| Literature DB >> 26489937 |
Wilma A Stolk1, Martin Walker2, Luc E Coffeng3, María-Gloria Basáñez4, Sake J de Vlas5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has set ambitious targets for the elimination of onchocerciasis by 2020-2025 through mass ivermectin treatment. Two different mathematical models have assessed the feasibility of reaching this goal for different settings and treatment scenarios, namely the individual-based microsimulation model ONCHOSIM and the population-based deterministic model EPIONCHO. In this study, we harmonize some crucial assumptions and compare model predictions on common outputs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26489937 PMCID: PMC4618738 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1159-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Overview of the main characteristics of the ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO models
| Characteristics | ONCHOSIM | EPIONCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Basic model structure | ||
| Number and type of spatial locations modelled | Single place | Single place |
| Population-based or individual-based | Individual-based regarding humans and worms | Population-based |
| Way of representing infection in hosts | Presence and density at individual level | Mean density in population subgroups (e.g. age, sex, treatment compliance group). Prevalence as a function of mean density assuming an underlying negative binomial distribution |
| Role of chance | Stochastic | Deterministic |
| Interventions considered in previous publications | Mass treatment, selective treatment (test and treat), vector control, | Mass treatment, vector control |
| Features included in the model | ||
| Human population demographics | Birth and death rate dynamically modelled; age and sex composition | Birth and death rate, age and sex composition |
| Heterogeneities in the human population | Age, sex, life expectancy, level of exposure to blackflies, compliance with MDA, efficacy of treatment | Age, sex, life expectancy, level of exposure to blackflies, compliance with MDA |
| Blackfly population density | Fixed input as annual biting rate (ABR); seasonal monthly biting rates | Fixed input as ABR; seasonality in biting rates can be included |
| Exposure to blackfly vectors | Heterogeneous (dependent on age, sex, personal attractiveness to blackflies) | Heterogeneous (dependent on age and sex) |
| Uptake of infection by blackfly vectors | Varying non-linearly (density-dependent) with infection intensity in human hosts | Varying non-linearly (density-dependent) with infection intensity in human hosts |
| Infection in blackfly vectors | Density (average L3 load per fly) | Density (average L3 load per fly) |
| Excess mortality of infected flies | No | Yes |
| Parasite acquisition in humans | Proportional to mean number of L3 larvae inoculated, denoted by the success ratio | Non-linearly (density-dependent) related to rate of exposure to L3 larvae |
| Infection in humans | Density (immature or mature worms, mf per skin snip) | Density (non-fertile and fertile worms, mf per mg of skin) |
| Diagnostic outcomes | Mf count sampling to relate model predictions to data | Sampling process and diagnostic performance of skin snipping not yet included |
Parameter assumptions used for the comparisons presented in this paper
| Assumption | ONCHOSIM | EPIONCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy of adult worms | 10 years [ | 10 years [ |
| Life expectancy of microfilariae | 0.75 years [ | 1.25 years [ |
| Distribution of worm survival times | Weibull | Exponential |
| Proportion of blood meals taken by vectors on humans | 0.96 [ | 0.96 (matched to ONCHOSIM)a |
| Macrofilaricidal effect of ivermectin | Not included | Not included |
| Microfilaricidal effect of ivermectin | 100 %, instantaneous upon administration [ | 98-99 % at 2 mo. post-treatment following [ |
| Embryostatic effect of ivermectin | All female worms temporarily stop producing mf but resume production gradually, reaching maximum production capacity 11 months post-treatment on average [ | Fertile worms exposed to ivermectin decrease their mf production according to the dynamics presented in [ |
| Cumulative effect on mf production by adult worms | 35 % reduction in the rate of mf production per dose, on average [ | 35 % reduction in the rate of mf production per dose [ |
aDifferent values were applied in previous publications, but for the current model comparison presented in this paper the assumptions were harmonized with those in ONCHOSIM
Setting characteristics and treatment scenarios for simulations
| Factors varied in the simulations: | Values considered |
|---|---|
| Setting characteristics | |
| Pre-control endemicity (mf prevalence in the population aged ≥ 5 years)a | 51 %, 62 %, 81 %, 87 %, 91 % |
| Treatment scenarios (treatment frequency and coverage constant over time) | |
| Population coverage of mass treatment | Coverage low (50 %), intermediate (65 %), or high (80 %) |
| Treatment frequency | Annual or biannual |
| Duration of mass treatment | Up to 25 years |
aSee Table 4 for information regarding the corresponding biting rates and CMFL
Comparison of ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO with respect to the annual biting rate and community microfilarial load (CMFL, the geometric mean no. of mf per skin snip in those aged 20 years and above) that correspond to the pre-set value of mf prevalence in the population aged ≥5 years matched by both models
| Pre-set value of mf prevalence in the 5+ population | ONCHOSIM | EPIONCHO | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABR (bites / person / year) | CMFL (mf/ss) | ABR (bites / person / year) | CMFL (mf/ss) | |
| 51 % | 9,409 | 5.9 | 2,250 | 5.5 |
| 62 % | 10,150 | 10.5 | 3,375 | 9.8 |
| 81 % | 14,098 | 33.6 | 18,906 | 30.5 |
| 87 % | 18,078 | 56.7 | 34,219 | 55.0 |
| 91 % | 22,212 | 79.4 | 46,875 | 83.6 |
Fig. 1Relationship between the annual biting rate (bites per person per year) and microfilarial (mf) prevalence in the population aged 5 years and above in the two models
Fig. 2Comparison of expected trends in microfilarial (mf) prevalence during mass treatment, as predicted by ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO, for settings with different baseline endemicity (mf prevalence in the population aged ≥ 5 years) assuming a coverage of 65 %
Fig. 3Comparison of expected trends in arithmetic mean mf intensity during mass treatment, as predicted by ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO, for settings with different baseline endemicity (mf prevalence in the population aged 5 years and above) assuming a coverage of 65 %
Comparison of ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO with respect to estimated duration of treatment that is needed to bring mf prevalence below the provisional operational threshold for treatment interruption followed by commencement of surveillance (pOTTIS) of 1.4 %, measured just before what would be the next treatment round, and the estimated duration of treatment needed to drive the parasite population to local elimination in the absence of further treatment (allowing for the slow natural extinction in the absence of further interventions)
| Approximate initial mf prevalence (%) in the population aged ≥ 5 years | Coverage (%) | Treatment duration needed to bring the 12-month or 6-month post-treatment mf prevalence below pOTTIS (years) | Treatment duration needed to drive the parasite population irreversibly to extinction in the absence of further treatment (years) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ONCHOSIM | EPIONCHO | ONCHOSIM | EPIONCHO | ||
| Annual treatment | |||||
| 51 | 50 | 18 | 17 | 12 | >25 |
| 65 | 14 | 15 | 8 | 23 | |
| 80 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 21 | |
| 62 | 50 | 21 | 24 | 14 | >25 |
| 65 | 16 | 20 | 10 | >25 | |
| 80 | 14 | 17 | 8 | >25 | |
| 81 | 50 | >25 | >25 | >25 | >25 |
| 65 | 21 | >25 | 18 | >25 | |
| 80 | 17 | >25 | 15 | >25 | |
| 87 | 50 | >25 | >25 | >25 | >25 |
| 65 | 25 | >25 | >25 | >25 | |
| 80 | 20 | >25 | 20 | >25 | |
| 91 | 50 | >25 | >25 | >25 | >25 |
| 65 | >25 | >25 | >25 | >25 | |
| 80 | 23 | >25 | >25 | >25 | |
| Biannual treatment | |||||
| 51 | 50 | 12.5 | 12 | 6 | 21 |
| 65 | 10 | 11 | 4.5 | 20 | |
| 80 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 19.5 | |
| 62 | 50 | 14 | 17 | 8.5 | >25 |
| 65 | 11 | 16 | 6 | >25 | |
| 80 | 9.5 | 10 | 5 | >25 | |
| 81 | 50 | 18.5 | >25 | 17 | >25 |
| 65 | 13.5 | >25 | 12 | >25 | |
| 80 | 12 | >25 | 10 | >25 | |
| 87 | 50 | 22.5 | >25 | 24 | >25 |
| 65 | 15.5 | >25 | 16.5 | >25 | |
| 80 | 13.5 | >25 | 14 | >25 | |
| 91 | 50 | >25 | >25 | >25 | >25 |
| 65 | 17 | >25 | 21 | >25 | |
| 80 | 14.5 | >25 | 18 | >25 | |
Results are shown for different settings, varying with respect to the pre-control mf prevalence in the population aged ≥ 5 years, and for several treatment scenarios, varying with respect to the treatment frequency and achieved coverage (defined as the percentage of people who receive treatment in the total population)
Fig. 4Duration of mass ivermectin treatment in years that is needed to bring mf prevalence below the pOTTIS (red lines and symbols) or to eventually reach local elimination (blue lines and symbols), for ONCHOSIM (left) and EPIONCHO (right) and for annual (top) and biannual treatment (bottom). Dashed lines in each graph connect estimates obtained for different endemicity levels under the assumption that 65 % of the total population is treated per round (coverage). The vertical bars indicate how the duration would change if the coverage was 50 % per round (triangles) or 80 % (circles). To be able to differentiate the prediction intervals obtained for the different endpoints, the results are displayed slightly to the left or right of the actual simulated baseline prevalence (+/− 0.6 %)