Selected article for: "Ebola virus disease and health community"

Author: Agua-Agum, Junerlyn; Ariyarajah, Archchun; Aylward, Bruce; Bawo, Luke; Bilivogui, Pepe; Blake, Isobel M.; Brennan, Richard J.; Cawthorne, Amy; Cleary, Eilish; Clement, Peter; Conteh, Roland; Cori, Anne; Dafae, Foday; Dahl, Benjamin; Dangou, Jean-Marie; Diallo, Boubacar; Donnelly, Christl A.; Dorigatti, Ilaria; Dye, Christopher; Eckmanns, Tim; Fallah, Mosoka; Ferguson, Neil M.; Fiebig, Lena; Fraser, Christophe; Garske, Tini; Gonzalez, Lice; Hamblion, Esther; Hamid, Nuha; Hersey, Sara; Hinsley, Wes; Jambei, Amara; Jombart, Thibaut; Kargbo, David; Keita, Sakoba; Kinzer, Michael; George, Fred Kuti; Godefroy, Beatrice; Gutierrez, Giovanna; Kannangarage, Niluka; Mills, Harriet L.; Moller, Thomas; Meijers, Sascha; Mohamed, Yasmine; Morgan, Oliver; Nedjati-Gilani, Gemma; Newton, Emily; Nouvellet, Pierre; Nyenswah, Tolbert; Perea, William; Perkins, Devin; Riley, Steven; Rodier, Guenael; Rondy, Marc; Sagrado, Maria; Savulescu, Camelia; Schafer, Ilana J.; Schumacher, Dirk; Seyler, Thomas; Shah, Anita; Van Kerkhove, Maria D.; Wesseh, C. Samford; Yoti, Zabulon
Title: Exposure Patterns Driving Ebola Transmission in West Africa: A Retrospective Observational Study
  • Document date: 2016_11_15
  • ID: 069pelqj_49
    Snippet: Hospitalisation (see Box 2 for definition of hospitalisation, which in this context is isolation from the community by admission to any health care facility) aims to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with Ebola virus disease, and also to reduce onward exposures. We found that hospitalised cases (who were hospitalised at any stage of their infection) had a reduced risk of being named as a non-funeral source contact (univariable OR = 0.78 [.....
    Document: Hospitalisation (see Box 2 for definition of hospitalisation, which in this context is isolation from the community by admission to any health care facility) aims to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with Ebola virus disease, and also to reduce onward exposures. We found that hospitalised cases (who were hospitalised at any stage of their infection) had a reduced risk of being named as a non-funeral source contact (univariable OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.66, Figure p in S1 Text for full network) and the contacts they have named as having been exposed to. Individuals (cases and contacts) are shown as nodes, and exposures as directed arrows from contacts to cases. Arrows are red for funeral exposures, black for nonfuneral exposures, and blue for multiple exposures involving both non-funeral and funeral exposures. Square nodes are males, round nodes females, and triangles unknown. Red nodes are cases who have died, blue nodes are cases who have survived, and grey nodes are cases with no recorded outcome. of the contact to time of exposure. The green curves show the overall best fits, and the red curves show the best fits for the "signal" distribution (all obtained by maximum likelihood). The red-shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence intervals of the fitted "signal" distribution. The histogram shows a random set of exposure midpoints (in some instances, only a start or an end date of exposure is recorded; in those instances, the missing date is numerically imputed). Note that the fitting procedure is not performed on the midpoints but fully incorporates the exposure window (see section 1.8 in S1 Text). The inset panels are the observed cumulative distribution functions for the midpoint (black line) and start and end (grey lines) of the exposures. 0.92]) and as a funeral source contact (OR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.29, 0.63]) compared to cases never hospitalised. This indicates that hospitalisation reduced but did not eliminate onward exposures. The impact of hospitalisation on limiting onward exposure was stronger in Guinea than in Liberia (significantly so for non-funeral exposures, see Tables m and n in S1 Text). The protective effect of hospitalisation on exposure in Sierra Leone was not statistically significant. There was no significant increase in the effect of hospitalisation over time for any of the three countries (see Tables m and n in S1 Text). Previously, we examined the timing of transmission risk relative to symptom onset and death. Using the same method to characterise the timing of exposure events relative to hospitalisation, we found that a substantial proportion (42% [95% CI: 12%, 54%]) of non-funeral exposures from hospitalised source contacts occurred after their hospitalisation (Fig 3C) .

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • case compare and clinical outcome: 1, 2
    • case compare and confidence interval: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
    • case compare and contact case: 1, 2, 3
    • case compare and Ebola virus: 1
    • case contact and clinical outcome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • case contact and community isolation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • case contact and confidence interval: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
    • case contact and contact case: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • case contact and contact case individual: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
    • case contact and death symptom onset: 1, 2
    • case contact and die case: 1
    • clinical outcome and confidence interval: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • clinical outcome and contact case: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • clinical outcome and death symptom onset: 1, 2
    • clinical outcome and die case: 1
    • clinical outcome and distribution function: 1
    • community isolation and confidence interval: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • community isolation and contact case: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • community isolation and die case: 1