Global and regional mortality statistics of nipah virus from 1994 to 2023: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The mortality rate of Nipah virus (NiV) can vary in different regions, and its pattern across timelines has yet to be assessed. The primary objective is to perform a comparative analysis of mortality rates across different timelines and countries. Articles reporting NiV mortality from inception to November 2023 were analyzed in PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. A meta-analysis utilizing random-effects models determined the mortality rate secondary to NiV complications. The initial search strategy yielded 1213 records, of which 36 articles met the inclusion criteria, comprising 2736 NiV patients. The Global mortality rate of the Nipah virus in the 2014–2023 decade was 80.1% (CI: 68.7–88.1%), indicating a significant 24% increase compared to the preceding decade (2004–2013) with a mortality rate of 54.1% (CI: 35.5–71.6%). Among the countries analyzed for overall mortality from 1994–2023, India experienced the highest mortality rate at 82.7% (CI: 74.6–88.6%), followed by Bangladesh at 62.1% (CI: 45.6–76.2%), Philippines at 52.9% (CI: 30–74.5%), Malaysia at 28.9% (CI: 21.4–37.9%), and Singapore at 21% (CI: 8–45%). Subgroup analysis revealed that India consistently had the highest mortality rate for the past two decades (91.7% and 89.3%). The primary complication leading to mortality was encephalitis, accounting for 95% of cases. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a noteworthy surge in NiV mortality rates, particularly in the current decade (2014–2023). The escalation, with India reporting a concerning level of mortality of 89.3–91.7% in the past decades, signifies a pressing public health challenge.

KEYWORDS:

• Mortality rate
• global death rate
• nipah virus
• case fatality rate
• henipavirus

Author contributions

SSV, PG and TYK were responsible for the conceptualization. SSV, PG, and TYK are responsible for the study design. SSV was responsible for the literature searches. AS, FM, KK, SK, AP, LR, and SGK were responsible for the study selection. KK and SK were responsible for the data extraction. AS, FM, and SSV were responsible for the risk of bias assessments. SSV and RD were responsible for the meta-analysis. PG and SSV were responsible for the supervision. SSV, PG, TYK, and RD were responsible for the interpretation. SSV, AS, FM, and TYK were responsible for drafting the paper. All the authors were responsible for reviewing and revising the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2024.2380131

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.