Laidback Al
Well-known member
A Biological Model for Influenza Transmission: Pandemic Planning Implications of Asymptomatic Infection and Immunity
John D. Mathews1, Christopher T. McCaw1, Jodie McVernon1, Emma S. McBryde2,3, James M. McCaw1*
1 Vaccine & Immunisation Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 2 Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Infectious Diseases, Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3 Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
Background
The clinical attack rate of influenza is influenced by prior immunity and mixing patterns in the host population, and also by the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic. This complexity makes it difficult to directly estimate R0 from the attack rate, contributing to uncertainty in epidemiological models to guide pandemic planning. We have modelled multiple wave outbreaks of influenza from different populations to allow for changing immunity and asymptomatic infection and to make inferences about R0.
Data and Methods
On the island of Tristan da Cunha (TdC), 96% of residents reported illness during an H3N2 outbreak in 1971, compared with only 25% of RAF personnel in military camps during the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) methods were used to estimate model parameter distributions.
Findings
We estimated that most islanders on TdC were non-immune (susceptible) before the first wave, and that almost all exposures of susceptible persons caused symptoms. The median R0 of 6.4 (95% credibility interval 3.7?10.7) implied that most islanders were exposed twice, although only a minority became ill in the second wave because of temporary protection following the first wave. In contrast, only 51% of RAF personnel were susceptible before the first wave, and only 38% of exposed susceptibles reported symptoms. R0 in this population was also lower [2.9 (2.3?4.3)], suggesting reduced viral transmission in a partially immune population.
Interpretation
Our model implies that the RAF population was partially protected before the summer pandemic wave of 1918, arguably because of prior exposure to interpandemic influenza. Without such protection, each symptomatic case of influenza would transmit to between 2 and 10 new cases, with incidence initially doubling every 1?2 days. Containment of a novel virus could be more difficult than hitherto supposed.
full article at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001220
full article in pdf at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0001220&representation=PDF
credits to big critter
John D. Mathews1, Christopher T. McCaw1, Jodie McVernon1, Emma S. McBryde2,3, James M. McCaw1*
1 Vaccine & Immunisation Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 2 Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Infectious Diseases, Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3 Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
Background
The clinical attack rate of influenza is influenced by prior immunity and mixing patterns in the host population, and also by the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic. This complexity makes it difficult to directly estimate R0 from the attack rate, contributing to uncertainty in epidemiological models to guide pandemic planning. We have modelled multiple wave outbreaks of influenza from different populations to allow for changing immunity and asymptomatic infection and to make inferences about R0.
Data and Methods
On the island of Tristan da Cunha (TdC), 96% of residents reported illness during an H3N2 outbreak in 1971, compared with only 25% of RAF personnel in military camps during the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) methods were used to estimate model parameter distributions.
Findings
We estimated that most islanders on TdC were non-immune (susceptible) before the first wave, and that almost all exposures of susceptible persons caused symptoms. The median R0 of 6.4 (95% credibility interval 3.7?10.7) implied that most islanders were exposed twice, although only a minority became ill in the second wave because of temporary protection following the first wave. In contrast, only 51% of RAF personnel were susceptible before the first wave, and only 38% of exposed susceptibles reported symptoms. R0 in this population was also lower [2.9 (2.3?4.3)], suggesting reduced viral transmission in a partially immune population.
Interpretation
Our model implies that the RAF population was partially protected before the summer pandemic wave of 1918, arguably because of prior exposure to interpandemic influenza. Without such protection, each symptomatic case of influenza would transmit to between 2 and 10 new cases, with incidence initially doubling every 1?2 days. Containment of a novel virus could be more difficult than hitherto supposed.
full article at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001220
full article in pdf at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0001220&representation=PDF
credits to big critter