目的 分析江苏省无锡、常州、连云港3个城市2012-2015年手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情的流行病学特征及其影响因素，为全省手足口病的防控提供科学依据。方法 依据《手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情处置工作规范（2012版）》，主动收集3个城市2012...目的 分析江苏省无锡、常州、连云港3个城市2012-2015年手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情的流行病学特征及其影响因素，为全省手足口病的防控提供科学依据。方法 依据《手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情处置工作规范（2012版）》，主动收集3个城市2012-2015年手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情资料，实验室确认试验采用荧光定量RT-PCR 方法，分析描述疫情的时间、地区、场所分布及其规模，采用logistic回归模型分析疫情罹患率和持续时间的影响因素。结果 2012-2015年3个城市共报告手足口病疫情1 425起（其中聚集性疫情1 314起，暴发疫情111起）。发病时间主要集中在每年3-6月和9-12月，分别占58.18%（829/1 425）和33.68%（480/1 425）；无锡市报告的疫情较多，占59.30%（845/1 425）；疫情场所主要在托幼机构，占68.63%（978/1 425）。931起聚集性和暴发疫情经实验室确认试验显示，2012年、2014年以肠道病毒71型（EV71）和柯萨奇病毒A组16型（Cox A16）两种病毒株主导流行，2013年、2015年分别以单一病毒株EV71和Cox A16为优势毒株。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示，疫情的罹患率与周围环境卫生状况有关，卫生状况越好，罹患率越小（中 vs. 差：OR=0.150，95%CI：0.034～0.667；好 vs. 差：OR=0.072，95%CI：0.016～0.317）；疫情持续时间与报告的及时性有关，报告时间越晚，疫情的持续时间越长（4～7 d vs. 1～3 d：OR=3.452，95%CI：2.293～5.198；8 d vs. 1～3 d：OR=12.108，95%CI：7.767～18.763）。结论 江苏省3个城市手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情的时间特征呈现双峰分布，病毒型别存在年份差异，托幼机构是疫情主要场所，疫情报告的及时性对控制疫情起关键作用。展开更多
Objective To identify patterns of hand, foot and mouth disease （HFMD） incidence in China during declining incidence periods of 2008, 2009, and 2010. Methods Reported HFMD cases over a period of 25 months were extrac...Objective To identify patterns of hand, foot and mouth disease （HFMD） incidence in China during declining incidence periods of 2008, 2009, and 2010. Methods Reported HFMD cases over a period of 25 months were extracted from the National Disease Reporting System （NDRS） and analyzed. An interrupted time series （ITS） technique was used to detect changes in HFMD incidence rates in terms of level and slope between declining incidence periods of the three years. Results Over 3.58 million HFMD cases younger than 5 years were reported to the NDRS between May 1, 2008, and May 31, 2011. Males comprised 63.4% of the cases. ITS analyses demonstrated a significant increase in incidence rate level （P〈0.0001） when comparing the current period with the previous period. There were significant changes in declining slopes when comparing 2010 to 2009, and 2010 to 2008 （all P〈O.O05）, but not 2009 to 2008. Conclusion Incremental changes in incidence rate level during the declining incidence periods of 2009 and 2010 can potentially be attributed to a few factors. The more steeply declining slope in 2010 compared with previous years could be ascribed to the implementation of more effective interventions and preventive strategies in 2010. Further investigation is required to examine this possibility.展开更多
文摘目的 分析江苏省无锡、常州、连云港3个城市2012-2015年手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情的流行病学特征及其影响因素，为全省手足口病的防控提供科学依据。方法 依据《手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情处置工作规范（2012版）》，主动收集3个城市2012-2015年手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情资料，实验室确认试验采用荧光定量RT-PCR 方法，分析描述疫情的时间、地区、场所分布及其规模，采用logistic回归模型分析疫情罹患率和持续时间的影响因素。结果 2012-2015年3个城市共报告手足口病疫情1 425起（其中聚集性疫情1 314起，暴发疫情111起）。发病时间主要集中在每年3-6月和9-12月，分别占58.18%（829/1 425）和33.68%（480/1 425）；无锡市报告的疫情较多，占59.30%（845/1 425）；疫情场所主要在托幼机构，占68.63%（978/1 425）。931起聚集性和暴发疫情经实验室确认试验显示，2012年、2014年以肠道病毒71型（EV71）和柯萨奇病毒A组16型（Cox A16）两种病毒株主导流行，2013年、2015年分别以单一病毒株EV71和Cox A16为优势毒株。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示，疫情的罹患率与周围环境卫生状况有关，卫生状况越好，罹患率越小（中 vs. 差：OR=0.150，95%CI：0.034～0.667；好 vs. 差：OR=0.072，95%CI：0.016～0.317）；疫情持续时间与报告的及时性有关，报告时间越晚，疫情的持续时间越长（4～7 d vs. 1～3 d：OR=3.452，95%CI：2.293～5.198；8 d vs. 1～3 d：OR=12.108，95%CI：7.767～18.763）。结论 江苏省3个城市手足口病聚集性和暴发疫情的时间特征呈现双峰分布，病毒型别存在年份差异，托幼机构是疫情主要场所，疫情报告的及时性对控制疫情起关键作用。
文摘Objective To identify patterns of hand, foot and mouth disease （HFMD） incidence in China during declining incidence periods of 2008, 2009, and 2010. Methods Reported HFMD cases over a period of 25 months were extracted from the National Disease Reporting System （NDRS） and analyzed. An interrupted time series （ITS） technique was used to detect changes in HFMD incidence rates in terms of level and slope between declining incidence periods of the three years. Results Over 3.58 million HFMD cases younger than 5 years were reported to the NDRS between May 1, 2008, and May 31, 2011. Males comprised 63.4% of the cases. ITS analyses demonstrated a significant increase in incidence rate level （P〈0.0001） when comparing the current period with the previous period. There were significant changes in declining slopes when comparing 2010 to 2009, and 2010 to 2008 （all P〈O.O05）, but not 2009 to 2008. Conclusion Incremental changes in incidence rate level during the declining incidence periods of 2009 and 2010 can potentially be attributed to a few factors. The more steeply declining slope in 2010 compared with previous years could be ascribed to the implementation of more effective interventions and preventive strategies in 2010. Further investigation is required to examine this possibility.
