4.5 Article

Systematic community- and hospital-based surveillance for enterovirus-D68 in three Canadian provinces, August to December 2014

期刊

EUROSURVEILLANCE
卷 20, 期 43, 页码 11-24

出版社

EUR CENTRE DIS PREVENTION & CONTROL
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2015.20.43.30047

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [TPA-90193]
  2. British Columbia Centre for Disease Control
  3. Alberta Health and Wellness
  4. Ministere de la sante et des services sociaux du Quebec
  5. Institut national de sante publique du Quebec
  6. Public Health Agency of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory specimens collected from outpatients with influenza-like illness in three Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC), Alberta and Quebec) participating in a community-based sentinel surveillance network were prospectively screened for enterovirus-D68 (EV-D68) from 1 August to 31 December 2014 and compared to specimens collected from 1 October 2013 to 31 July 2014. Eighteen (1%) of 1,894 specimens were EV-D68-positive: 1/348 (0.3%) collected from October to December 2013 and 11/460 (2.4%) from October to December 2014, an eight-fold increase in detection rates (p=0.01), consistent with epidemic circulation in autumn 2014. The remaining EV-D68 detections were in September 2014 (6/37). Enhanced passive surveillance was also conducted on all inpatient and outpatient EV-D68 cases (n=211) detected at the BC provincial reference laboratory from 28 August to 31 December 2014. Incidence of hospitalisations was 3/100,000 overall and 21, 17, 4 and 1/100,000 among those <5, 5-9, 10-19 and >= 20-years-old with male-to-female ratios >1 among paediatric but not adult cases. Three cases in BC with comorbidity or co-infection died and five exhibited neurological features persisting >9 months. Active surveillance in outpatient and inpatient settings is needed from more areas and additional seasons to better understand EV-D68 epidemiology and potential at-risk groups for severe or unusual manifestations.

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

4.5
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