3.9 Article

How to interpret the transmissibility of novel influenza A(H7N9): an analysis of initial epidemiological data of human cases from China

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4682-10-30

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) PRESTO program
  2. Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  3. Aihara Innovative Mathematical Modelling Project
  4. JSPS through the Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology (FIRST Program)
  5. Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP)
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [11J08060] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As the human infections with novel influenza A(H7N9) virus have been reported from several different provinces in China, the pandemic potential of the virus has been questioned. The presence of human-to-human transmission has not been demonstrated, but the absence of demonstration does not guarantee that there is no such transmission. Methods: A mathematical model of cluster size distribution is devised without imposing an assumption of subcriticality of the reproduction number and accounting for right censoring of new clusters. The proportion of cases with a history of bird contact is analytically derived, permitting us to fit the model to the observed data of confirmed cases. Using contact history with bird among confirmed cases (n = 129), we estimate the reproduction number of the novel influenza A( H7N9) from human to human. Results: Analysing twenty confirmed cases with known exposure, the reproduction number for human-to-human transmission was estimated at 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.45). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the reproduction number is substantially below unity. Conclusions: It is unlikely to observe an immediate pandemic of novel influenza A (H7N9) virus with human to human transmission. Continued monitoring of cases and animals would be the key to elucidate additional epidemiological characteristics of the virus.

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

3.9
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