4.7 Article

Containing a Lassa fever epidemic in a resource-limited setting: outbreak description and lessons learned from Abakaliki, Nigeria (January-March 2012)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 E1011-E1016

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2013.05.015

关键词

Lassa fever; Outbreak report; Case report; Epidemiology; Infection control; Nigeria

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [GU 883/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Despite the epidemic nature of Lassa fever (LF), details of outbreaks and response strategies have not been well documented in resource-poor settings. We describe the course of a LF outbreak in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, during January to March 2012. Methods: We analyzed clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory data from surveillance records and hospital statistics during the outbreak. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare proportions and t-tests to compare differences in means. Results: The outbreak response consisted of effective coordination, laboratory testing, active surveillance, community mobilization, contact and suspected case evaluation, and case management. Twenty LF cases (10 confirmed and 10 suspected) were recorded during the outbreak. Nosocomial transmission to six health workers occurred through the index case. Only 1/110 contacts had an asymptomatic infection. Overall, there was high case fatality rate among all cases (6/20; 30%). Patients who received ribavirin were less likely to die than those who did not (p = 0.003). The mean delay to presentation for patients who died was 11 +/- 3.5 days, while for those who survived was 6 +/- 2.6 days (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The response strategies contained the epidemic. Challenges to control efforts included poor local laboratory capacity, inadequate/poor quality of protective materials, fear among health workers, and inadequate emergency preparedness. (C) 2013 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据