| Literature DB >> 31415559 |
Bo Yi1, Yi Chen1, Xiao Ma1, Jia Rui2, Jing-An Cui3, Haibin Wang4, Jia Li2, Soi-Fan Chan5, Rong Wang1, Keqin Ding1, Lei Xie1, Dongliang Zhang1, Shuli Jiao1, Xuying Lao1, Yi-Chen Chiang2, Yanhua Su2, Benhua Zhao2, Guozhang Xu1, Tianmu Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The reported incidence of dengue fever increased dramatically in recent years in China. This study aimed to investigate and to assess the effectiveness of intervention implemented in a dengue outbreak in Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31415559 PMCID: PMC6711548 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Flowchart of development of the dengue transmission model.
Parameter definitions and values.
| Parameter | Description | Unit | Value | Range | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transmission relative rate from mosquitos to human | 1 | 1.4000 | ≥ 0 | Curve fitting | |
| Transmission relative rate from human to mosquitos | 1 | 1.3613 | ≥ 0 | Curve fitting | |
| Incubation relative rate of human infection | day-1 | 0.1667 | 0.1250–0.2500 | References [ | |
| Incubation relative rate of mosquitos infection | day-1 | 0.1000 | 0.0833–0.1250 | References [ | |
| Proportion of human asymptomatic infection | 1 | 0.6875 | 0–1 | References [ | |
| Removed relative rate of infectious individuals | day-1 | 0.1429 | 0.0714–0.3333 | References [ | |
| Removed relative rate of asymptomatic individuals | day-1 | 0.1429 | 0.0714–0.3333 | References [ | |
| Daily birth rate of mosquitos | day-1 | 0.0714 | 0.0200–0.2500 | References [ | |
| Seasonality parameter of the mosquitos population | 1 | See text | 0–1 | Curve fitting | |
| Simulation delay of the initial time in the whole season | day | 170 | ≥ 0 | Analysis on the reported data | |
| Duration of the cycle | day | 712 | ≥ 0 | Analysis on the reported data | |
| Changing rate coefficient of the birth rate | 1 | -0.6200 | ≤ 0 | Curve fitting | |
| Proportion of transovarial transmission | 1 | 0.1000 | 0.0140–0.1740 | References [ | |
| Daily death rate of mosquitos | day-1 | 0.0714 | 0.0200–0.2500 | References [ | |
| Changing rate coefficient of the density | 1 | -1.1310 | ≤ 0 | Curve fitting | |
| Effective coefficient of rHBR | 1 | 0–0.9 | 0–1 | Simulated |
* the parameter c was simulated by the trigonometric function using parameters τ and T.
Fig 2Reported dengue cases from 2005 to 2018 in Ningbo City, China.
Fig 3Epidemic curve and curve fitting of a dengue outbreak in a community in Ningbo City, China in 2018.
Age and sex distribution of the cases during the outbreak in 2018.
| Variables | Number of cases | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (Year) | ||
| < 10 | 1 | 3.70 |
| 10 - | 1 | 3.70 |
| 20 - | 2 | 7.41 |
| 30 - | 2 | 7.41 |
| 40 - | 5 | 18.52 |
| 50 - | 6 | 22.22 |
| 60 - | 5 | 18.52 |
| > 70 | 5 | 18.52 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 12 | 44.44 |
| Female | 15 | 55.56 |
Fig 4Phylogenetic analysis of E genes of the 25 GENV-1 viruses isolated from 25 patients in a dengue outbreak in Ningbo City, China in 2018.
Fig 5Curve fitting of adult and larvae surveillance data in Ningbo City, 2017.
A, monthly adult density of the vector; B, monthly Breteau Index.
Fig 6Curve fitting of BI and HBR data during the dengue outbreak in Ningbo City, 2018.
A, daily Breteau Index (BI); B, daily human biting rate (HBR).
Results of simulated effectiveness of dengue interventions implemented on August 11, 2018.
| Intervention | Number of cases | TAR (%) | AE (%) | RE (%) | DO (Days) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | |||||
| No intervention | 1728 | 31.21 | 29.99–32.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 57 |
| Iso | 1728 | 31.21 | 29.99–32.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 57 |
| rHBR | ||||||
| 10% | 1727 | 31.20 | 29.98–32.42 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 57 |
| 20% | 1727 | 31.20 | 29.98–32.42 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 58 |
| 30% | 1727 | 31.20 | 29.98–32.42 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 59 |
| 40% | 1727 | 31.20 | 29.98–32.42 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 60 |
| 50% | 1728 | 31.21 | 29.99–32.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 63 |
| 60% | 1726 | 31.18 | 29.96–32.40 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 67 |
| 70% | 1708 | 30.85 | 29.64–32.07 | 0.36 | 1.15 | 80 |
| 80% | 1475 | 26.64 | 25.48–27.81 | 4.57 | 14.63 | 102 |
| 90% | 567 | 10.24 | 9.44–11.04 | 20.97 | 67.18 | 99 |
| 100% | 58 | 1.05 | 0.78–1.32 | 30.16 | 96.64 | 27 |
| LC | 1728 | 31.21 | 29.99–32.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 57 |
| AVC | 105 | 1.90 | 1.54–2.26 | 29.31 | 93.92 | 32 |
| LC+AVC | 105 | 1.90 | 1.54–2.26 | 29.31 | 93.92 | 32 |
| rHBR100%+AVC | 58 | 1.05 | 0.78–1.32 | 30.16 | 96.64 | 27 |
| rHBR100%+LC | 58 | 1.05 | 0.78–1.32 | 30.16 | 96.64 | 27 |
| rHBR100%+LC+AVC | 58 | 1.05 | 0.78–1.32 | 30.16 | 96.64 | 27 |
| rHBR100%+LC+AVC+Iso | 58 | 1.05 | 0.78–1.32 | 30.16 | 96.64 | 27 |
| Reported data | 27 | 0.49 | 0.30–0.67 | 30.72 | 98.44 | 29 |
Iso, case isolation; rHBR, reducing human biting rate; LC, larvae control; AVC, adult vector control; CI, confidence interval calculated by binomial distribution.
Fig 7Curve fitting of logistic model and TARs data at different levels of rHBR.