Epidemiological and ecological determinants of Zika virus transmission in an urban setting
- University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- FIOCRUZ, Brazil
- Université de Montpellier, France
- Centre of PostGraduation in Collective Health, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil
- University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Abstract
The Zika virus has emerged as a global public health concern. Its rapid geographic expansion is attributed to the success of Aedes mosquito vectors, but local epidemiological drivers are still poorly understood. Feira de Santana played a pivotal role in the Chikungunya epidemic in Brazil and was one of the first urban centres to report Zika infections. Using a climate-driven transmission model and notified Zika case data, we show that a low observation rate and high vectorial capacity translated into a significant attack rate during the 2015 outbreak, with a subsequent decline in 2016 and fade-out in 2017 due to herd-immunity. We find a potential Zika-related, low risk for microcephaly per pregnancy, but with significant public health impact given high attack rates. The balance between the loss of herd-immunity and viral re-importation will dictate future transmission potential of in this urban setting.
Article and author information
Author details
Nuno Rodrigues Faria
Christian Julian Villabona-Arenas
Funding
European Research Council (614725-PATHPHYLODYN)
- Oliver G Pybus
Royal Society
- Mario Recker
Wellcome Trust & Royal Society (204311/Z/16/Z)
- Nuno Rodrigues Faria
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Ben Lambert
European Research Council (268904 - DIVERSITY)
- José Lourenço
- Andrew Walker
International Development Emerging Pandemic Threats Program-2 (AID-OAA-A-14-00102)
- Moritz UG Kraemer
Labex EpiGenMed (ANR-10-LABX-12-01)
- Christian Julian Villabona-Arenas
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Mark Jit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Public Health England, United Kingdom
Version history
- Received: June 21, 2017
- Accepted: September 4, 2017
- Accepted Manuscript published: September 9, 2017 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: October 12, 2017 (version 2)
Copyright
© 2017, Lourenço et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 5,047
- views
-
- 785
- downloads
-
- 73
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Epidemiological and ecological determinants of Zika virus transmission in an urban setting
eLife 6:e29820.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29820
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
eLife has published papers on many tropical diseases, including malaria, Ebola, leishmaniases, Dengue and African sleeping sickness.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.
