Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/049957

The Epidemiology and Transmissibility of Zika Virus in Girardot and San Andres Island, Colombia

Diana Patricia Rojas·Natalie E. Dean·Yang Yang·Eben Kenah·Juliana Quintero·Simon Tomasi·Erika L. Ramirez·Yendy Kelly·Carolina Castro·Gabriel Carrasquilla·M. Elizabeth Halloran·Ira M. Longini
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundZika virus (ZIKV) is an arbovirus in the same genus as dengue virus and yellow fever virus. ZIKV transmission was first detected in Colombia in September 2015. The virus has spread rapidly across the country in areas infested with the vector Aedes aegypti. As of March 2016, Colombia has reported over 50,000 cases of Zika virus disease (ZVD).\n\nMethodsWe analyzed surveillance data of ZVD cases reported to the local health authorities of San Andres, Colombia, and Girardot, Colombia, between September 2015 and January 2016. Standardized case definitions used in both areas were determined by the Ministry of Health and Colombian National Institute of Health at the beginning of the ZIKV epidemic. ZVD was laboratory-confirmed by a finding of Zika virus RNA in the serum of acute cases. We report epidemiological summaries of the two outbreaks. We also use daily incidence data to estimate the basic reproductive number R0 in each population.\n\nFindingsWe identified 928 and 1,936 laboratory or clinically confirmed cases in San Andres and Girardot, respectively. The overall attack rate for reported ZVD detected by healthcare local surveillance was 12{middle dot}13 cases per 1,000 residents of San Andres and 18{middle dot}43 cases per 1,000 residents of Girardot. Attack rates were significantly higher in females in both municipalities. Cases occurred in all age groups but the most affected group was 20 to 49 year olds. The estimated R0 for the Zika outbreak in San Andres was 1{middle dot}41 (95% CI 1{middle dot}15 to 1{middle dot}74), and in Girardot was 4{middle dot}61 (95% CI 4{middle dot}11 to 5{middle dot}16).\n\nInterpretationTransmission of ZIKV is ongoing and spreading throughout the Americas rapidly. The observed rapid spread is supported by the relatively high basic reproductive numbers calculated from these two outbreaks in Colombia.\n\nFundingThis work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) U54 GM111274, NIH R37 AI032042 and the Colombian Department of Science and Technology (Fulbright-Colciencias scholarship to D.P.R). The funding source had no role in the preparation of this manuscript or in the decision to publish this study.\n\nResearch in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe ongoing outbreak of Zika virus disease in the Americas is the largest ever recorded. Since its first detection in April 2015 in Brazil, around 500,000 cases have been estimated, and the virus is spreading rapidly in the Americas region. There are many unanswered questions about the transmissibility and pathogenicity of the virus. Limited data are available from recent outbreaks occurring in islands in the Pacific, and little epidemiological data is available on the current outbreak.\n\nWe searched PubMed on March 12, 2016, for epidemiological reports on Zika virus outbreaks using the search terms \"Zika\" AND \"Basic reproductive number\". We applied no date or language restrictions. Our search identified one previous paper assessing the basic reproductive number, R0 of Zika virus in Yap Island, Federal State of Micronesia and in French Polynesia, but no papers estimating R0 using data from the Latin American Zika outbreak. Because of the sparsity of the data, we could not do a detailed systematic review at this point in time.\n\nAdded value of this studyWe report detailed epidemiological data on outbreaks in San Andres and Girardot, Colombia. Because such reports are currently unavailable, we provide early information on age and gender effects and the functioning of local and national surveillance in the second-most affected country in this epidemic. We provide early estimates of R0. Our results can be used by mathematical modelers to understand the future impact of the disease and potential spread.\n\nImplications of all the available evidenceWe report attack rates similar to those reported in the Yap Island outbreak. We find that Zika impacts individuals of all ages, though the most affected age group is 20 to 49 years of age. The surveillance system detected more cases among women in both areas, though this finding may be attributable to reporting bias. Our estimates of R0 imply that Zika has the capacity for widespread transmission in areas with the vector.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Diana Patricia Rojas, Natalie E. Dean, Yang Yang, Eben Kenah, Juliana Quintero, Simon Tomasi, Erika L. Ramirez, Yendy Kelly, Carolina Castro, Gabriel Carrasquilla, M. Elizabeth Halloran, Ira M. Longini. 2016-04-24. The Epidemiology and Transmissibility of Zika Virus in Girardot and San Andres Island, Colombia. https://doi.org/10.1101/049957

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2016

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology↗