Suppr超能文献

1918年流感大流行期间的公共卫生干预措施与疫情强度

Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic.

作者信息

Hatchett Richard J, Mecher Carter E, Lipsitch Marc

机构信息

Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7582-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610941104. Epub 2007 Apr 6.

Abstract

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) intended to reduce infectious contacts between persons form an integral part of plans to mitigate the impact of the next influenza pandemic. Although the potential benefits of NPIs are supported by mathematical models, the historical evidence for the impact of such interventions in past pandemics has not been systematically examined. We obtained data on the timing of 19 classes of NPI in 17 U.S. cities during the 1918 pandemic and tested the hypothesis that early implementation of multiple interventions was associated with reduced disease transmission. Consistent with this hypothesis, cities in which multiple interventions were implemented at an early phase of the epidemic had peak death rates approximately 50% lower than those that did not and had less-steep epidemic curves. Cities in which multiple interventions were implemented at an early phase of the epidemic also showed a trend toward lower cumulative excess mortality, but the difference was smaller (approximately 20%) and less statistically significant than that for peak death rates. This finding was not unexpected, given that few cities maintained NPIs longer than 6 weeks in 1918. Early implementation of certain interventions, including closure of schools, churches, and theaters, was associated with lower peak death rates, but no single intervention showed an association with improved aggregate outcomes for the 1918 phase of the pandemic. These findings support the hypothesis that rapid implementation of multiple NPIs can significantly reduce influenza transmission, but that viral spread will be renewed upon relaxation of such measures.

摘要

旨在减少人与人之间感染性接触的非药物干预措施(NPIs)是减轻下一次流感大流行影响计划的一个组成部分。尽管NPIs的潜在益处得到了数学模型的支持,但此类干预措施在过去大流行中影响的历史证据尚未得到系统研究。我们获取了1918年大流行期间美国17个城市19类NPIs实施时间的数据,并检验了早期实施多种干预措施与疾病传播减少相关的假设。与该假设一致,在疫情早期实施多种干预措施的城市,其峰值死亡率比未实施的城市低约50%,且疫情曲线较平缓。在疫情早期实施多种干预措施的城市也呈现出累积超额死亡率较低的趋势,但差异较小(约20%),且在统计学上不如峰值死亡率显著。鉴于1918年很少有城市将NPIs维持超过6周,这一发现并不意外。某些干预措施的早期实施,包括关闭学校、教堂和剧院,与较低的峰值死亡率相关,但没有单一干预措施显示与1918年大流行阶段的总体结果改善有关。这些发现支持了以下假设:快速实施多种NPIs可显著减少流感传播,但此类措施放松后病毒传播将再次出现。

相似文献

3
The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. cities.公共卫生措施对美国城市1918年流感大流行的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7588-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611071104. Epub 2007 Apr 6.

引用本文的文献

2
The Role of Schools of Public Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic.公共卫生学院在新冠疫情中的作用。
Port J Public Health. 2021 Jun;38(Suppl 1):1-3. doi: 10.1159/000515721. Epub 2021 Jun 10.
6
Beyond six feet: The collective behavior of social distancing.超越六英尺:社交距离的集体行为。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 13;19(9):e0293489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293489. eCollection 2024.
8
Ozone as an environmental driver of influenza.臭氧作为流感的环境驱动因素。
Nat Commun. 2024 May 4;15(1):3763. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48199-z.
9
Anesthetist and pandemic: Past and present.麻醉师与大流行:过去与现在。
Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2021 Feb;36:5-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tacc.2020.07.011. Epub 2020 Aug 10.

本文引用的文献

1
The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. cities.公共卫生措施对美国城市1918年流感大流行的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7588-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611071104. Epub 2007 Apr 6.
5
Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza.1918年大流行性流感的传播性。
Nature. 2004 Dec 16;432(7019):904-6. doi: 10.1038/nature03063.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验