Table 1

Convergence of Humans, Bats, Trees, and Culture in Nipah Virus Transmission, Bangladesh

Emily S. Gurley¹

, Sonia T. Hegde², Kamal Hossain, Hossain M.S. Sazzad, M. Jahangir Hossain³, Mahmudur Rahman, M.A. Yushuf Sharker⁴, Henrik Salje, M. Saiful Islam, Jonathan H. Epstein, Salah U. Khan, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Peter Daszak, and Stephen P. Luby

Author affiliations: icddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh (E.S. Gurley, S.T. Hegde, K. Hossain, H.M.S. Sazzad, M.J. Hossain, M.A. Yushuf Sharker, M.S. Islam, S.U. Khan, S.P. Luby); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (S.T. Hegde, S.P. Luby); Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Bangladesh, Dhaka (M. Rahman); Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA (H. Salje); Institut Pasteur, Paris, France (H. Salje); EcoHealth Alliance, New York, New York, USA (J.H. Epstein, P. Daszak); University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA (S.U. Khan); University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA (A.M. Kilpatrick); Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA (S.P. Luby)

Main Article

Characteristics of villages with cases of Nipah virus infection and control villages, Bangladesh 2011–2013*

Characteristic	Villages with cases, n = 60	Nearby control villages, n = 73	p value†	Distant control villages, n = 74	p value‡
Human population
No. persons in village	1,476 (1,202–1,749)	1.389 (1,102–1,676)	0.20	1,392 (1,010–1,774)	0.10
No. persons/km²	1,168 (1,167–2,169)	1,173 (592–1,754)	0.78	1,335 (456–2,213)	0.95
Pteropus bat population
Proportion of villages where P. medius bats were observed roosting or within 5 km of village boundary	0.85 (0.76–0.94)	0.86 (0.78–0.94)	0.86	0.76 (0.66–0.86)	0.19
No. bats roosting in village or within 5 km of village boundary	554 (319–789)	620 (364–875)	0.60	407 (226–587)	0.37
Proportion of respondents reporting large fruit bats
Roosted nearby during the day in past month	0.25 (0.17–0.34)	0.37 (0.29–0.45)	0.060	0.40 (0.31–0.49)	0.024
Fly overhead at dusk	0.51 (0.43–059)	0.64 (0.56–0.70)	0.019	0.77 (0.71–0.83)	<0.001
Visit fruit trees at night	0.43 (0.35–0.51)	0.52 (0.45–0.60)	0.10	0.53 (0.45–0.61)	0.090
Date palm sap and fruiting trees
No. trees in village within a 500-m radius of village boundary	120 (88–152)	95 (78–111)	0.91	101 (65–138)	0.14
Proportion of households with fruiting trees on premises	0.97 (0.94–0.99)	0.97 (0.94–0.98)	0.81	0.94 (0.92–0.96)	0.14
No. fruiting trees on each household premise	56 (46–68)	52 (43–61)	0.81	108 (45–170)	0.47
Human behavior
Proportion of villages with >1 date palm sap collector	0.60 (0.47–0.63)	0.40 (0.29–0.52)	0.026	0.51 (0.40–0.63)	0.32
No. sap collectors in villages	4.5 (1.8–7.3)	2.3 (1.0–3.6)	0.41	3.7 (1.9–5.6)	0.54
Proportion of villages with >1 fresh date palm sap seller	0.38 (0.28–0.51)	0.32 (0.21–0.43)	0.45	0.39 (0.26–0.51)	0.92
No. (%) fresh sap sellers in villages	1.9 (0.6)	0.9 (0.2)	0.16	2.4 (0.6)	0.47
Proportion of households where >1 person drank raw sap	0.61 (0.54–0.68)	0.49 (0.42–0.56)	0.014	0.31 (0.24–0.39)	<0.001
Proportion of households where someone drank raw sap >1×/wk during the past harvest season	0.35 (0.27–0.43)	0.29 (0.23–0.35)	0.26	0.21 (0.16–0.27)	0.005
No. household residents who drank >1 glass of raw date palm sap when in season	3.3 (2.7–3.9)	2.1 (1.8–2.5)	0.001	1.5 (1.1–1.9)	<0.001
Proportion of villages where >1 household fed raw date palm sap to livestock	0.16 (0.10–0.21)	0.12 (0.06–0.18)	0.66	0.14 (0.08–0.21)	0.78
Proportion of villages where >1 person hunted bats	0.53 (0.40–0.66)	0.64 (0.53–0.75)	0.22	0.27 (0.17–0.38)	0.002
Proportion of households that reported residents ate bitten fruits dropped on the ground	0.42 (0.37–0.48)	0.58 (0.53–0.62)	<0.001	0.66 (0.61–0.71)	<0.001

*Values are mean (95% CI) except as indicated.
†Comparison of villages with cases of Nipah virus infections with nearby control villages by using generalized linear models that account for correlations within villages for characteristics measured in household surveys.
‡Comparison of villages with cases of Nipah virus infections with distant control villages by using generalized linear models that account for correlations within villages for characteristics measured in household surveys.

Main Article

¹Current affiliation: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

²Current affiliation: University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

³Current affiliation: Medical Research Council, Banjul, The Gambia.

⁴Current affiliation: University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Page created: August 14, 2017

Page updated: August 14, 2017

Page reviewed: August 14, 2017

The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.