4.5 Article

Cholera Incidence and Mortality in Sub-Saharan African Sites during Multi-country Surveillance

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004679

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the Africhol project [OPPGH5233]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cholera burden in Africa remains unknown, often because of weak national surveillance systems. We analyzed data from the African Cholera Surveillance Network (www.africhol.org). Methods/Principal findings During June 2011-December 2013, we conducted enhanced surveillance in seven zones and four outbreak sites in Togo, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Guinea, Uganda, Mozambique and Cote d'Ivoire. All health facilities treating cholera cases were included. Cholera incidences were calculated using culture-confirmed cholera cases and culture-confirmed cholera cases corrected for lack of culture testing usually due to overwhelmed health systems and imperfect test sensitivity. Of 13,377 reported suspected cases, 34% occurred in Conakry, Guinea, 47% in Goma, DRC, and 19% in the remaining sites. From 0-40% of suspected cases were aged under five years and from 0.3-86% had rice water stools. Within surveillance zones, 0-37% of suspected cases had confirmed cholera compared to 27-38% during outbreaks. Annual confirmed incidence per 10,000 population was <0.5 in surveillance zones, except Goma where it was 4.6. Goma and Conakry had corrected incidences of 20.2 and 5.8 respectively, while the other zones a median of 0.3. During outbreaks, corrected incidence varied from 2.6 to 13.0. Case fatality ratios ranged from 0-10% (median, 1%) by country. Conclusions/Significance Across different African epidemiological contexts, substantial variation occurred in cholera incidence, age distribution, clinical presentation, culture confirmation, and testing frequency. These results can help guide preventive activities, including vaccine use.

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