKV and DENV MAC-ELISAs on acute and convalescent samples, ZIKV and DENV iELISAs on acute and convalescent samples, and ZIKV NS1 BOB ELISA on the post-infection annual sample) were used to classify the cases. The numbers of rRT-PCR-confirmed Zika, dengue, and negative cases according to their assay results are shown in blue, orange, and grey, respectively. BOB, blockade-of-binding; conv., convalescent; DENV, dengue virus; iELISA, inhibition ELISA; MAC-ELISA, IgM antibody capture ELISA; rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription PCR; ZIKV, Zika virus.
Fig 2Weekly incidence of Zika in the Pediatric Dengue Cohort Study, January 2016–February 2017.
Incidence of symptomatic ZIKV infection (all cases detected by rRT-PCR and/or the serological algorithm) and incidence of rRT-PCR-positive cases. rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription PCR; ZIKV, Zika virus.
Incidence of ZIKV infection and Zika cases in participants aged 2–14 years, District II of Managua, January 2016–February 2017.
| Analysis | Zika cases | ZIKV infections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person-years | Cases | Incidence per 100 person-years (95% CI) | Person-years | Infections | Incidence per 100 person-years (95% CI) | |
| 3,996.6 | 560 | 14.0 (12.9, 15.2) | 3,707.9 | 1,356 | 36.5 (34.7, 38.6) | |
| Female | 1,985.6 | 309 | 15.6 (13.9, 17.4) | 1,859.1 | 722 | 38.8 (36.1, 41.8) |
| Male | 2,011.0 | 251 | 12.5 (11.0, 14.1) | 1,848.8 | 634 | 34.3 (31.7, 37.1) |
| 2–5 | 1,236.7 | 128 | 10.4 (8.7, 12.3) | 1,358.1 | 391 | 28.8 (26.1, 31.8) |
| 6–9 | 1,316.5 | 205 | 15.6 (13.6, 17.9) | 1,313.5 | 488 | 37.2 (34.0, 40.6) |
| 10–14 | 1,443.5 | 227 | 15.7 (13.8, 17.9) | 1,036.3 | 477 | 46.0 (42.1, 50.4) |
*Symptomatic ZIKV infections detected from January 2016 to February 2017.
†Symptomatic and inapparent ZIKV infections detected from January 2016 to February 2017 in children who provided annual samples in 2015, 2016, and 2017, and from March 2016 to February 2017 in children who provided annual samples in 2016 and 2017 but not in 2015.
ZIKV, Zika virus.
Effect of demographic characteristics and recent and prior DENV infection on risk of symptomatic ZIKV infection, ZIKV infection, and symptomatic presentation given ZIKV infection.
| Analysis | Crude IRR | IRR adjusted for age and sex | Multivariable model IRR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex | 1.22 (1.02, 1.45) | 0.028 | 0.031 | 0.033 | ||
| Age (years) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Recent DENV infection | 0.042 | 0.020 | 0.80 (0.47, 1.34) | 0.393 | ||
| Prior DENV infection | 0.020 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Female sex | 0.028 | 0.047 | 0.045 | |||
| Age (years) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Recent DENV infection | 0.93 (0.69, 1.25) | 0.613 | 0.83 (0.61, 1.12) | 0.219 | 0.84 (0.61, 1.16) | 0.295 |
| Prior DENV infection | <0.001 | 0.94 (0.81, 1.11) | 0.482 | 0.98 (0.82, 1.16) | 0.809 | |
| Female sex | 1.16 (0.92, 1.45) | 0.211 | 1.15 (0.92, 1.45) | 0.215 | 1.14 (0.91, 1.44) | 0.244 |
| Age (years) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) | 0.748 | 1.00 (0.97, 1.04) | 0.779 | 1.03 (0.99, 1.07) | 0.092 |
| Recent DENV infection | 0.62 (0.32, 1.21) | 0.162 | 0.62 (0.32, 1.20) | 0.157 | 0.87 (0.43, 1.77) | 0.698 |
| Prior DENV infection | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.004 | |||
IRR values in bold are statistically significant.
DENV, dengue virus; IRR, incidence rate ratio; ZIKV, Zika virus.
Mean estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the effective reproduction number during the early growth phase of the Zika epidemic.
| Parameter | 5-Week ascending phase | 8-Week ascending phase |
|---|---|---|
| Reproduction number, | 3.3 (1.3, 5.3) | 3.4 (2.4, 4.7) |
| Growth rate, | 0.2 (0.1, 0.4) | 0.1 (0.1, 0.2) |
| Scaling of growth parameter, | 0.8 (0.2, 1.0) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.0) |
*We assumed a generation interval of 20 days and SD of 7.4 days [41].