| Literature DB >> 26161740 |
Ruchun Liu1, Ross Ka-kit Leung2, Tianmu Chen1, Xixing Zhang1, Faming Chen1, Shuilian Chen1, Jin Zhao1.
Abstract
During the early stage of a pandemic, isolation is the most effective means of controlling transmission. However, the effectiveness of age-specific isolation policies is not clear; especially little information is available concerning their effectiveness in China. Epidemiological and serological survey data in the city of Changsha were employed to estimate key model parameters. The average infectious period (date of recovery-date of symptom onset) of influenza A (H1N1) was 5.2 days. Of all infected persons, 45.93% were asymptomatic. The basic reproduction number of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic was 1.82. Based on the natural history of influenza A (H1N1), we built an extended susceptible-exposed-infectious/asymptomatic-removed model, taking age groups: 0-5, 6-14, 15-24, 25-59, and ≥60 years into consideration for isolation. Without interventions, the total attack rates (TARs) in each age group were 42.73%, 41.95%, 20.51%, 45.03%, and 37.49%, respectively. Although the isolation of 25-59 years-old persons was the most effective, the TAR of individuals of aged 0-5 and 6-14 could not be reduced. Paradoxically, isolating individuals ≥60 year olds was not predicted to be an effective way of reducing the TAR in this group but isolating the age-group 25-59 did, which implies inter-age-group transmission from the latter to the former is significant. Isolating multiple age groups increased effectiveness. The most effective combined isolation target groups were of 6-14 + 25-59 year olds, 6-14 + 15-24 + 25-59 year olds, and 0-5 + 6-14 + 25-59 + ≥60 year olds. The last of these isolation schemas reduced the TAR of the total population from 39.64% to 0.006%, which was exceptionally close to the effectiveness of isolating all five age groups (TAR = 0.004%).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26161740 PMCID: PMC4498797 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Natural history of influenza A (H1N1).
Transmission rate β among different age groups when R 0 = 1.82.
| Age groups (years) | 0–5 | 6–14 | 15–24 | 25–59 | 60– |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | 3.1841×10−15 | 9.8991×10−7 | 4.4281×10−8 | 9.0370×10−11 | 9.6323×10−10 |
| 6–14 | 1.2724×10−8 | 2.7278×10−10 | 2.3250×10−10 | 2.0694×10−8 | |
| 15–24 | 2.9642×10−8 | 8.6064×10−9 | 1.2200×10−8 | ||
| 25–59 | 1.6047×10−7 | 7.9288×10−8 | |||
| ≥60 | 3.0439×10−7 |
Parameter definitions and values.
| Parameter | Description | Unit | Value | Range | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Basic reproduction number | 1 | 1.82 | 1- | Analysis of epidemic data |
|
| Person-to-person contact rate | day-1 | See | 0–1 | Curve fitting |
|
| Relative transmissibility rate of asymptomatic individuals (versus symptomatic individuals) | 1 | 0.5 | 0–1 | References [ |
|
| Incubation relative rate | day-1 | 0.5263 | 0.1429–1 | References [ |
|
| Latent relative rate | day-1 | 0.8333 | 0.1429–1 | References [ |
|
| Proportion of asymptomatic individuals | 1 | 0.4593 | 0–1 | Analysis of serosurvey data |
|
| Recovery rate of the symptomatic | day-1 | 0.1923 | 0.0833–1 | Analysis of outbreak data |
|
| Recovery rate of the asymptomatic | day-1 | 0.2439 | 0.0714–1 | References [ |
Fig 2Infectious periods of influenza A (H1N1) cases (n = 111).
Value of parameter p in different age groups.
| Age groups (years) | No. of symptomatic | No. of asymptomatic |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| First time | |||
| 0–5 | 54 | 37 | 40.66 |
| 6–14 | 76 | 35 | 31.53 |
| 15–24 | 37 | 31 | 45.59 |
| 25–59 | 20 | 17 | 45.95 |
| ≥60 | 10 | 20 | 66.67 |
| Second time | |||
| 0–5 | 45 | 43 | 48.86 |
| 6–14 | 43 | 24 | 35.82 |
| 15–24 | 31 | 22 | 41.51 |
| 25–59 | 43 | 25 | 36.76 |
| ≥60 | 30 | 19 | 38.78 |
| Third time | |||
| 0–5 | 47 | 40 | 45.98 |
| 6–14 | 19 | 40 | 67.80 |
| 15–24 | 28 | 44 | 61.11 |
| 25–59 | 19 | 24 | 55.81 |
| ≥60 | 23 | 25 | 52.08 |
| Sum of the three times | |||
| 0–5 | 146 | 120 | 45.11 |
| 6–14 | 138 | 99 | 41.77 |
| 15–24 | 96 | 97 | 50.26 |
| 25–59 | 82 | 66 | 44.59 |
| ≥60 | 63 | 64 | 50.39 |
| Total | 525 | 446 | 45.93 |
Fig 3Model simulations.
(A) A typical large simulated influenza epidemic with no intervention and R 0 = 1.82. Also shown are the main intervention initiation times that were considered and the number of cases at those intervention times. (B) A typical simulated influenza epidemic which is contained using 100% case isolation initiated 38 days after the first case, when R 0 = 1.82.
Fig 4Effectiveness of different combinations of age-group specific isolation.