The global distribution and burden of dengue

Samir Bhatt, Peter W Gething, Oliver J Brady, Jane P Messina, Andrew W Farlow, Catherine L Moyes, John M Drake, John S Brownstein, Anne G Hoen, Osman Sankoh, Monica F Myers, Dylan B George, Thomas Jaenisch, G R William Wint, Cameron P Simmons, Thomas W Scott, Jeremy J Farrar, Simon I Hay, Samir Bhatt, Peter W Gething, Oliver J Brady, Jane P Messina, Andrew W Farlow, Catherine L Moyes, John M Drake, John S Brownstein, Anne G Hoen, Osman Sankoh, Monica F Myers, Dylan B George, Thomas Jaenisch, G R William Wint, Cameron P Simmons, Thomas W Scott, Jeremy J Farrar, Simon I Hay

Abstract

Dengue is a systemic viral infection transmitted between humans by Aedes mosquitoes. For some patients, dengue is a life-threatening illness. There are currently no licensed vaccines or specific therapeutics, and substantial vector control efforts have not stopped its rapid emergence and global spread. The contemporary worldwide distribution of the risk of dengue virus infection and its public health burden are poorly known. Here we undertake an exhaustive assembly of known records of dengue occurrence worldwide, and use a formal modelling framework to map the global distribution of dengue risk. We then pair the resulting risk map with detailed longitudinal information from dengue cohort studies and population surfaces to infer the public health burden of dengue in 2010. We predict dengue to be ubiquitous throughout the tropics, with local spatial variations in risk influenced strongly by rainfall, temperature and the degree of urbanization. Using cartographic approaches, we estimate there to be 390 million (95% credible interval 284-528) dengue infections per year, of which 96 million (67-136) manifest apparently (any level of disease severity). This infection total is more than three times the dengue burden estimate of the World Health Organization. Stratification of our estimates by country allows comparison with national dengue reporting, after taking into account the probability of an apparent infection being formally reported. The most notable differences are discussed. These new risk maps and infection estimates provide novel insights into the global, regional and national public health burden imposed by dengue. We anticipate that they will provide a starting point for a wider discussion about the global impact of this disease and will help to guide improvements in disease control strategies using vaccine, drug and vector control methods, and in their economic evaluation.

Figures

Figure 1. Global estimates of total dengue…
Figure 1. Global estimates of total dengue infections
Comparison of previous estimates of total global dengue infections in individuals of all ages, 1985 to 2010: Halstead et al. 1988, Monath et al. 1994, Rodhain et al. 1996, Rigau-Perez et al. 1998, TDR/WHO. scientific working group 2006, Beatty et al. 2009, apparent infections from this study. Estimates are aligned to the year of estimate and, if not stated, aligned to the publication date. Red shading marks the credible interval of our current estimate, for comparison. Error bars from ref. 10 and ref. 16 replicated the confidence intervals provided in these publications.
Figure 2. Global evidence consensus, risk and…
Figure 2. Global evidence consensus, risk and burden of dengue in 2010
a, shows National and subnational evidence consensus on complete absence (green) through to complete presence (red) of dengue. b, shows the probability of dengue occurrence at 5km × 5km spatial resolution of the mean predicted map (area under the receiver operator curve of 0.81 (±0.02 SD, n = 336)) from 336 boosted regression tree models. Areas with a high probability of dengue occurrence are shown in red and areas with a low probability in green. c, shows a cartogram of the annual number of infections for all ages as a proportion of national or sub-national (China) geographical area.

References

    1. Simmons CP, Farrar JJ, van Vinh Chau N, Wills B. Dengue. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366:1423–1432.
    1. W.H.O . Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. WHO/HTM/NTD/DEN/2009.1. World Health Organization; 2009.
    1. Tatem AJ, Hay SI, Rogers DJ. Global traffic and disease vector dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006;103:6242–6247.
    1. Brady OJ, et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012;6:e1760.
    1. Halstead SB. Pathogenesis of dengue: challenges to molecular biology. Science. 1988;239:476–481.
    1. Endy TP, et al. Determinants of inapparent and symptomatic dengue infection in a prospective study of primary school children in Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2011;5:e975.
    1. Sabchareon A, et al. Protective efficacy of the recombinant, live-attenuated, CYD tetravalent dengue vaccine in Thai schoolchildren: a randomised, controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet. 2012
    1. Halstead SB. Dengue vaccine development: a 75% solution? Lancet. 2012
    1. Gubler DJ. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1998;11:480–469.
    1. Beatty ME, Letson GW, Margolis HS. Estimating the global burden of dengue. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2009;81(5 Suppl 1):231.
    1. Van Kleef E, Bambrick H, Hales S. The geographic distribution of dengue fever and the potential influence of global climate change. . 2009:1–22.
    1. W.H.O . International travel and health: situation as on 1 January 2012. World Health Organization; 2012.
    1. Hales S, de Wet N, Maindonald J, Woodward A. Potential effect of population and climate changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical model. Lancet. 2002;360:830–834.
    1. Rogers DJ, Wilson AJ, Hay SI, Graham AJ. The global distribution of yellow fever and dengue. Adv. Parasitol. 2006;62:181–220.
    1. Monath TP. Yellow fever and dengue-the interactions of virus, vector and host in the re-emergence of epidemic disease. Sem Virol. 1994;5:133–145.
    1. Rigau-Perez JG, et al. Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Lancet. 1998;352:971–977.
    1. Rodhain F. La situation de la dengue dans le monde. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1996;89:87–90.
    1. Freifeld CC, Mandl KD, Reis BY, Brownstein JS. HealthMap: global infectious disease monitoring through automated classification and visualization of Internet media reports. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:150–157.
    1. Chakravarti A, Arora R, Luxemburger C. Fifty years of dengue in India. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2012;106:273–282.
    1. Kakkar M. Dengue fever is massively under-reported in India, hampering our response. Br. Med. J. 2012;345:e8574.
    1. Murray CJL, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet. 2012;380:2197–2223.
    1. Cummings DA, et al. The impact of the demographic transition on dengue in Thailand: insights from a statistical analysis and mathematical modeling. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000139.
    1. Johansson MA, Hombach J, Cummings DA. Models of the impact of dengue vaccines: a review of current research and potential approaches. Vaccine. 2011;29:5860–5868.
    1. Hay SI, et al. Estimating the global clinical burden of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in 2007. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000290.
    1. Gething PW, et al. A new world malaria map: Plasmodium falciparum endemicity in 2010. Malar. J. 2011;10:378.
    1. Gething PW, et al. A long neglected world malaria map: Plasmodium vivax endemicity in 2010. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012;6:e1814.
    1. Anders KL, Hay SI. Lessons from malaria control to help meet the rising challenge of dengue. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2012;12:977–984.
    1. Gething PW, et al. Modelling the global constraints of temperature on transmission of Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax. Parasit. Vectors. 2011;4:92.
    1. Chefaoui RM, Lobo JM. Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecol. Model. 2008;210:478–486.
    1. TDR/W.H.O. Report of the Scientific Working Group on Dengue, 2006. TDR/SWG/08. TDR/World Health Organization; 2006.
    1. Brownstein JS, Freifeld CC, Reis BY, Mandl KD. Surveillance sans frontieres: internet-based emerging infectious disease intelligence and the HealthMap project. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e151.
    1. Scharlemann JPW, et al. Global data for ecology and epidemiology: a novel algorithm for temporal Fourier processing MODIS data. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1408.
    1. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2005;25:1965–1978.
    1. Focks DA, Haile DG, Daniels E, Mount GA. Dynamic life table model for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culcidae): analysis of the literature and model development. J. Med. Entomol. 1993;30:1003–1017.
    1. Focks DA, Haile DG, Daniels E, Mount GA. Dynamic life table model for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae): simulation and validation. J. Med. Entomol. 1993;30:1018–1028.
    1. Hay SI, Tatem AJ, Graham AJ, Goetz SJ, Rogers DJ. Global environmental data for mapping infectious disease distribution. Adv. Parasitol. 2006;62:37–77.
    1. Hay SI, et al. A world malaria map: Plasmodium falciparum endemicity in 2007. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000048.
    1. Nelson A. Estimated travel time to the nearest city of 50,000 or more people in year 2000. Global Environment Monitoring Unit - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; [accessed 01/01/2012]. 2008. ( .
    1. Nordhaus WD. Geography and macroeconomics: new data and new findings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006;103:3510–3517.
    1. Elith J, et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography. 2006;29:129–151.
    1. Stevens KB, Pfeiffer DU. Spatial modelling of disease using data- and knowledge-driven approaches. Spat. Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2011;2:125–133.
    1. Breiman L. Classification and regression trees. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press LLC; 1984.
    1. Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 2001;29:1189–1232.
    1. Stokland JN, Halvorsen R, Stoa B. Species distribution modelling. Effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations. Ecol. Model. 2011;222:1800–1809.
    1. Lobo JM, Tognelli MF. Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data. J. Nat. Conserv. 2011;19:1–7.
    1. VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Graham C, William SE. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol. Model. 2009;220:589–594.
    1. Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012;3:327–338.
    1. Ward G, Hastie T, Barry S, Elith J, Leathwick JR. Presence-only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics. 2009;65:554–563.
    1. Araújo MB, New M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007;22:42–47.
    1. Hilbe JM. Negative binomial regression. 2nd Edition Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 251.
    1. Banerjee S, Carlin BP, Gelfand AE. Hierarchical modeling and analysis for spatial data. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 101. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press LLC; 2004.
    1. Patil A, Huard D, Fonnesbeck CJ. PyMC: Bayesian stochastic modelling in Python. J. Stat. Softw. 2010;35:e1000301.
    1. Balk DL, et al. Determining global population distribution: methods, applications and data. Adv. Parasitol. 2006;62:119–156.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren