4.3 Article

The second coming of urban yellow fever in the Americas: Looking the past to see the future

期刊

出版社

ACAD BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS
DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765202220201252

关键词

Aedes aegypti; Haemagogus; epizootic disease; arbovirus; urban outbreak; sylvatic cycle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Yellow fever epidemics in South America during the 21st century have reached an unprecedented scale and spread. The current outbreaks are primarily caused by sylvatic cycles of yellow fever, and have been mitigated by vector control, vaccination, surveillance, and case management measures. While urban outbreaks of Aedes-Human yellow fever are still possible in the Americas, the probability is low.
Yellow fever (YF) epizootics in South America during the 21st century have an unprecedented recorded magnitude and geographical dispersion. The YF spread progressively involved areas considered previously free of risk reaching the edge of cities with large unvaccinated populations, and urban outbreaks were frequently forecasted. We critically reviewed the initial stages and enhancing contexts of YF urban epidemics since the 17th century in the Americas, and the modeling attempts of YF epidemic risk by of Aedes-Human transmission, to find common factors that increase the probability of these events in the current scenarios. The YF urban outbreaks of the past showed as necessary conditions the multiple introduction by viremic carriers clustered in time and space, coincident with population peaks of Aedes. These conditions are not met in the current outbreaks in the Americas by sylvatic YF cycles, besides the protective impact of vector control campaigns, vaccination coverage, improved surveillance, and case management Therefore, urban Aedes-Human YF outbreaks in the Americas are still possible but with low probability or very focal transmission, while the conditions reported in the past were avoided, and the surveillance and control measures sustained, including the vaccination of the population at risk.

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

4.3
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