| Literature DB >> 35356592 |
Xinyi Wang1, Shang Xia1,2, Jingbo Xue1,2, Zhengbin Zhou1, Yuanyuan Li1, Zelin Zhu1, Yi Zhang1,2, Qiang Wang1, Shizhu Li1,2.
Abstract
What is already known about this topic?: Mountain-type zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (MT-ZVL) cases in China have increased significantly between 2015 and 2020. A total of 25 regions had re-emerged yielding 88 MT-ZVL indigenous cases, while the total number of visceral leishmaniasis cases declined. What is added by this report?: The transmission risk of MT-ZVL showed a trend of patchy dissemination centered on major endemic areas and medium-high risk occurrence areas of Phlebotomus chinensis with discrete foci. Multi-point re-emergence and local outbreaks of MT-ZVL were trending in historically endemic areas. What are the implications for public health practice?: Risk identification and early warnings of MT-ZVL are essential in formulating precise prevention and control strategies in China. More frequent monitoring, establishing a mechanism of joint prevention and control, and highlighting health education are recommended. Copyright and License information: Editorial Office of CCDCW, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2022.Entities:
Keywords: Phlebotomus chinensis; mountain-type zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis; transmission risk
Year: 2022 PMID: 35356592 PMCID: PMC8930398 DOI: 10.46234/ccdcw2022.029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: China CDC Wkly ISSN: 2096-7071
Figure 1Transmission risks of mountain-type zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in six endemic PLADs, China. (A) The distribution of MT-ZVL indigenous cases in CLADs from 2015 to 2020; (B) The occurrence probabilities of Phlebotomus chinensis in CLADs; (C) The risk-matrix evaluation result of MT-ZVL in CLADs.
Risk-matrix evaluation on the transmission risk of mountain-type zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in 6 endemic PLADs in China, 2015–2020.
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Note: MT-ZVL scores were calculated by the summation of the scores of endemic CLADs classification and the scores of occurrence probabilities of | ||||
| High risk (0.60–1, 3) | 6, RISK 1 | 5, RISK 2 | 4, RISK 2 | 3, RISK 3 |
| Medium risk (0.30–0.59, 2) | 5, RISK 2 | 4, RISK 2 | 3, RISK 3 | 2, RISK 3 |
| Low risk (0–0.29, 1) | 4, RISK 2 | 3, RISK 3 | 2, RISK 3 | 1, RISK 4 |