| Literature DB >> 31168176 |
Fazilet Duygu1, Tugba Sari1, Turan Kaya1, Oznur Tavsan1, Murat Naci1.
Abstract
- Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne viral zoonosis. The incidence of zoonotic diseases has been shown to be affected by climatic factors. In this study, we evaluated patients endemic to the CCHF region and examined the relationship between the number of patients and climatic properties of the region where they lived. The study included 548 CCHF patients. Along with the patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we recorded temperature, humidity and precipitation in the places where they lived at the time of their admission to the hospital. In addition to temperature, humidity and precipitation at the time of patient admission, these values were assessed at one month and three months prior to admission. The relationship between the number of patients and the above-mentioned values was examined. Humidity at the time of and one month prior to hospital admission, and precipitation three months prior to hospital admission were found to affect the number of patients admitted to the hospital for CCHF. In conclusion, climate appeared to affect the number of CCHF patients. We believe that the number of patients presenting to the hospital with CCHF could be predicted by taking into account climatic properties of the places where CCHF has been recorded, along with undertaking necessary measures.Entities:
Keywords: Climate; Hemorrhagic fever, Crimean-Congo; Ticks; Zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 31168176 PMCID: PMC6536269 DOI: 10.20471/acc.2018.57.03.06
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Clin Croat ISSN: 0353-9466 Impact factor: 0.780
Fig. 1Relationship between the number of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever patients and humidity.
Fig. 2Relationship between the number of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever patients and level of precipitation three months prior to hospital admission.
Number of patients, temperature, humidity and level of precipitation according to years
| Year | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (N) | 59 | 105 | 133 | 95 | 160 | 0.000 |
| Temperature (°C) | 21.7 | 19.6 | 21.4 | 19.65 | 19.5 | 0.668* |
| Temperature 1 (°C) | 20.3 | 15.2 | 11.2 | 17.3 | 15.5 | 0.852f |
| Temperature 3 (°C) | 7.9 | 11.9 | 7 | 8.6 | 6.7 | 0.677h |
| Humidity (%) | 50.9 | 55.8 | 52.2 | 60.9 | 59.5 | 0.000e |
| Humidity 1 (%) | 54 | 56.7 | 62.3 | 62.4 | 62.2 | 0.005e |
| Humidity 3 (%) | 61.5 | 57.6 | 65.2 | 64.3 | 63.2 | 0.833t |
| Precipitation (mm) | 31.7 | 34.2 | 45.5 | 45.3 | 59.1 | 0.142£ |
| Precipitation 1 (mm) | 33.8 | 51.6 | 60.1 | 59.8 | 73.5 | 0.264 e |
| Precipitation 3 (mm) | 39.6 | 43.5 | 82.4 | 58.8 | 69.5 | 0.000e |
*Statistically significant difference between 2007 and 2008 (p=0.000), and between 2007 and 2009 (p=0.014). There was no statistically significant difference among other groups; f statistically significant difference between 2008 and 2009 (p=0.043); hstatistically significant difference between 2007 and 2010, and between 2008 and 2010 (p=0.000 both); estatistically significant difference among all groups (p=0.000); tno statistically significant difference between 2007 and 2008, 2008 and 2009. There was a statistically significant difference among other groups (p<0.05); £no statistically significant difference between 2009 and 2010. There was a statistically significant difference among other groups (p<0.05).