Zika in Rio de Janeiro: Assessment of basic reproduction number and comparison with dengue outbreaks

Epidemiology and Infection

Volumn 145, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 1649-1657

  Villela, D A M ^a   Bastos, L S ^a   De Carvalho, L M ^a,b   Cruz, O G ^a   Gomes, M F C ^a   Durovni, B ^c   Lemos, M C ^c   Saraceni, V ^c   Coelho, F C ^d   Codeco C T ^a  

^a INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c Secretaria de Estado da Saude de Sao Paulo   (Brazil)

^d FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Basic reproduction number; dengue; Zika

Indexed keywords

AEDES AEGYPTI; ARTICLE; BRAZIL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENGUE; DENGUE VIRUS 3; DENGUE VIRUS 4; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; EPIDEMIC; HEALTH SURVEY; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MOSQUITO VECTOR; NONHUMAN; RIO DE JANEIRO (STATE); RISK FACTOR; SEROTYPE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VIRUS REPLICATION; VIRUS TRANSMISSION; ZIKA FEVER; ZOOLOGY; AEDES; ANIMAL; BASIC REPRODUCTION NUMBER; DENGUE VIRUS; FEMALE; INCIDENCE; INSECT VECTOR; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; VIROLOGY; ZIKA VIRUS; ZIKA VIRUS INFECTION;

AEDES; ANIMALS; BASIC REPRODUCTION NUMBER; BRAZIL; DENGUE; DENGUE VIRUS; DISEASE OUTBREAKS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INSECT VECTORS; MALE; PUBLIC HEALTH; ZIKA VIRUS; ZIKA VIRUS INFECTION;

EID: 85014006778     PISSN: 09502688     EISSN: 14694409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268817000358     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Gulland A. Zika virus is a global public health emergency, declares WHO. BMJ 2016; 352: i657.
2. Calvet G, et al. Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2016; 16: 653-660.
3. Brasil P, et al. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro. New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 375: 2321-2334.
4. Mlakar J, et al. Zika virus associated with microcephaly. New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 374: 951-958.
5. Dick G, Kitchen S, Haddow A. Zika virus (I). Isolations and serological specificity. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1952; 46: 509-520.
6. Christofferson R. Zika virus emergence and expansion: lessons learned from dengue and chikungunya may not provide all the answers. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2016; 95: 15-18.
7. Heukelbach J, et al. Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries 2016; 10: 116-120.
8. Faria NR, et al. Zika virus in the Americas: early epidemiological and genetic findings. Science 2016; 352: 345-349.
9. de Brito AF, et al. First detection of natural infection of Aedes aegypti with Zika virus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2016; 111: 655-658.
10. Nogueira RMR, et al. Dengue virus type 3 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2001; 96: 925-926.
11. Nogueira RM, Eppinghaus AL. Dengue virus type 4 arrives in the state of Rio de Janeiro: a challenge for epidemiological surveillance and control. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2011; 106: 255-256.
12. Pinho STR, et al. Modelling the dynamics of dengue real epidemics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2010; 368: 5679-5693.
13. Massad E, et al. The risk of yellow fever in a dengue-infested area. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2001; 95: 370-374.
14. Lessler J, et al. Times to key events in Zika virus infection and implications for blood donation: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2016; 94: 841-849.
15. Aldstadt J, et al. Space-time analysis of hospitalised dengue patients in rural Thailand reveals important temporal intervals in the pattern of dengue virus transmission. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2012; 17: 1076-1085.
16. Chan M, Johansson MA. The incubation periods of dengue viruses. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e50972.
17. Funk S, et al. Comparative analysis of dengue and Zika outbreaks reveals differences by setting and virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016; 10: e0005173.
18. Dutra HLC, et al. From lab to field: the influence of urban landscapes on the invasive potential of Wolbachia in Brazilian Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2015; 9: e0003689.
19. Maciel-De-Freitas R, Codeço CT, Lourenco-De-Oliveira R. Daily survival rates and dispersal of Aedes aegypti females in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2007; 76: 659-665.
20. David MR, Lourenço-de Oliveira R, Maciel-de Freitas R. Container productivity, daily survival rates and dispersal of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in a high income dengue epidemic neighbourhood of Rio de Janeiro: presumed influence of differential urban structure on mosquito biology. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2009; 104: 927-932.
21. Nishiura H, et al. Transmission potential of Zika virus infection in the South Pacific. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2016; 45: 95-97.
22. Kucharski AJ, et al. Transmission dynamics of Zika virus in Island populations: a modelling analysis of the 2013-14 French Polynesia outbreak. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016; 10: e0004726.
23. Ferguson NM, et al. Countering the Zika epidemic in Latin America. Science 2016; 353: 353-354.
24. Massad E, et al. Estimation of R0 from the initial phase of an outbreak of a vector-borne infection. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2010; 15: 120-126.
25. Nguyen NM, et al. Host and viral features of human dengue cases shape the population of infected and infectious Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2013; 110: 9072-9077.
26. Liu-Helmersson J, et al. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti: effects of temperature and implications for global dengue epidemic potential. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e89783.
27. Caraco T, et al. Host spatial heterogeneity and the spread of vector-borne infection. Theoretical Population Biology 2001; 59: 185-206.
28. Chouin-Carneiro T, et al. Differential susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from the Americas to Zika virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016; 10: e0004543.
29. Fernandes RS, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro is not competent to transmit the local Zika virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016; 10: e0004993.
30. Musso D, et al. Potential sexual transmission of Zika virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2015; 21: 359.
31. D'Ortenzio E, et al. Evidence of sexual transmission of Zika virus. New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 374: 2195-2198.
32. Fréour T, et al. Sexual transmission of Zika virus in an entirely asymptomatic couple returning from a Zika epidemic area, France, April 2016. Eurosurveillance 2016; 21: 30254.
33. Frank C, et al. Sexual transmission of Zika virus in Germany, April 2016. Eurosurveillance 2016; 21: 30252.
34. Coelho FC, et al. Higher incidence of Zika in adult women in Rio de Janeiro suggests a significant contribution of sexual transmission from men to women. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2016; 51: 128-132.
35. Yakob L, et al. Low risk of a sexually-transmitted Zika virus outbreak. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2016; 16: 1100-1102.
36. May RM, Anderson RM. Transmission dynamics of HIV infection. Nature 1987; 326: 137-142.
37. Nishiura H, Halstead SB. Natural history of dengue virus (DENV)-1 and DENV-4 infections: reanalysis of classic studies. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2007; 195: 1007-1013.
38. Gonçalves CM, et al. Distinct variation in vector competence among nine field populations of Aedes aegypti from a Brazilian dengue-endemic risk city. Parasites & Vectors 2014; 7: 320.