临沂市学校流感暴发疫情病毒检出特征分析

王传宝; 蒋春云; 刘祥亮; 李成伟; 刘建成; 尹德清; 季圣翔; 吴芳芳; 刘秀芳

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024156

临沂市学校流感暴发疫情病毒检出特征分析

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024156

1.
山东省临沂市疾病预防控制中心病毒检验科，276000
2.
临沂市人民医院心内科

详细信息

作者简介:
王传宝(1981-)，男，山东省人，硕士，副主任技师，主要从事传染病防制和呼吸道病毒实验室检测工作

通讯作者:
刘秀芳，E-mail：liuxiufangttkl@163.com

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: G478 R181.3⁺² R511
计量
- 文章访问数: 196
- HTML全文浏览量: 120
- PDF下载量: 25
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-01-19
- 修回日期: 2024-02-16
- 网络出版日期: 2024-05-30
- 刊出日期: 2024-05-25

Detection characteristics of the virus during school influenza outbreaks in Linyi City

1.
Department of Virus Detection, Linyi Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Linyi (276000), Shandong Province, China

摘要

摘要: 目的分析学校流感暴发疫情中流感病毒的检出特征，为学校流感暴发疫情处置提供策略依据。方法对2021—2022年度临沂市报告的52起中小学校流感暴发疫情进行分析，共采集咽拭子样本1 702份，处置疫情时将采样对象按照不同症状分为3种类型[A组：流感样病例(ILI)组；B组：轻症组；C组：密接组]，对采集的样本采用实时荧光定量方法检测流感病毒核酸。采用χ²检验对流感暴发疫情中病毒检出率进行分析。结果共检出流感病毒核酸阳性1 071份(62.93%)，其中A组采样726份，检出610份(84.02%)；B组采样634份，检出331份(52.21%)；C组采样342份，检出130份(38.01%)，差异有统计学意义(χ²=260.71，P<0.01)。按照性别分析，A组男性流感病毒核酸阳性检出率80.83%，女性91.36%；B组男性53.31%，女性50.87%；C组男性30.72%，女性43.92%，其中A组和C组的性别间差异均有统计学意义(χ²值分别为12.67，6.25，P值均<0.05)。按发病天数，发病0~6 d的流感病毒核酸阳性检出率分别为56.30%，74.49%，89.35%，86.23%，69.67%，62.75%，34.33%，差异有统计学意义(χ²=128.27，P<0.01)。结论轻症病例和密切接触者人群可能是造成学校流感暴发疫情中班级内病例长时间持续新发的重要原因，且流感症状的演进与其传染风险有关系。
- 流感，人 /
- 疾病暴发流行 /
- 病毒 /
- 学生保健服务
Abstract: Objective To analyze the characteristics of influenza virus detection in an influenza outbreak in schools, so as to provide a strategic basis for the treatment of influenza outbreaks in schools. Methods A total of 1 702 samples were collected from 52 school influenza outbreaks reported in Linyi City in 2021-2022. The samples were divided into 3 types according to different symptoms during the management of the epidemic [group A: influenza-like illness (ILI) group; group B: mild illness group; group C: close contacts group]. Rt-PCR was used to detect influenza virus nucleic acid in the collected samples. The detection rate of influenza virus in the outbreaks was analyzed by χ² test. Results In total, 1 071 samples (62.93%) tested positive for influenza virus nucleic acid. Among them, 610 out of 726 samples (84.02%) were detected in group A, while 331 out of 634 samples (52.21%) were detected in group B. In group C, 130 out of 342 samples (38.01%) tested positive. The differences were statistically significant (χ²=260.71, P<0.01). In group A, males had a detection rate of 80.83% for influenza virus nucleic acid, compared to 91.36% for females. For group B, the rates were 53.31% for males and 50.87% for females. In group C, males had a rate of 30.72%, while females had a rate of 43.92%. Statistical significance for gender differences was observed only in groups A and C (χ²=12.67, 6.25, P<0.05). According to the days of onset, the detection rates of influenza virus nucleic acid among patients with onset 0-6 days were 56.30%, 74.49%, 89.35%, 86.23%, 69.67%, 62.75%, 34.33%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (χ²=128.27, P<0.01). Conclusions Mild cases and close contacts are likely key factors contributing to the prolonged emergence of new cases within classrooms during school influenza outbreaks. The progression of influenza symptoms is related to the risk of transmission.
- Influenza, human /
- Disease outbreaks /
- Viruses /
- Student health services
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

图 1 52起暴发疫情的病毒核酸检出情况

Figure 1. Viral nucleic acid detection rates for 52 school influenza outbreaks

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 两组被试各发病天数时核酸阳性检出率比较

Table 1. Comparson of positive rate of nuclejcacid between two groups

组别	0		1 d		2 d		3 d		4 d		5 d		6~11 d
组别	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数	采样数	检出数
A组	96	83(86.46)	206	196(95.15)	129	119(92.25)	112	106(94.64)	62	53(85.48)	69	37(53.62)	52	16(30.77)
B组	245	109(44.49)	186	96(51.61)	40	32(80.00)	55	38(69.09)	60	32(53.33)	33	27(81.82)	15	7(46.67)
χ²值		49.38		97.40		4.81		20.28		14.92		7.59		1.31
P值		< 0.01		< 0.01		0.03		< 0.01		< 0.01		< 0.01		0.25
注：()内数字为检出率/%。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(18)

[1]	WHO. Influenza (seasonal) facts sheet[EB/OL]. (2018-01-31)[2024-01-02]. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal).
[2]	庄雅丽, 卢捷, 吴树凯, 等. 广东省2015—2022年流感暴发疫情特征分析[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2023, 44(6): 942-948. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20221010-00867 ZHUANG Y L, LU J, WU S K, et al. Epidemiologic characteristics and influencing factors of influenza outbreaks in Guangdong Province, 2015-2022[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2023, 44(6): 942-948. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20221010-00867
[3]	朱梦, 侯赛, 冯玉杰, 等. 2018—2023年安徽省流行性感冒哨点监测结果分析[J]. 安徽医科大学学报, 2023, 58(11): 1942-1946. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YIKE202311023.htm ZHU M, HOU S, FENG Y J, et al. Analysis of sentinel surveillance of influenza in Anhui Province from 2018 to 2023[J]. Acta Univ Med Anhui, 2023, 58(11): 1942-1946. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YIKE202311023.htm
[4]	王大燕. 中国流感监测网络的发展与展望[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2018, 39(8): 1036-1040. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.08.005 WANG D Y. Development and prospect of influenza surveillance network in China[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2018, 39(8): 1036-1040. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.08.005
[5]	杨筱婷, 刘新凤, 孟蕾, 等. 甘肃省流感流行预警方法探研[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(3): 430-433. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2016.03.029 YANG X T, LIU X F, MENG L, et al. Study on early warning method for influenza epidemic in Gansu Province[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2016, 37(3): 430-433. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2016.03.029
[6]	秦康, 张业武, 张鹏, 等. 中国大陆三种流感监测数据的时效性比较[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2019, 23(4): 387-391. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JBKZ201904005.htm QIN K, ZHANG Y W, ZHANG P, et al. Comparing the timeliness of three types of influenza surveillance data in mainland China[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2019, 23(4): 387-391. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JBKZ201904005.htm
[7]	国家疾病预防控制局. 流感样病例暴发疫情处置指南[Z]. 2018-11-14. National Disease Control and Prevention Administration. Guidelines for management of outbreaks of influenza-like illness[Z]. 2018-11-14. (in Chinese)
[8]	陈田木, 陈水连, 谢知, 等. 不同隐性感染和传播能力条件下的流感暴发防控措施效果模拟[J]. 中国热带医学, 2017, 17(5): 470-476. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDYX201705011.htm CHEN T M, CHEN S L, XIE Z, et al. Simulated effectiveness of control countermeasures for influenza outbreaks based on different asymptomatic infections and transmissibility[J]. Chin Trop Med, 2017, 17(5): 470-476. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDYX201705011.htm
[9]	许玉成, 张瑞银, 周志峰, 等. 学校及托幼机构流行性感冒疫情传播能力评估和停课措施效果评价[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(2): 273-276. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.02.028 XU Y C, ZHANG R Y, ZHOU Z F, et al. Assessment of transmission capacity of influenza and effect evaluation of suspension measures in schools and nurseries[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(2): 273-276. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.02.028
[10]	倪晓芬, 陈红, 周洲, 等. 上海市静安区小学一起甲型流感暴发疫情分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2023, 44(4): 602-605. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.04.029 NI X F, CHEN H, ZHOU Z, et al. Analysis of an outbreak of influenza A in a primary school in Jing'an District in Shanghai[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2023, 44(4): 602-605. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.04.029
[11]	于秋燕, 高尚, 单朝霞, 等. 济南市学校流感监测与学生疾病负担调查[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(12): 1863-1866. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.12.025 YU Q Y, GAO S, SHAN Z X, et al. Investigation on influenza surveillance disease burden among school students in Jinan City[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(12): 1863-1866. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.12.025
[12]	郑璇, 包小兵. 某中学一起流感暴发疫情实验室检测分析[J]. 河南预防医学杂志, 2020, 31(8): 621-622. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNYF202008021.htm ZHENG X, BAO X B. Laboratory analysis of an influenza outbreak in a middle school[J]. Henan J Prev Med, 2020, 31(8): 621-622. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNYF202008021.htm
[13]	王艳. 2013—2019年天津市河北区学校流感样病例暴发疫情分析[J]. 预防医学论坛, 2020, 26(11): 846-848. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YXWX202011013.htm WANG Y. Analysis on epidemiological characteristics of school influenza-like illness outbreaks, Hebei District Tianjin City, 2013-2019[J]. Prev Med Trib, 2020, 26(11): 846-848. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YXWX202011013.htm
[14]	丁超. 2017—2021年宜兴市学校流感暴发疫情分析[J]. 江苏预防医学, 2022, 33(6): 697-698. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSYF202206021.htm DING C. Analysis of influenza outbreak in schools in Yixing City from 2017 to 2021[J]. Jiangsu J Prev Med, 2022, 33(6): 697-698. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSYF202206021.htm
[15]	PATROZOU E, MERMEL L A. Does influenza transmission occur from asymptomatic infection or prior to symptom onset[J]. Public Health Rep, 2009, 124(2): 193-196. doi: 10.1177/003335490912400205
[16]	HAYWARD A C, FRAGASZY E B, BERMINGHAM A, et al. Comparative community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza: results of the flu watch cohort study[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2014, 2(6): 445-454. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70034-7
[17]	郑育驯, 方琪, 郑良忠, 等. 广东省揭阳市2009—2018年流行性感冒病原学监测[J]. 中国热带医学, 2020, 20(4): 378-380. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDYX202004021.htm ZHENG Y X, FANG Q, ZHENG L Z, et al. Surveillance results of influenza pathogens in Jieyang, Guangdong, 2009-2018[J]. Chin Trop Med, 2020, 20(4): 378-380. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDYX202004021.htm
[18]	毕嘉琦, 郑磊, 贺锋, 等. 2010—2020年深圳市宝安区两街道流行性感冒流行特征及预测分析[J]. 中国初级卫生保健, 2021, 35(8): 59-61. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGCW202108016.htm BI J Q, ZHENG L, HE F, et al. Characteristics and prediction analysis of influenza in two neighbourhoods of Baoan District, Shenzhen from 2010 to 2020[J]. Chin Prim Health Care, 2021, 35(8): 59-61. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGCW202108016.htm