4.6 Article

Cluster of Nipah Virus Infection, Kushtia District, Bangladesh, 2007

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 5, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013570

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta
  2. U.S. National Institutes of Health, International Collaborations in Infectious Disease Research (ICIDR) Opportunity Pool
  3. Government of Bangladesh (GoB) through IHP-HNPRP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In March 2007, we investigated a cluster of Nipah encephalitis to identify risk factors for Nipah infection in Bangladesh. Methods: We defined confirmed Nipah cases by the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies against Nipah virus in serum. Case-patients, who resided in the same village during the outbreak period but died before serum could be collected, were classified as probable cases. Results: We identified three confirmed and five probable Nipah cases. There was a single index case. Five of the secondary cases came in close physical contact to the index case when she was ill. Case-patients were more likely to have physical contact with the index case (71% cases versus 0% controls, p = < 0.001). The index case, on her third day of illness, and all the subsequent cases attended the same religious gathering. For three probable cases including the index case, we could not identify any known risk factors for Nipah infection such as physical contact with Nipah case-patients, consumption of raw date palm juice, or contact with sick animals or fruit bats. Conclusion: Though person-to-person transmission remains an important mode of transmission for Nipah infection, we could not confirm the source of infection for three of the probable Nipah case-patients. Continued surveillance and outbreak investigations will help better understand the transmission of Nipah virus and develop preventive strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available