Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link

Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.

Volume 30, Number 12—December 2024
Research

Effect of Sexual Partnerships on Zika Virus Transmission in Virus-Endemic Region, Northeast Brazil

Tereza Magalhaes1Comments to Author , Flávio Codeço Coelho1, Wayner V. Souza, Isabelle F.T. Viana, Thomas Jaenisch, Ernesto T.A. Marques, Brian D. Foy, and Cynthia Braga
Author affiliation: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA (T. Magalhaes); Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (F.C. Coelho); Instituto Aggeu Magalhães-Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Recife, Brazil (W.V. Souza, I.F.T. Viana, E.T.A. Marques, C. Braga); Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA (T. Jaenisch); Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (T. Jaenisch); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (E.T.A. Marques); Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA (B.D. Foy)

Main Article

Table 2

Associations between sex partnership status within households and ZIKV or CHIKV seropositivity in study of ZIKV transmission in virus-endemic region, Northeast Brazil*

Exposure variables
 Odds ratio (95% CI)
 p value
ZIKV
Age† 1.03 (1.02–1.03) <0.0001
Housing type, ground level versus multistory apartment‡ 3.25 (2.54–4.12) <0.0001
Living with >1 ZIKV-seropositive person§ 1.46 (1.13–1.88) 0.003
Sex partner in the household§ 1.25 (1.00–1.55) 0.047
ZIKV-seropositive sex partner in the household§ 1.54 (1.18–2.01) 0.002
ZIKV-seronegative sex partner in the household§
 0.70 (0.52–0.94)
 0.018
CHIKV
Age† 1.01 (1.00–1.01) 0.005
Housing type, ground level versus multistory apartment‡ 4.67 (3.28–6.65) <0.0001
Living with >1 CHIKV-seropositive person§ 2.84 (2.24–3.60) <0.0001
Sex partner in the household§ 1.05 (0.80–1.36) 0.739
CHIKV-seropositive sex partner in the household§ 1.21 (0.82–1.80) 0.343
CHIKV-seronegative sex partner in the household§ 0.71 (0.51–0.98) 0.035

*Mixed-effects hierarchical linear regression model was used to determine associations. Data were from a population-based survey conducted in Northeast Brazil during 2018–2019 (14). Number of study participants was 2,070. CHIKV, chikungunya virus; ZIKV, Zika virus. †Adjusted for housing type. ‡Adjusted for age. §Adjusted for age and housing type.

Main Article

References
  1. Zhang  Q, Sun  K, Chinazzi  M, Pastore Y Piontti  A, Dean  NE, Rojas  DP, et al. Spread of Zika virus in the Americas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:E4334–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pierson  TC, Diamond  MS. The emergence of Zika virus and its new clinical syndromes. Nature. 2018;560:573–81. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Magalhaes  T, Foy  BD, Marques  ETA, Ebel  GD, Weger-Lucarelli  J. Mosquito-borne and sexual transmission of Zika virus: Recent developments and future directions. Virus Res. 2018;254:1–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rosenberg  ES, Doyle  K, Munoz-Jordan  JL, Klein  L, Adams  L, Lozier  M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of Zika virus infection among household contacts of patients with Zika virus disease, Puerto Rico, 2016–2017. J Infect Dis. 2019;220:932–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Magalhaes  T, Morais  CNL, Jacques  IJAA, Azevedo  EAN, Brito  AM, Lima  PV, et al. Follow-up household serosurvey in Northeast Brazil for Zika virus: sexual contacts of index patients have the highest risk for seropositivity. J Infect Dis. 2021;223:673–85. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Aguilar Ticona  JP, Baig  H, Nery  N Jr, Doss-Gollin  S, Sacramento  GA, Adhikarla  H, et al. Risk of sexually transmitted Zika virus in a cohort of economically disadvantaged urban residents. J Infect Dis. 2021;224:860–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferdousi  T, Cohnstaedt  LW, McVey  DS, Scoglio  CM. Understanding the survival of Zika virus in a vector interconnected sexual contact network. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7253. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao  D, Lou  Y, He  D, Porco  TC, Kuang  Y, Chowell  G, et al. Prevention and control of Zika as a mosquito-borne and sexually transmitted disease: a mathematical modeling analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28070. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Maxian  O, Neufeld  A, Talis  EJ, Childs  LM, Blackwood  JC. Zika virus dynamics: When does sexual transmission matter? Epidemics. 2017;21:48–55. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruz-Pacheco  G, Esteva  L, Ferreira  CP. A mathematical analysis of Zika virus epidemic in Rio de Janeiro as a vector-borne and sexually transmitted disease. J Biol Syst. 2019;27:83–105. DOIGoogle Scholar
  11. de Barros  ACWG, Santos  KG, Massad  E, Coelho  FC. Sex-specific asymmetrical attack rates in combined sexual-vectorial transmission epidemics. Microorganisms. 2019;7:112. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Olawoyin  O, Kribs  C. Effects of multiple transmission pathways on Zika dynamics. Infect Dis Model. 2018;3:331–44. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sasmal  SK, Ghosh  I, Huppert  A, Chattopadhyay  J. Modeling the spread of Zika virus in a stage-structured population: effect of sexual transmission. Bull Math Biol. 2018;80:3038–67. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Braga  C, Martelli  CMT, Souza  WV, Luna  CF, Albuquerque  MFPM, Mariz  CA, et al. Seroprevalence of dengue, chikungunya and Zika at the epicenter of the congenital microcephaly epidemic in Northeast Brazil: a population-based survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17:e0011270. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Government of Brazil, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Overview of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, 2022 [cited 2023 Dec 6]. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pe/recife/panorama
  16. Cordeiro  MT, Schatzmayr  HG, Nogueira  RM, Oliveira  VF, Melo  WT, Carvalho  EF. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever in the State of Pernambuco, 1995-2006. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2007;40:605–11. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Magalhaes  T, Braga  C, Cordeiro  MT, Oliveira  ALS, Castanha  PMS, Maciel  APR, et al. Zika virus displacement by a chikungunya outbreak in Recife, Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0006055. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pessôa  R, Patriota  JV, Lourdes de Souza  M, Felix  AC, Mamede  N, Sanabani  SS. Investigation into an outbreak of dengue-like illness in Pernambuco, Brazil, revealed a cocirculation of Zika, chikungunya, and dengue virus type 1. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3201. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. de Oliveira  WK, de França  GVA, Carmo  EH, Duncan  BB, de Souza Kuchenbecker  R, Schmidt  MI. Infection-related microcephaly after the 2015 and 2016 Zika virus outbreaks in Brazil: a surveillance-based analysis. Lancet. 2017;390:861–70. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Braga  C, Luna  CF, Martelli  CM, de Souza  WV, Cordeiro  MT, Alexander  N, et al. Seroprevalence and risk factors for dengue infection in socio-economically distinct areas of Recife, Brazil. Acta Trop. 2010;113:234–40. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrington  LC, Scott  TW, Lerdthusnee  K, Coleman  RC, Costero  A, Clark  GG, et al. Dispersal of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti within and between rural communities. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;72:209–20. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mammen  MP, Pimgate  C, Koenraadt  CJM, Rothman  AL, Aldstadt  J, Nisalak  A, et al. Spatial and temporal clustering of dengue virus transmission in Thai villages. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e205. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 2013;110:994–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Yoon  IK, Getis  A, Aldstadt  J, Rothman  AL, Tannitisupawong  D, Koenraadt  CJM, et al. Fine scale spatiotemporal clustering of dengue virus transmission in children and Aedes aegypti in rural Thai villages. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1730. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gardini Sanches Palasio  R, Marques Moralejo Bermudi  P, Luiz de Lima Macedo  F, Reis Santana  LM, Chiaravalloti-Neto  F. Zika, chikungunya and co-occurrence in Brazil: space-time clusters and associated environmental-socioeconomic factors. Sci Rep. 2023;13:18026. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Magalhaes  T, Morais  CNL, Azevedo  EAN, Jacques  IJAA, Castanha  PMS, Cordeiro  MT, et al. Two-year decay of Zika virus neutralizing antibodies in people living in an endemic region in Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2022;107:186–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Aubry  M, Teissier  A, Huart  M, Merceron  S, Vanhomwegen  J, Roche  C, et al. Zika virus seroprevalence, French Polynesia, 2014–2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:669–72. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Henderson  AD, Aubry  M, Kama  M, Vanhomwegen  J, Teissier  A, Mariteragi-Helle  T, et al. Zika seroprevalence declines and neutralizing antibodies wane in adults following outbreaks in French Polynesia and Fiji. eLife. 2020;9:e48460. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Langerak  T, Kasbergen  LMR, Chandler  F, Brinkman  T, Faerber  Z, Phalai  K, et al. Zika virus antibody titers three years after confirmed infection. Viruses. 2021;13:1345. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Polen  KD, Gilboa  SM, Hills  S, Oduyebo  T, Kohl  KS, Brooks  JT, et al. Update: interim guidance for preconception counseling and prevention of sexual transmission of Zika virus for men with possible Zika virus exposure—United States, August 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:868–71. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for the prevention of sexual transmission of Zika virus. 2020 [cited 2023 Dec 27]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550482
  32. United Nations Population Fund. My body is my own: claiming the right to autonomy and self-determination. 2021 [cited 2023 Dec 12]. https://algeria.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/sowp2021_report_-_en_web_23.3.21_10_0.pdf
  33. Coutinho  RZ, Villanueva  A, Weitzman  A, Marteleto  LJ. Zika virus public health crisis and the perpetuation of gender inequality in Brazil. Reprod Health. 2021;18:40. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Main Article

1These authors contributed equally to this article.

Page created: September 24, 2024
Page updated: November 15, 2024
Page reviewed: November 15, 2024
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.
file_external