The Impact of Different Types of Violence on Ebola Virus Transmission During the 2018-2020 Outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Africa
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ebola virus disease
transmission
violence
Journal
The Journal of infectious diseases
ISSN: 1537-6613
Titre abrégé: J Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0413675
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 11 2020
13 11 2020
Historique:
received:
01
12
2019
accepted:
05
04
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
2
4
2021
entrez:
8
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our understanding of the different effects of targeted versus nontargeted violence on Ebola virus (EBOV) transmission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is limited. We used time-series data of case counts to compare individuals in Ebola-affected health zones in DRC, April 2018-August 2019. Exposure was number of violent events per health zone, categorized into Ebola-targeted or Ebola-untargeted, and into civilian-induced, (para)military/political, or protests. Outcome was estimated daily reproduction number (Rt) by health zone. We fit linear time-series regression to model the relationship. Average Rt was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.11). A mean of 2.92 violent events resulted in cumulative absolute increase in Rt of 0.10 (95% CI, .05-.15). More violent events increased EBOV transmission (P = .03). Considering violent events in the 95th percentile over a 21-day interval and its relative impact on Rt, Ebola-targeted events corresponded to Rt of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.30-1.74), while civilian-induced events corresponded to Rt of 1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.35). Untargeted events corresponded to Rt of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.02-1.35); among these, militia/political or ville morte events increased transmission. Ebola-targeted violence, primarily driven by civilian-induced events, had the largest impact on EBOV transmission.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Our understanding of the different effects of targeted versus nontargeted violence on Ebola virus (EBOV) transmission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is limited.
METHODS
We used time-series data of case counts to compare individuals in Ebola-affected health zones in DRC, April 2018-August 2019. Exposure was number of violent events per health zone, categorized into Ebola-targeted or Ebola-untargeted, and into civilian-induced, (para)military/political, or protests. Outcome was estimated daily reproduction number (Rt) by health zone. We fit linear time-series regression to model the relationship.
RESULTS
Average Rt was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.11). A mean of 2.92 violent events resulted in cumulative absolute increase in Rt of 0.10 (95% CI, .05-.15). More violent events increased EBOV transmission (P = .03). Considering violent events in the 95th percentile over a 21-day interval and its relative impact on Rt, Ebola-targeted events corresponded to Rt of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.30-1.74), while civilian-induced events corresponded to Rt of 1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.35). Untargeted events corresponded to Rt of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.02-1.35); among these, militia/political or ville morte events increased transmission.
CONCLUSIONS
Ebola-targeted violence, primarily driven by civilian-induced events, had the largest impact on EBOV transmission.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32255180
pii: 5816846
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa163
pmc: PMC7661768
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2021-2029Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K08 AI139361
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K23 AI146268
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM130900
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Dec 31;9(12):e0004260
pubmed: 26720278
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Aug 5;13(8):e0007512
pubmed: 31381606
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 7;14(3):e0213190
pubmed: 30845236
Epidemics. 2019 Sep;28:100353
pubmed: 31378584
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):587-96
pubmed: 27509108
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Mar;5(3):e254-e256
pubmed: 28193386
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 May;19(5):529-536
pubmed: 30928435
Health Hum Rights. 2016 Jun;18(1):115-128
pubmed: 27781004
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Apr;21(4):578-84
pubmed: 25811176
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Nov 26;116(48):24366-24372
pubmed: 31636188
J Virol. 2004 Apr;78(8):4330-41
pubmed: 15047846
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 5;372(1719):
pubmed: 28289265
PLoS Curr. 2016 Jan 26;8:
pubmed: 26865987
Lancet. 2018 Oct 20;392(10156):1399-1401
pubmed: 30297137
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Apr;19(4):348-349
pubmed: 30799253
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Dec;195:77-82
pubmed: 29156248
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Nov 15;10(11):e0005087
pubmed: 27846221
Med Anthropol Theory. 2019 Dec 16;6(4):101-118
pubmed: 37588113
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(2):
pubmed: 31964460
J Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 28;217(8):1214-1221
pubmed: 29325149
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Dec 19;4(6):e001932
pubmed: 31908869
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1481-95
pubmed: 25244186
Int Health. 2016 May;8(3):227-9
pubmed: 27059272
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 26;14(9):e0223104
pubmed: 31557243