4.7 Article

On the Relative Role of Different Age Groups During Epidemics Associated With Respiratory Syncytial Virus

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 217, 期 2, 页码 238-244

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jix575

关键词

RSV; age groups; relative risk; epidemic drivers; transmission modeling

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [U54GM088558]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  3. Multinational Influenza Seasonal Mortality Study
  4. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. While circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) results in high rates of hospitalization, particularly among young children and elderly individuals, little is known about the role of different age groups in propagating annual RSV epidemics. Methods. We evaluate the roles played by individuals in different age groups during RSV epidemics in the United States between 2001 and 2012, using the previously defined relative risk (RR) statistic estimated from the hospitalization data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Transmission modeling was used to examine the robustness of our inference method. Results. Children aged 3-4 years and 5-6 years each had the highest RR estimate for 5 of 11 seasons included in this study, with RSV hospitalization rates in infants being generally higher during seasons when children aged 5-6 years had the highest RR estimate. Children aged 2 years had the highest RR estimate during one season. RR estimates in infants and individuals aged = 11 years were mostly lower than in children aged 1-10 years. Highest RR values aligned with groups for which vaccination had the largest impact on epidemic dynamics in most model simulations. Conclusions. Our estimates suggest the prominent relative roles of children aged = 10 years (particularly among those aged 3-6 years) in propagating RSV epidemics. These results, combined with further modeling work, should help inform RSV vaccination policies.

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