Advertisement

Current Epidemiology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 11–21 | Cite as

A New Look at an Old Disease: Recent Insights into the Global Epidemiology of Dengue

  • Tyler M. Sharp
  • Kay M. Tomashek
  • Jennifer S. Read
  • Harold S. Margolis
  • Stephen H. Waterman
Open Access
Infectious Disease Epidemiology (A Reingold, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Infectious Disease Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

By all measures, the morbidity and mortality due to dengue are continuing to worsen worldwide. Although both early and recent studies have demonstrated regional differences in how dengue affects local populations, these findings were to varying extents related to disparate surveillance approaches.

Recent Findings

Recent studies have broadened the recognized spectrum of disease resulting from DENV infection, particularly in adults, and have also demonstrated new mechanisms of DENV spread both within and between populations. New results regarding the frequency and duration of homo- and heterotypic anti-DENV antibodies have provided important insights relevant to vaccine design and implementation.

Summary

These observations and findings as well as difficulties in comparing the epidemiology of dengue within and between regions of the world underscore the need for population-based dengue surveillance worldwide. Enhanced surveillance should be implemented to complement passive surveillance in countries in the tropics to establish baseline data in order to define affected populations and evaluate the impact of dengue vaccines and novel vector control interventions.

Keywords

Dengue Epidemiology Burden 

Introduction

As is true for many emerging infectious diseases, increasing global circulation of dengue is a result of the expansion and urbanization of society [1]. The four genetically and antigenically distinct dengue virus (DENV) types [2•] diverged from a common ancestor roughly 1000 years ago [3]. Each virus independently shifted from a mosquito-monkey-mosquito cycle of transmission to becoming endemic in humans several hundred years ago [3, 4]. The advent of maritime transportation enabled the dispersal of Aedes mosquitoes and DENV-infected humans throughout the tropics, and dengue outbreaks were increasingly reported during the seventeenth century [3]. World War II played a prominent role in enabling co-circulation of multiple DENV types and subsequent epidemics of dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) in Southeast Asia in the 1950s [5]. Aedes mosquitoes were nearly eradicated from the Americas in the middle of the twentieth century [6]. However, unsustainable vector control strategies [7] allowed the resurgence of Aedes mosquito populations in the Americas, and epidemics of DHF were first reported throughout the region in the 1980s [8]. Thus, the global spread and increasing severity of dengue were enabled by increased population growth, more frequent and expansive international travel, and societal urbanization that produced more abundant mosquito breeding sites (e.g., refuse, discarded tires, septic tanks) [9].

The four DENV types and their mosquito vectors are now present throughout the tropics and sub-tropics worldwide (Fig. 1) [10, 11]. Recent dengue incidence has increased greatly [8], having roughly doubled each decade since 1990 [12]. Though both annual incidence and methods utilized to estimate incidence vary, recent estimates have suggested that 96 million dengue cases occurred in 2010 [13] and 58 million dengue cases and over 9000 deaths occurred in 2013 [14•]. Longitudinal analysis of surveillance data from Southeast Asia [15] and the Americas [8] demonstrated longer and more frequent dengue epidemics and increasing dengue-related morbidity and mortality. By all measures, the worldwide economic and health-associated burden of dengue has increased dramatically since World War II, and this trend will likely continue until an effective dengue vaccine and/or sustainable control strategy is identified to prevent DENV transmission [16].
Fig. 1

Regions of the world where there is available evidence for risk of dengue virus infection. Map provided by CDC Travelers’ Health Branch. For up-to-date information on dengue activity, please see dengue map (www.healthmap.org/dengue)

As such prevention and control strategies are implemented, measuring their effect will be critical to demonstrate efficacy in preventing disease and saving lives. Findings from evaluations can be used to develop recommendations regarding best practices in controlling dengue. Doing so will require a comprehensive understanding of the epidemiology of dengue, including the populations most affected, spectrum of clinical disease, and temporal and spatial patterns of illness. Despite several decades of study, many misperceptions regarding the epidemiology of dengue persist among the public, clinicians, and public health professionals. These misperceptions have occurred in part because much of our early knowledge of dengue was gained during the first DHF epidemics in Southeast Asia. Understanding of these epidemics was limited by a lack of population-based case identification and/or laboratory diagnostics to distinguish dengue from other causes of acute febrile illness (AFI). Specifically, many early studies of dengue in Southeast Asia were performed solely among hospitalized children suspected to have dengue [17]. As a result, dengue hemorrhagic fever (and hence, by proxy, dengue) was perceived to be an illness exclusively of childhood. Still other studies were conducted in dengue-naïve adults (i.e., soldiers) sent overseas to Asia [18]. Consequently, our initial understanding of dengue came from populations that were not representative of the entire population living in areas with endemic dengue.

This review calls attention to new findings on the epidemiology of dengue worldwide with respect to previous perceptions. In particular, these new findings include improved recognition of the spectrum of disease caused by DENV infection, particularly in adults, the mechanisms of DENV dissemination within populations, and the role of homo- and heterotypic anti-DENV antibodies in affecting DENV transmission in populations. We discuss whether these findings are due to increased clinical awareness, improved surveillance and diagnostics, demographic changes, or actual epidemiological shifts in affected populations. We provide an epidemiologic framework hopefully useful to further improve our understanding of dengue epidemiology, and we detail the additional steps needed to gain a more complete understanding of the epidemiology of dengue worldwide.

Improved Recognition of DENV Infection as a Cause of Acute Febrile Illness

For decades, dengue has been perceived as a clinical syndrome defined by fever, body aches, leukopenia, and other symptoms of acute viral infection [19, 20]. Also recognized for several decades is the potentially fatal DHF/dengue shock syndrome associated with bleeding manifestations, capillary leakage, and elevated hematocrit. However, DENV infection can result in a variety of outcomes ranging from asymptomatic infection, to mild or sub-clinical illness, to hospitalization and death with other clinical presentations. Reclassification of dengue case definitions in the late 2000s [16] broadened the spectrum of severe dengue to improve both the clinical recognition of and surveillance for severe illness attributable to DENV infection [21]. Nonetheless, dengue-related deaths are still underrecognized in endemic areas due to reliance on passive case reporting and/or review of death certificates to identify fatal dengue cases, which may not be an accurate means by which to capture dengue deaths due to frequent misdiagnosis [12, 22, 23, 24, 25].

On the opposite end of the clinical spectrum but far more common than severe or fatal dengue, many mild illnesses caused by DENV infection that do not conform to existing dengue case definitions are neither diagnosed clinically nor reported. Pediatric AFI surveillance in Ratchaburi, Thailand, demonstrated that more than half of patients with symptomatic DENV infection had an undifferentiated fever that did not meet the WHO dengue case definition [26, 27]. Similar observations regarding the lack of sensitivity of the WHO dengue case definition in capturing individuals with symptomatic DENV infection were made during active surveillance for febrile illness in rural Thailand [28]. These findings are not specific to Southeast Asia. In Nicaragua, one quarter of pediatric patients with febrile illness had laboratory-confirmed DENV infection but did not meet the WHO dengue case definition [29]. Because these children were enrolled in a prospective cohort study that assessed for both DENV infection and dengue, these events in many cases would not otherwise have been identified since asymptomatic and sub-clinical infections would not have come to the attention of the health care system. Thus, even in endemic areas where dengue awareness is high in both the public and clinical communities, DENV infection is underrecognized as a cause of mild illness, thereby contributing to underestimation of the global burden of illness caused by DENV infection.

The recognition of DENV infection as a cause of mild illness has in part been made possible through improved molecular [30, 31] and serologic [32] diagnostic methods that together enable accurate diagnosis with a single serum specimen. Of similar utility, particularly in areas without laboratories capable of performing RT-PCR and ELISA, is the recent availability of dengue rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) [32]. Consequently, dengue has now been detected in nearly all regions of the tropics and sub-tropics (Fig. 1), including countries thought to have endemic dengue but where illness is still unrecognized [33]. For example, dengue has long been neglected in sub-Saharan Africa [34, 35, 36, 37], and in the southern USA where dengue is reemerging [38, 39, 40].

A necessary first step to better identify populations most affected by dengue worldwide is improving clinical awareness of dengue in the context of other etiologies of AFI. Many tropical AFIs (e.g., chikungunya, Zika, leptospirosis, influenza, scrub typhus, typhoid fever, bacterial sepsis, West Nile virus infection, acute HIV infection) share symptoms with dengue which complicates diagnosis. This challenge was demonstrated during a dengue outbreak in 2011 among African Union Mission peacekeeping troops in Mogadishu, Somalia, initially diagnosed as an outbreak of “hemorrhagic malaria” (CDC, unpublished data). Similar examples of underecognition of dengue in sub-Saharan Africa have recently come to light [36, 41, 42, 43]. Even in areas where dengue has been endemic for decades and burden of illness is well-recognized, deficiencies persist in clinical diagnosis and management of dengue patients [44, 45•]. Despite recent inroads, including use of rapid diagnostic tests to identify dengue outbreaks [46], improving the awareness and diagnosis of dengue in Africa and other areas of the tropics where dengue is neglected or underrecognized remains difficult due to low clinical suspicion of dengue as a cause of non-hemorrhagic AFI.

The consequence of underrecognition of DENV infection as a cause of mild illness is underestimation of the economic and health-associated burden of dengue worldwide [47]. Underreporting is an inherent facet of all passive surveillance systems, which are used for national reporting of dengue cases in all countries worldwide that capture such information. Enhanced surveillance in Thailand [48], Nicaragua [49], and Puerto Rico [50], all of which are countries where dengue has been endemic for decades and clinical awareness is high, has estimated underreporting of dengue through national surveillance to be between 8- and 28-fold. Underreporting of dengue in countries with non-endemic travel-associated dengue is likely to be higher than in endemic areas due to low clinical awareness, lack of availability of diagnostics, and/or inefficient infrastructure for surveillance to operate. For example, roughly 80% of >5800 laboratory-positive dengue cases in the USA were not reported during 2008–2011(CDC, unpublished data). A further consequence of underrecognition is delayed or ineffective control responses. In Thailand, vector control activities that are triggered by reported dengue cases overlooked more than half of individuals with symptomatic DENV infection since the cases did not meet reporting requirements [26]. Therefore, timely initiation of population-level interventions to control or limit DENV transmission relies on the following: (1) clinical recognition of dengue as a potential cause of the patient’s illness, (2) availability of timely and accurate laboratory diagnostics to differentiate DENV infection from other AFIs, and (3) appropriate case definitions and surveillance mechanisms to enable national case reporting.

Dengue in Adults

The traditional view in Southeast Asia is that dengue is a pediatric illness that rarely affects adults if at all [17]. Because much of our understanding of dengue pathogenesis originated in the Southeast Asia outbreaks of DHF, this view has pervaded the perception of dengue worldwide. Consequently, most surveillance for dengue in Southeast Asia was conducted primarily in pediatric hospitals where DHF cases are predominantly reported [17]. For example, in Cambodia, only hospitalized persons aged <15 years were reported, a trend that persists in the present day [48]. Although the burden of dengue in Southeast Asia is unarguably highest in children and adolescents, contemporaneous study of dengue in adults in Indonesia demonstrated a larger burden of disease than previously realized [51]. Similarly, enhanced surveillance for dengue in Vietnam demonstrated that adult dengue patients account for one third of all dengue-related hospital admissions [52]. Population-based dengue surveillance conducted in Brazil [53], Puerto Rico [54], Malaysia [55], and Taiwan [56] demonstrated that half or more of all reported dengue cases are in adults who experience the full spectrum of clinical illness. Although the age groups most affected by dengue and severe dengue may indeed differ between Southeast Asia and the Americas, due at least in part to differences in the relative force of infection [57, 58], lack of population-based surveillance precludes comparison of these potential differences in affected age groups. Therefore, population-based surveillance for dengue should be implemented and reporting restrictions that only allow pediatric cases to be reported as suspected dengue cases should be removed. Only through these approaches can age groups affected by dengue be accurately identified and compared between countries.

Such comparisons are necessary to better understand the outcome of DENV infection between different age groups. Infection with a DENV has long been thought to be more likely to result in clinically manifest dengue in adults than in children, and recent studies have examined this finding in more detail. Studies from Brazil [59] and Vietnam [60] have demonstrated that the risk of developing dengue after first DENV infection increases with age. Similarly, studies in Brazil [61], Puerto Rico [62], Thailand [63], and Taiwan [56] have shown that illness severity correlates with age in individuals with clinically apparent dengue; however, these observations are contrary to those seen in Singapore [64]. This discrepancy is not easily resolved, as recent clinical evaluations of potential differences in dengue manifestations between children and adults conducted in Nicaragua [65], Thailand [63, 66], and Vietnam [67] have demonstrated that children more frequently develop vascular leakage and shock whereas adults have a propensity to experience hemorrhage and organ involvement. Although tempting to conclude that age-dependent differences in the response to DENV infection are responsible for differential disease manifestations between children and adults, the possibility of other explanations such as adults having underlying co-morbidities, co-infections, delayed presentation for care, and/or delayed recognition of dengue by health care providers [22, 23, 64, 68] cannot be excluded as possible explanations for these observed differences. Further investigation is therefore needed to determine if adults more frequently experience severe illness following DENV infection and/or illness onset, or if the manifestations of dengue and severe dengue are simply disparate in children and adults.

Recent findings from Thailand have demonstrated that the median age of reported dengue case patients has increased over the past decade [69]. Although several explanations for this phenomenon have been proposed, including decreased vector abundance [70], a more plausible explanation is that a demographic shift in the age structure of Thailand due to a decreasing birth rate and increasing immigration led to a decreased force of infection and a consequent increase in age of DHF cases [71]. Interestingly, these changes occurred in the context of a decreasing force of DENV transmission while the basic reproductive number was unchanged, further suggesting that the expanding age groups affected by dengue was due more to underlying changes in the demographics of the population than with changes in the dynamics of DENV transmission [58]. Should similar observations of increasing age of dengue patients be made in other countries, further elucidation of the mechanisms responsible will be needed to determine if this age shift is due to demographic or other changes.

Neurologic Manifestions of DENV Infection

A number of investigators have documented that DENVs, while apparently less neurotropic than other flaviviruses such as Japanese encephalitis virus, West Nile virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, and now Zika virus, cause a relatively small but significant burden of neurologic illness [72]. Neurologic manifestations include encephalopathy, encephalitis, and neuromuscular abnormalities. The incidence of dengue with neurologic complications and the proportion of febrile neurologic illness due to DENV infection varies markedly (4–47%) in reports from different settings [73]. Involvement of the central nervous system is now a criterion for severe dengue; however, standardized diagnostic criteria for neurologic manifestations of dengue are lacking [74]. Again, increased clinical awareness and systematic testing for dengue in patients with acute febrile neurologic illness using standardized clinical definitions are necessary for a clearer understanding of disease burden.

Mechanisms of DENV Dissemination

Dengue epidemics typically occur every 3–5 years in endemic areas, and peak dengue incidence typically occurs in association with the rainy season during both epidemic and non-epidemic years [16]. Although several studies have associated the occurrence of dengue epidemics with El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO), ENSO does not independently determine the occurrence of epidemics [75]. The identification of accurate predictors of when epidemics will occur [76] has been complicated by the integral role played by mosquito populations in DENV spread; the existence of four antigenically distinct DENV types, all of which have different dynamics of infection and replication within mosquitoes and humans; and the relative contributions of homo- and heterotypic DENV immunity to herd immunity.

An established risk factor for DENV infection is sharing living space with a person with dengue [77, 78, 79], and as such dengue cases typically cluster at the household and neighborhood levels in both urban [80, 81] and rural [82, 83] settings. Mapping the travel patterns of dengue case-patients in Peru revealed that DENV transmission within communities is attributable more to mobility of infected humans than to infected mosquitoes [81], which have limited flight range and do not frequently mediate transmission outside of the household [84]. Interestingly, recent studies have revealed that a similar, but mechanistically distinct, perspective can be applied on a larger scale and may in part explain the periodicity of epidemics. Cummings and colleagues elegantly demonstrated that Bangkok, Thailand frequently serves as a dengue epicenter, from which a wave of dengue travels in humans away from Bangkok roughly every 3 years at ~148 km per month to ultimately affect nearly the entire country [85]. Similar observations implicating cities as the site of spread of epidemics have since been made in Vietnam [86, 87] and Brazil [88]. Because the introduction of new DENV clades is one factor associated with the occurrence of epidemics [89, 90] and changes in disease severity [91], a more complete understanding of whether new clades arise in cities or if cities serve to amplify new clades after they are introduced, or both, will assist in the planning of dengue control efforts.

Similar to inter-city spread of DENVs, a well-recognized mechanism of intercontinental DENV spread is via infected travelers returning from endemic areas [92]. A prospective study of more than 1200 short-term Dutch travelers to the tropics demonstrated that 14.6 DENV infections occurred per 1000 person-months of travel [93]. Similarly, risk of DENV infection was predicted to be 0.17 and 0.2% for a 1-week stay during peak dengue season in Singapore [94] and Thailand [95], respectively, which correlates well with rates observed in Israeli travelers to Thailand [96]. However, attack rates can be considerably higher during short-term travel to regions with endemic dengue among certain high risk groups. For example, 25% of a cohort of American missionaries experienced symptomatic DENV infection following a 1-week trip to Haiti during a presumptive epidemic [97]. Risk of DENV infection and likelihood of importation to travelers’ home countries varies by duration of stay, the environments encountered during travel (e.g., vacation travel to a resort versus visiting friends and family in an urban area), and intensity of DENV transmission when travel occurs (e.g., peak versus low dengue season) [98].

Hundreds of viremic travelers each year return to areas of the USA and Europe that have Aedes mosquitoes and a largely susceptible human population [99], demonstrating that travelers are at risk not only of becoming ill following DENV infection while abroad, but also of importing the virus and causing local outbreaks, as has recently occurred in the USA [100, 101, 102] and Europe [103]. Moreover, dengue epidemics in Taiwan [104] and China [105] have been associated with DENV importation from Southeast Asia, whereas those in Queensland, Australia, were associated with importation from Oceania [106, 107]. These findings together reinforce that travel-associated dengue cases can introduce and result in local DENV transmission, illustrating the need for improved clinical awareness and reporting of travel-associated dengue cases to implement public health measures to contain outbreaks.

New Views on DENV Antibodies

The presence of anti-DENV antibodies that bind the virus but do not neutralize it to prevent infection of new cells is a well-established risk factor for developing severe dengue [16]. However, in relation to protecting both individuals from developing dengue and populations from experiencing epidemics, the role of DENV immunity until recently had been largely neglected. Early studies of heterotypic immunity conducted by Albert Sabin demonstrated that cross-protection against disease following infection with a DENV type different from the initial infecting type lasts several months [108]. However, contemporaneous cohort studies conducted in Nicaragua [109] and Thailand [110] estimated the duration of protective heterotypic immunity to be on the order of 1 to 3 years and demonstrated a directly proportional relationship between duration of time between infections and likelihood of developing symptomatic infection. Although the correlation of the duration of protective heterotypic antibody with the frequency of epidemics is interesting [111], the relationship between waning heterotypic antibody and its effect upon herd immunity has yet to be conclusively addressed. Finally, studies from Nicaragua and Puerto Rico have provided limited evidence for a sex-specific difference in the duration of protective heterotypic immunity [109, 112], a finding which remains to be more rigorously validated.

The same longitudinal cohort studies have shed new light on the frequency and role of homotypic DENV immunity. Though DENV infection was historically considered to result in sterilizing immunity against the infecting DENV type [108, 113], re-infection with the same DENV type has been recently documented, albeit rarely, in individuals in Nicaragua, Peru, and Puerto Rico [112, 114•, 115••]. Of interest, most homotypic DENV infections identified to date have been sequential infections with DENV-2, which was recently shown to be the most antigenically diverse of the four DENVs [2]. Since most homotypic DENV infections appear to have been either asymptomatic or subclinical, the relative contribution of homotypic DENV re-infection on burden of disease is unclear. Nonetheless, a natural history study of human DENV infections in Cambodia elegantly demonstrated that asymptomatic DENV infections do indeed lead to infection of mosquitos [116•]. Therefore, even if homotypic infections do not appreciably increase the burden of disease, they still may contribute to propagation of transmission. Although such homotypic infections have been rarely identified to date, it is indeed possible that they occur more often than has been previously appreciated but are only now being recognized due to the recent initiation of dengue cohort studies, improved case detection through enhanced or more efficient case surveillance, and/or increased use of molecular diagnostic techniques that can identify the infecting DENV type with greater reliability than serologic diagnosis [113].

Similarly, the occurrence of asymptomatic DENV infections and the role that antibodies play in the likelihood of developing symptomatic infection have recently been addressed. In Thailand, the wide yearly fluctuation between the ratio of symptomatic-to-inapparent (rS:I) DENV infections in school children in a given year is related to DENV infections in the previous year, in that the prior year’s incidence and subsequent year’s rS:I DENV infections have an inverse relationship [117]. Similar observations were made utilizing data from a prospective pediatric cohort in Nicaragua [109], where neutralizing antibody titers were observed to be a correlate of protection against symptomatic DENV infection [118•].

Although Sabin demonstrated that pre-existing antibodies against Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), a flavivirus genetically related to DENV, protected individuals from developing dengue following DENV infection [108], in a recent school-based cohort from Thailand pre-existing anti-JEV antibody increased the likelihood of symptomatic DENV infection [119]. Conversely, the absence of clinically apparent illness due to infection with West Nile virus, also a flavivirus, despite circulation in sentinel animals in areas with endemic dengue [120, 121] suggests that anti-DENV antibodies may provide some level of protection from WNV disease. Future studies should continue to address the role of cross-reactive anti-flavivirus antibodies in the potential modulation of clinical outcome following infection with DENV or another flavivirus, including a potentially worsened clinical outcome as has been suggested by a case report of an individual who had been previously infected with a DENV and died from hemorrhagic illness following WNV infection [122].

Conclusions

Although we now know more about dengue than ever before, much work remains before a comprehensive understanding of the modern epidemiology of dengue can be achieved. In addition, despite more than a century of research, still no effective means to prevent dengue in communities is available. Until such a solution is found, the worldwide burden of dengue is likely to continue to increase.

Despite recent advances in dengue vaccines [123, 124] and novel approaches to vector control [125], challenges in both fields [126, 127] have left optimization of patient management through increased clinical awareness as the only approach to reduce dengue-related mortality [45•]. To effectively measure the effect of interventions on the incidence and burden of dengue, as well as to consistently define the occurrence of epidemics, baseline surveillance data that are gathered equivalently throughout the world is urgently needed [128]. Moreover, implementing enhanced surveillance (i.e., sentinel health care facilities in which clinicians are trained and encouraged on how to appropriately identify, manage, and report dengue patients) in areas with existing passive surveillance systems will enable calculation of accurate rates of dengue and severe dengue, and allow for inter- and intra-country comparison of the burden due to dengue [19, 128].

A persistent limitation to understanding the burden of dengue is reporting of dengue cases to public health authorities. In the absence of consistent case reporting, an accurate understanding of the epidemiology of dengue will be difficult to achieve. An additional benefit to complementing passive surveillance with a limited number of enhanced surveillance sites is therefore to gain a more accurate estimate of the morbidity and mortality due to dengue. Implementation of enhanced surveillance sites will therefore better enable an accurate estimation of the burden of severe and fatal dengue. Furthermore, to improve case identification, availability of dengue diagnostics, both rapid tests and laboratory-based confirmatory testing, is needed to differentiate patients with dengue from other AFIs, and thus additional emphasis should be placed on improved dengue laboratory capacity worldwide, but especially in areas where dengue is neglected. Finally, without country-specific knowledge of all age groups affected by dengue, the required evidence for countries to identify the age groups that should receive a dengue vaccine is both insufficient and convoluted. Periodic population-based serosurveys can and will be useful for this purpose but are logistically challenging and labor intensive. Enhanced surveillance is the most feasible route to gain an accurate, comprehensive, and comparable understanding of the global epidemiology of dengue.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We apologize to colleagues whose work was not cited here due to space limitations. The authors would like to thank Ryan Lash for assistance with figure preparation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Tyler M. Sharp, Kay M. Tomashek, Jennifer Read, Harold S. Margolis, and Stephen H. Waterman each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Funding

This work was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Morens DM, Fauci AS. Emerging infectious diseases: threats to human health and global stability. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(7):e1003467. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003467.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Katzelnick LC, Fonville JM, Gromowski GD, Bustos Arriaga J, Green A, James SL, et al. Dengue viruses cluster antigenically but not as discrete serotypes. Science (New York, NY). 2015;349(6254):1338–43. doi: 10.1126/science.aac5017. This study provided clear evidence that the four dengue viruses are genetically and antigenically distinct, but are not serologically homologous and hence should not be referred to as "serotypes"CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vasilakis N, Weaver SC. The history and evolution of human dengue emergence. Adv Virus Res. 2008;72:1–76. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3527(08)00401-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Twiddy SS, Holmes EC, Rambaut A. Inferring the rate and time-scale of dengue virus evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2003;20(1):122–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gubler DJ. The changing epidemiology of yellow fever and dengue, 1900 to 2003: full circle? Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;27(5):319–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2004.03.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gubler DJ. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever: its history and resurgence as a global public health problem. In: Gubler D, Kuno G, editors. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Wallingford: CABI International; 1997. p. 1–22.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morrison AC, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Scott TW, Rosenberg R. Defining challenges and proposing solutions for control of the virus vector Aedes aegypti. PLoS Med. 2008;5(3):e68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    San Martin JL, Brathwaite O, Zambrano B, Solorzano JO, Bouckenooghe A, Dayan GH, et al. The epidemiology of dengue in the americas over the last three decades: a worrisome reality. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2010;82(1):128–35. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petersen LR, Marfin AA. Shifting epidemiology of Flaviviridae. Journal of travel medicine. 2005;12(Suppl 1):S3–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Messina JP, Brady OJ, Scott TW, Zou C, Pigott DM, Duda KA, et al. Global spread of dengue virus types: mapping the 70 year history. Trends Microbiol. 2014; doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2013.12.011.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015;4:e08347. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08347.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanaway JD, Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Coffeng LE, Brady OJ, et al. The global burden of dengue: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(16)00026-8.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496(7446):504–7. doi: 10.1038/nature12060.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Stanaway JD. The global economic burden of dengue: a systematic analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(16)00146-8. A comprehensive analysis of the worldwide economic burden of dengue over several decades, including estimation of the incidence and burden of fatal dengue casesPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ooi EE, Gubler DJ. Dengue in Southeast Asia: epidemiological characteristics and strategic challenges in disease prevention. Cad Saude Publica. 2009;25(Suppl 1):S115–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. 1st ed. Geneva; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halstead SB. Dengue in the Americas and Southeast Asia: do they differ? Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2006;20(6):407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibbons RV, Streitz M, Babina T, Fried JR. Dengue and US military operations from the Spanish-American War through today. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(4):623–30. doi: 10.3201/eid1804.110134.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization. Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Dengue haemorrhagic fever: diagnosis, treatment, and control. Geneva: WHO; 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farrar JJ, Hien TT, Horstick O, Hung NT, Jaenisch T, Junghanns T, et al. Dogma in classifying dengue disease. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2013;89(2):198–201. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tomashek KM, Gregory CJ, Rivera Sanchez A, Bartek MA, Garcia Rivera EJ, Hunsperger E, et al. Dengue deaths in Puerto Rico: lessons learned from the 2007 epidemic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(4):e1614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001614.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leo YS, Thein TL, Fisher DA, Low JG, Oh HM, Narayanan RL, et al. Confirmed adult dengue deaths in Singapore: 5-year multi-center retrospective study. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:123. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-123.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tomashek KM, Rivera A, Torres-Velasquez B, Hunsperger EA, Munoz-Jordan JL, Sharp TM, et al. Enhanced surveillance for fatal dengue-like acute febrile illness in Puerto Rico, 2010–2012. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(10):e0005025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005025.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cavalcanti LP, Braga DN, da Silva LM, Aguiar MG, Castiglioni M, Silva-Junior JU, et al. Postmortem diagnosis of dengue as an epidemiological surveillance tool. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2016;94(1):187–92. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sabchareon A, Sirivichayakul C, Limkittikul K, Chanthavanich P, Suvannadabba S, Jiwariyavej V, et al. Dengue infection in children in Ratchaburi, Thailand: a cohort study. I. Epidemiology of symptomatic acute dengue infection in children, 2006–2009. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(7):e1732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001732.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sirivichayakul C, Limkittikul K, Chanthavanich P, Jiwariyavej V, Chokejindachai W, Pengsaa K, et al. Dengue infection in children in Ratchaburi, Thailand: a cohort study. II. Clinical manifestations. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001520.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoon IK, Srikiatkhachorn A, Hermann L, Buddhari D, Scott TW, Jarman RG, et al. Characteristics of mild dengue virus infection in thai children. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2013;89(6):1081–7. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Biswas HH, Ortega O, Gordon A, Standish K, Balmaseda A, Kuan G, et al. Early clinical features of dengue virus infection in nicaraguan children: a longitudinal analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(3):e1562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001562.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Santiago GA, Vergne E, Quiles Y, Cosme J, Vazquez J, Medina JF, et al. Analytical and clinical performance of the CDC real time RT-PCR assay for detection and typing of dengue virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(7):e2311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002311.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waggoner JJ, Abeynayake J, Sahoo MK, Gresh L, Tellez Y, Gonzalez K, et al. Comparison of the FDA-approved CDC DENV-1-4 real-time reverse transcription-PCR with a laboratory-developed assay for dengue virus detection and serotyping. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(10):3418–20. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01359-13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peeling RW, Artsob H, Pelegrino JL, Buchy P, Cardosa MJ, Devi S, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests: dengue. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(12 Suppl):S30–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reller ME, Bodinayake C, Nagahawatte A, Devasiri V, Kodikara-Arachichi W, Strouse JJ, et al. Unsuspected dengue and acute febrile illness in rural and semi-urban southern Sri Lanka. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(2):256–63. doi: 10.3201/eid1802.110962.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amarasinghe A, Kuritsk JN, Letson GW, Margolis HS. Dengue virus infection in Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(8):1349–54. doi: 10.3201/eid1708.101515.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Ongoing dengue epidemic—Angola, June 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(24):504–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis EM, Neatherlin JC, Delorey M, Ochieng M, Mohamed AH, Mogeni DO, et al. A household serosurvey to estimate the magnitude of a dengue outbreak in Mombasa, Kenya, 2013. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(4):e0003733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003733.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stoler J, Al Dashti R, Anto F, Fobil JN, Awandare GA. Deconstructing “malaria”: West Africa as the next front for dengue fever surveillance and control. Acta Trop. 2014;134:58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.02.017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Radke EG, Gregory CJ, Kintziger KW, Sauber-Schatz EK, Hunsperger EA, Gallagher GR, et al. Dengue outbreak in key west, Florida, USA, 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(1):135–7. doi: 10.3201/eid1801.110130.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharp TM, Gaul L, Muehlenbachs A, Hunsperger E, Bhatnagar J, Lueptow R, et al. Fatal hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis associated with locally acquired dengue virus infection—new Mexico and Texas, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(3):49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramos MM, Mohammed H, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Hayden MH, Lopez JL, Fournier M, et al. Epidemic dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever at the Texas-Mexico border: results of a household-based seroepidemiologic survey, December 2005. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2008;78(3):364–9.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sharp TM, Moreira R, Soares MJ, Miguel da Costa L, Mann J, DeLorey M, et al. Underrecognition of dengue during 2013 epidemic in Luanda, Angola. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21(8):1311–6. doi: 10.3201/eid2108.150368.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stoler J, Delimini RK, Bonney JH, Oduro AR, Owusu-Agyei S, Fobil JN, et al. Evidence of recent dengue exposure among malaria parasite-positive children in three urban centers in Ghana. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2015; doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0678.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vairo F, Mboera LE, De Nardo P, Oriyo NM, Meschi S, Rumisha SF, et al. Clinical, virologic, and epidemiologic characteristics of dengue outbreak, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(5):895–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2205.151462.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Han GS, Gregory CJ, Biggerstaff BJ, Horiuchi K, Perez-Guerra C, Soto-Gomez E, et al. Effect of a dengue clinical case management course on physician practices in Puerto Rico. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2016;63(10):1297–303. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    • Lam PK, Tam DT, Diet TV, Tam CT, Tien NT, Kieu NT, et al. Clinical characteristics of dengue shock syndrome in Vietnamese children: a 10-year prospective study in a single hospital. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2013;57(11):1577–86. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit594. The clearest evidence to date that appropriate clinical management can reduce dengue case-fatality by roughly 10-foldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hunsperger EA, Sharp TM, Lalita P, Tikomaidraubuta K, Cardoso YR, Naivalu T, et al. Use of a rapid test for diagnosis of dengue during suspected dengue outbreaks in resource-limited regions. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(8):2090–5. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00521-16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beatty ME, Beutels P, Meltzer MI, Shepard DS, Hombach J, Hutubessy R, et al. Health economics of dengue: a systematic literature review and expert panelʼs assessment. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2011;84(3):473–88. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wichmann O, Yoon IK, Vong S, Limkittikul K, Gibbons RV, Mammen MP, et al. Dengue in Thailand and Cambodia: an assessment of the degree of underrecognized disease burden based on reported cases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(3):e996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000996.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Standish K, Kuan G, Aviles W, Balmaseda A, Harris E. High dengue case capture rate in four years of a cohort study in Nicaragua compared to national surveillance data. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(3):e633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000633.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ramos MM, Arguello DF, Luxemburger C, Quinones L, Munoz JL, Beatty M, et al. Epidemiological and clinical observations on patients with dengue in Puerto Rico: results from the first year of enhanced surveillance—June 2005–May 2006. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2008;79(1):123–7.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Porter KR, Beckett CG, Kosasih H, Tan RI, Alisjahbana B, Rudiman PI, et al. Epidemiology of dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever in a cohort of adults living in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2005;72(1):60–6.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Anders KL, Nguyet NM, Chau NV, Hung NT, Thuy TT, Lien le B, et al. Epidemiological factors associated with dengue shock syndrome and mortality in hospitalized dengue patients in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2011;84(1):127–34. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Siqueira Jr JB, Martelli CM, Coelho GE, Simplicio AC, Hatch DL. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, Brazil, 1981–2002. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(1):48–53. doi: 10.3201/eid1101.031091.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sharp TM, Hunsperger E, Santiago GA, Munoz-Jordan JL, Santiago LM, Rivera A, et al. Virus-specific differences in rates of disease during the 2010 dengue epidemic in Puerto Rico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(4):e2159. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002159.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sam SS, Omar SF, Teoh BT, Abd-Jamil J, AbuBakar S. Review of dengue hemorrhagic fever fatal cases seen among adults: a retrospective study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(5):e2194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wang CC, Lee IK, Su MC, Lin HI, Huang YC, Liu SF, et al. Differences in clinical and laboratory characteristics and disease severity between children and adults with dengue virus infection in Taiwan, 2002. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(9):871–7. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2009.04.024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Castanha PM, Cordeiro MT, Martelli CM, Souza WV, Marques Jr ET, Braga C. Force of infection of dengue serotypes in a population-based study in the northeast of Brazil. Epidemiol Infect. 2013;141(5):1080–8. doi: 10.1017/S0950268812001367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Buathong R, Iamsirithaworn S, Nisalak A, Lessler J, Jarman RG, et al. Revisiting Rayong: shifting seroprofiles of dengue in Thailand and their implications for transmission and control. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(3):353–60. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Egger JR, Coleman PG. Age and clinical dengue illness. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(6):924–5. doi: 10.3201/eid1306.070008.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thai KT, Nishiura H, Hoang PL, Tran NT, Phan GT, Le HQ, et al. Age-specificity of clinical dengue during primary and secondary infections. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(6):e1180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001180.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    de Souza LJ, Bastos Pessanha L, Carvalho Mansur L, Assed de Souza L, Barbosa Tamega Ribeiro M, do Vale da Silveira M, et al. Comparison of clinical and laboratory characteristics between children and adults with dengue. Braz J Infect Dis. 2013;17(1):27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.08.020.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Garcia-Rivera EJ, Rigau-Perez JG. Dengue severity in the elderly in Puerto Rico. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2003;13(6):362–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wichmann O, Hongsiriwon S, Bowonwatanuwong C, Chotivanich K, Sukthana Y, Pukrittayakamee S. Risk factors and clinical features associated with severe dengue infection in adults and children during the 2001 epidemic in Chonburi, Thailand. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2004;9(9):1022–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01295.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lee IK, Liu JW, Yang KD. Clinical and laboratory characteristics and risk factors for fatality in elderly patients with dengue hemorrhagic fever. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2008;79(2):149–53.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hammond SN, Balmaseda A, Perez L, Tellez Y, Saborio SI, Mercado JC, et al. Differences in dengue severity in infants, children, and adults in a 3-year hospital-based study in Nicaragua. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2005;73(6):1063–70.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kittigul L, Pitakarnjanakul P, Sujirarat D, Siripanichgon K. The differences of clinical manifestations and laboratory findings in children and adults with dengue virus infection. Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2007;39(2):76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2007.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Trung DT, Thao le TT, Dung NM, Ngoc TV, Hien TT, Chau NV, et al. Clinical features of dengue in a large Vietnamese cohort: intrinsically lower platelet counts and greater risk for bleeding in adults than children. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(6):e1679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lee IK, Liu JW, Yang KD. Fatal dengue hemorrhagic fever in adults: emphasizing the evolutionary pre-fatal clinical and laboratory manifestations. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1532. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001532.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kongsomboon K, Singhasivanon P, Kaewkungwal J, Nimmannitya S, Mammen Jr MP, Nisalak A, et al. Temporal trends of dengue fever/dengue hemorrhagic fever in Bangkok, Thailand from 1981 to 2000: an age-period-cohort analysis. The Southeast Asian journal of tropical medicine and public health. 2004;35(4):913–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nagao Y, Koelle K. Decreases in dengue transmission may act to increase the incidence of dengue hemorrhagic fever. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(6):2238–43. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709029105.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cummings DA, Iamsirithaworn S, Lessler JT, McDermott A, Prasanthong R, Nisalak A, et al. The impact of the demographic transition on dengue in Thailand: insights from a statistical analysis and mathematical modeling. PLoS Med. 2009;6(9):e1000139. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000139.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Carod-Artal FJ, Wichmann O, Farrar J, Gascon J. Neurological complications of dengue virus infection. The Lancet Neurology. 2013;12(9):906–19. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70150-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Waterman SH, Margolis HS, Sejvar JJ. Surveillance for dengue and dengue-associated neurologic syndromes in the United States. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2015;92(5):996–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Organization WH. Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Johansson MA, Cummings DA, Glass GE. Multiyear climate variability and dengue—El Nino southern oscillation, weather, and dengue incidence in Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Thailand: a longitudinal data analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6(11):e1000168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000168.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Andraud M, Hens N, Marais C, Beutels P. Dynamic epidemiological models for dengue transmission: a systematic review of structural approaches. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049085.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Dussart P, Baril L, Petit L, Beniguel L, Quang LC, Ly S, et al. Clinical and virological study of dengue cases and the members of their households: the multinational DENFRAME Project. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(1):e1482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001482.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kuno G. Review of the factors modulating dengue transmission. Epidemiol Rev. 1995;17(2):321–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Waterman SH, Novak RJ, Sather GE, Bailey RE, Rios I, Gubler DJ. Dengue transmission in two Puerto Rican communities in 1982. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 1985;34(3):625–32.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lin CH, Schioler KL, Jepsen MR, Ho CK, Li SH, Konradsen F. Dengue outbreaks in high-income area, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, 2003–2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(10):1603–11. doi: 10.3201/eid1810.111929.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stoddard ST, Forshey BM, Morrison AC, Paz-Soldan VA, Vazquez-Prokopec GM, Astete H, et al. House-to-house human movement drives dengue virus transmission. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213349110.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mammen MP, Pimgate C, Koenraadt CJ, Rothman AL, Aldstadt J, Nisalak A, et al. Spatial and temporal clustering of dengue virus transmission in Thai villages. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e205. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050205.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Morrison AC, Getis A, Santiago M, Rigau-Perez JG, Reiter P. Exploratory space-time analysis of reported dengue cases during an outbreak in Florida, Puerto Rico, 1991–1992. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 1998;58(3):287–98.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Getis A, Morrison AC, Gray K, Scott TW. Characteristics of the spatial pattern of the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti, in Iquitos, Peru. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2003;69(5):494–505.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Cummings DA, Irizarry RA, Huang NE, Endy TP, Nisalak A, Ungchusak K, et al. Travelling waves in the occurrence of dengue haemorrhagic fever in Thailand. Nature. 2004;427(6972):344–7. doi: 10.1038/nature02225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Thai KT, Cazelles B, Nguyen NV, Vo LT, Boni MF, Farrar J, et al. Dengue dynamics in Binh Thuan province, southern Vietnam: periodicity, synchronicity and climate variability. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(7):e747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000747.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rabaa MA, Simmons CP, Fox A, Le MQ, Nguyen TT, Le HY, et al. Dengue virus in sub-tropical northern and central Viet Nam: population immunity and climate shape patterns of viral invasion and maintenance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(12):e2581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002581.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Barreto FR, Teixeira MG, Costa Mda C, Carvalho MS, Barreto ML. Spread pattern of the first dengue epidemic in the city of Salvador. Brazil BMC Public Health. 2008;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Morrison AC, Minnick SL, Rocha C, Forshey BM, Stoddard ST, Getis A, et al. Epidemiology of dengue virus in Iquitos, Peru 1999 to 2005: interepidemic and epidemic patterns of transmission. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(5):e670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000670.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Teoh BT, Sam SS, Tan KK, Johari J, Shu MH, Danlami MB, et al. Dengue virus type 1 clade replacement in recurring homotypic outbreaks. BMC Evol Biol. 2013;13:213. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-213.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ohainle M, Balmaseda A, Macalalad AR, Tellez Y, Zody MC, Saborio S, et al. Dynamics of dengue disease severity determined by the interplay between viral genetics and serotype-specific immunity. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(114):114ra28. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schwartz E, Meltzer E, Mendelson M, Tooke A, Steiner F, Gautret P et al. Detection on four continents of dengue fever cases related to an ongoing outbreak in Luanda, Angola, March to May 2013. Euro Surveill: Bull Eur Mal Transmissibles = Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2013;18(21).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Baaten GG, Sonder GJ, Zaaijer HL, van Gool T, Kint JA, van den Hoek A. Travel-related dengue virus infection, the Netherlands, 2006–2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(5):821–8. doi: 10.3201/eid1705.101125.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Massad E, Wilder-Smith A. Risk estimates of dengue in travelers to dengue endemic areas using mathematical models. Journal of travel medicine. 2009;16(3):191–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00310.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Massad E, Rocklov J, Wilder-Smith A. Dengue infections in non-immune travellers to Thailand. Epidemiol Infect. 2012:1–6. doi: 10.1017/S0950268812000507.
  96. 96.
    Potasman I, Srugo I, Schwartz E. Dengue seroconversion among Israeli travelers to tropical countries. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5(6):824–7. doi: 10.3201/eid0506.990615.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sharp TM, Pillai P, Hunsperger E, Santiago GA, Anderson T, Vap T, et al. A cluster of dengue cases in American missionaries returning from Haiti, 2010. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2012;86(1):16–22. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ratnam I, Leder K, Black J, Torresi J. Dengue fever and international travel. Journal of travel medicine. 2013;20(6):384–93. doi: 10.1111/jtm.12052.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Gardner LM, Fajardo D, Waller ST, Wang O, Sarkar S. A predictive spatial model to quantify the risk of air-travel-associated dengue importation into the United States and Europe. J Trop Med. 2012;2012:103679. doi: 10.1155/2012/103679.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Adalja AA, Sell TK, Bouri N, Franco C. Lessons learned during dengue outbreaks in the United States, 2001–2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(4):608–14. doi: 10.3201/eid1804.110968.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Thomas DL, Santiago GA, Abeyta R, Hinojosa S, Torres-Velasquez B, Adam JK, et al. Reemergence of dengue in southern Texas, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(6):1002–7. doi: 10.3201/eid2206.152000.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Johnston D, Viray M, Ushiroda J, Whelen AC, Sciulli R, Gose R, et al. Notes from the field: outbreak of locally acquired cases of dengue fever—Hawaii, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(2):34–5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6502a4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Tomasello D, Schlagenhauf P. Chikungunya and dengue autochthonous cases in Europe, 2007–2012. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013;11(5):274–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2013.07.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Huang JH, Liao TL, Chang SF, Su CL, Chien LJ, Kuo YC, et al. Laboratory-based dengue surveillance in Taiwan, 2005: a molecular epidemiologic study. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2007;77(5):903–9.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Jiang L, Wu X, Wu Y, Bai Z, Jing Q, Luo L, et al. Molecular epidemiological and virological study of dengue virus infections in Guangzhou, China, during 2001–2010. Virol J. 2013;10(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-10-4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hanna JN, Ritchie SA. Outbreaks of dengue in north Queensland, 1990–2008. Commun Dis Intell. 2009;33(1):32–3.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ritchie SA, Pyke AT, Hall-Mendelin S, Day A, Mores CN, Christofferson RC, et al. An explosive epidemic of DENV-3 in Cairns, Australia. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068137.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sabin AB. Research on dengue during World War II. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 1952;1(1):30–50.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Montoya M, Gresh L, Mercado JC, Williams KL, Vargas MJ, Gutierrez G, et al. Symptomatic versus inapparent outcome in repeat dengue virus infections is influenced by the time interval between infections and study year. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(8):e2357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002357.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Anderson KB, Gibbons RV, Cummings DA, Nisalak A, Green S, Libraty DH, et al. A shorter time interval between first and second dengue infections is associated with protection from clinical illness in a school-based cohort in Thailand. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2013; doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit436.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Adams B, Holmes EC, Zhang C, Mammen Jr MP, Nimmannitya S, Kalayanarooj S, et al. Cross-protective immunity can account for the alternating epidemic pattern of dengue virus serotypes circulating in Bangkok. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(38):14234–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602768103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sharp TM, Hunsperger E, Munoz-Jordan JL, Margolis HS, Tomashek KM. Sequential episodes of dengue—Puerto Rico, 2005–2010. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2014;91(2):235–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Forshey BM, Stoddard ST, Morrison AC. Dengue viruses and lifelong immunity: reevaluating the conventional wisdom. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2016;214(7):979–81. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    • Forshey BM, Reiner RC, Olkowski S, Morrison AC, Espinoza A, Long KC, et al. Incomplete protection against dengue virus type 2 re-infection in Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(2):e0004398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004398. Provided convincing evidence for homotypic DENV re-infectionsPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    •• Waggoner JJ, Balmaseda A, Gresh L, Sahoo MK, Montoya M, Wang C, et al. Homotypic dengue virus reinfections in Nicaraguan children. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2016;214(7):986–93. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw099. One of the first studies to convincingly demonstrate re-infection with the same DENV typePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    • Duong V, Lambrechts L, Paul RE, Ly S, Lay RS, Long KC, et al. Asymptomatic humans transmit dengue virus to mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(47):14688–93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508114112. A seminal study demonstrating that humans do not have to have symptoms of DENV ifnection in order to trasmit the infection to mosquitosPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Endy TP, Anderson KB, Nisalak A, Yoon IK, Green S, Rothman AL, et al. Determinants of inapparent and symptomatic dengue infection in a prospective study of primary school children in Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(3):e975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000975.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    • Katzelnick LC, Montoya M, Gresh L, Balmaseda A, Harris E. Neutralizing antibody titers against dengue virus correlate with protection from symptomatic infection in a longitudinal cohort. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(3):728–33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1522136113. Identification of neutralizing antibody titers as a correlate of protection from denguePubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Anderson KB, Gibbons RV, Thomas SJ, Rothman AL, Nisalak A, Berkelman RL, et al. Preexisting Japanese encephalitis virus neutralizing antibodies and increased symptomatic dengue illness in a school-based cohort in Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(10):e1311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001311.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Torres-Aponte JM, Luce RR, Hunsperger E, Munoz-Jordan JL, Beltran M, Vergne E, et al. Enhanced West Nile virus surveillance in a dengue-endemic area—Puerto Rico, 2007. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2013;88(5):997–1002. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Hemme RR, Lopez-Ortiz R, Garcia BR, Sharp TM, Galloway RL, Elrod MG, et al. Serological evidence of infection with endemic human pathogens among free-ranging old world monkeys in Puerto Rico. AmJTrop Med Hyg. 2016;94(5):1095–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Paddock CD, Nicholson WL, Bhatnagar J, Goldsmith CS, Greer PW, Hayes EB, et al. Fatal hemorrhagic fever caused by West Nile virus in the United States. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2006;42(11):1527–35. doi: 10.1086/503841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Thomas SJ, Endy TP. Vaccines for the prevention of dengue: development update. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7(6):674–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hadinegoro SR, Arredondo-Garcia JL, Capeding MR, Deseda C, Chotpitayasunondh T, Dietze R, et al. Efficacy and long-term safety of a dengue vaccine in regions of endemic disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Harris AF, McKemey AR, Nimmo D, Curtis Z, Black I, Morgan SA, et al. Successful suppression of a field mosquito population by sustained release of engineered male mosquitoes. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(9):828–30. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Achee NL, Gould F, Perkins TA, Reiner Jr RC, Morrison AC, Ritchie SA, et al. A critical assessment of vector control for dengue prevention. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003655. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003655.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Ferguson NM, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Dorigatti I, Mier YT-RL, Laydon DJ, Cummings DA. Benefits and risks of the Sanofi-Pasteur dengue vaccine: modeling optimal deployment. Science (New York, NY). 2016;353(6303):1033–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf9590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Beatty ME, Stone A, Fitzsimons DW, Hanna JN, Lam SK, Vong S, et al. Best practices in dengue surveillance: a report from the Asia-Pacific and Americas Dengue Prevention Boards. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(11):e890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000890.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler M. Sharp
    • 1
  • Kay M. Tomashek
    • 1
  • Jennifer S. Read
    • 1
  • Harold S. Margolis
    • 1
  • Stephen H. Waterman
    • 1
  1. 1.Dengue Branch, Division of Vector-Borne DiseasesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSan JuanUSA

Personalised recommendations