Epidemiological and ecological determinants of Zika virus transmission in an urban setting

  1. José Lourenço  Is a corresponding author
  2. Maricelia Maia de Lima
  3. Nuno Rodrigues Faria
  4. Andrew Walker
  5. Moritz UG Kraemer
  6. Christian Julian Villabona-Arenas
  7. Ben Lambert
  8. Erenilde Marques de Cerqueira
  9. Oliver G Pybus
  10. Luiz CJ Alcantara
  11. Mario Recker
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. FIOCRUZ, Brazil
  3. Université de Montpellier, France
  4. Centre of PostGraduation in Collective Health, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil
  5. 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

  1. José Lourenço

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jose.lourenco@zoo.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9318-2581
  2. Maricelia Maia de Lima

    Laboratory of Haematology, Genetics and Computational Biology, FIOCRUZ, Salvador, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nuno Rodrigues Faria

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8839-2798
  4. Andrew Walker

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Moritz UG Kraemer

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8838-7147
  6. Christian Julian Villabona-Arenas

    Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMI 233, INSERM U1175, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9928-3968
  7. Ben Lambert

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Erenilde Marques de Cerqueira

    Department of Health, Centre of PostGraduation in Collective Health, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Oliver G Pybus

    Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Luiz CJ Alcantara

    Laboratory of Haematology, Genetics and Computational Biology, FIOCRUZ, Salvador, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mario Recker

    Centre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter, Penryn, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9489-1315

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.

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

  • 5,253
    views
  • 806
    downloads
  • 76
    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)

  1. José Lourenço
  2. Maricelia Maia de Lima
  3. Nuno Rodrigues Faria
  4. Andrew Walker
  5. Moritz UG Kraemer
  6. Christian Julian Villabona-Arenas
  7. Ben Lambert
  8. Erenilde Marques de Cerqueira
  9. Oliver G Pybus
  10. Luiz CJ Alcantara
  11. Mario Recker
(2017)
Epidemiological and ecological determinants of Zika virus transmission in an urban setting
eLife 6:e29820.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29820

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29820

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Edited by Prabhat Jha et al.
    Collection Updated

    eLife has published papers on many tropical diseases, including malaria, Ebola, leishmaniases, Dengue and African sleeping sickness.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Bo Zheng, Bronner P Gonçalves ... Caoyi Xue
    Research Article

    Background:

    In many settings, a large fraction of the population has both been vaccinated against and infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, quantifying the protection provided by post-infection vaccination has become critical for policy. We aimed to estimate the protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of an additional vaccine dose after an initial Omicron variant infection.

    Methods:

    We report a retrospective, population-based cohort study performed in Shanghai, China, using electronic databases with information on SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination history. We compared reinfection incidence by post-infection vaccination status in individuals initially infected during the April–May 2022 Omicron variant surge in Shanghai and who had been vaccinated before that period. Cox models were fit to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

    Results:

    275,896 individuals were diagnosed with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April–May 2022; 199,312/275,896 were included in analyses on the effect of a post-infection vaccine dose. Post-infection vaccination provided protection against reinfection (aHR 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.85). For patients who had received one, two, or three vaccine doses before their first infection, hazard ratios for the post-infection vaccination effect were 0.84 (0.76–0.93), 0.87 (0.83–0.90), and 0.96 (0.74–1.23), respectively. Post-infection vaccination within 30 and 90 days before the second Omicron wave provided different degrees of protection (in aHR): 0.51 (0.44–0.58) and 0.67 (0.61–0.74), respectively. Moreover, for all vaccine types, but to different extents, a post-infection dose given to individuals who were fully vaccinated before first infection was protective.

    Conclusions:

    In previously vaccinated and infected individuals, an additional vaccine dose provided protection against Omicron variant reinfection. These observations will inform future policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccination in China and other countries.

    Funding:

    This study was funded the Key Discipline Program of Pudong New Area Health System (PWZxk2022-25), the Development and Application of Intelligent Epidemic Surveillance and AI Analysis System (21002411400), the Shanghai Public Health System Construction (GWVI-11.2-XD08), the Shanghai Health Commission Key Disciplines (GWVI-11.1-02), the Shanghai Health Commission Clinical Research Program (20214Y0020), the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (22ZR1414600), and the Shanghai Young Health Talents Program (2022YQ076).