<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xml>
  <records>
    <record>
      <source-app name="Horizon">Horizon</source-app>
      <rec-number>1</rec-number>
      <foreign-keys>
        <key app="Horizon" db-id="fdi:010048276">1</key>
      </foreign-keys>
      <ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type>
      <work-type>ACL : Articles dans des revues avec comité de lecture répertoriées par l'AERES</work-type>
      <contributors>
        <authors>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gérardin, P.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guernier, V.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Perrau, J.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fianu, A.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Le Roux, K.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grivard, P.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Michault, A.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="bold" font="default" size="100%">de Lamballerie, Xavier</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Flahault, A.</style>
          </author>
          <author>
            <style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Favier, F.</style>
          </author>
        </authors>
      </contributors>
      <titles>
        <title>Estimating Chikungunya prevalence in La Réunion Island outbreak by serosurveys : two methods for two critical times of the epidemic</title>
        <secondary-title>Bmc Infectious Diseases</secondary-title>
      </titles>
      <pages>99</pages>
      <dates>
        <year>2008</year>
      </dates>
      <call-num>fdi:010048276</call-num>
      <language>ENG</language>
      <periodical>
        <full-title>Bmc Infectious Diseases</full-title>
      </periodical>
      <isbn>1471-2334</isbn>
      <accession-num>ISI:000259221500001</accession-num>
      <electronic-resource-num>10.1186/1471-2334-8-99</electronic-resource-num>
      <urls>
        <related-urls>
          <url>https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010048276</url>
        </related-urls>
        <pdf-urls>
          <url>https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers17-09/010048276.pdf</url>
        </pdf-urls>
      </urls>
      <volume>8</volume>
      <remote-database-provider>Horizon (IRD)</remote-database-provider>
      <abstract>Background: Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) caused a major two-wave seventeen-month-long outbreak in La Reunion Island in 2005-2006. The aim of this study was to refine clinical estimates provided by a regional surveillance-system using a two-stage serological assessment as gold standard. Methods: Two serosurveys were implemented: first, a rapid survey using stored sera of pregnant women, in order to assess the attack rate at the epidemic upsurge (s1, February 2006; n = 888); second, a population-based survey among a random sample of the community, to assess the herd immunity in the post-epidemic era (s2, October 2006; n = 2442). Sera were screened for anti-CHIKV specific antibodies (IgM and IgG in s1, IgG only in s2) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Seroprevalence rates were compared to clinical estimates of attack rates. Results: In s1, 18.2% of the pregnant women were tested positive for CHIKV specific antibodies (13.8% for both IgM and IgG, 4.3% for IgM, 0.1% for IgG only) which provided a congruent estimate with the 16.5% attack rate calculated from the surveillance-system. In s2, the seroprevalence in community was estimated to 38.2% (95% CI, 35.9 to 40.6%). Extrapolations of seroprevalence rates led to estimate, at 143,000 and at 300,000 (95% CI, 283,000 to 320,000), the number of people infected in s1 and in s2, respectively. In comparison, the surveillance-system estimated at 130,000 and 266,000 the number of people infected for the same periods. Conclusion: A rapid serosurvey in pregnant women can be helpful to assess the attack rate when large seroprevalence studies cannot be done. On the other hand, a population-based serosurvey is useful to refine the estimate when clinical diagnosis underestimates it. Our findings give valuable insights to assess the herd immunity along the course of epidemics.</abstract>
      <custom6>052</custom6>
      <custom1>UR190</custom1>
    </record>
  </records>
</xml>
