| Literature DB >> 26882540 |
Saki Takahashi1, Qiaohong Liao2, Thomas P Van Boeckel1, Weijia Xing2, Junling Sun2, Victor Y Hsiao1, C Jessica E Metcalf1,3, Zhaorui Chang2, Fengfeng Liu2, Jing Zhang2, Joseph T Wu4, Benjamin J Cowling4, Gabriel M Leung4, Jeremy J Farrar5, H Rogier van Doorn5,6, Bryan T Grenfell1,7, Hongjie Yu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood illness caused by serotypes of the Enterovirus A species in the genus Enterovirus of the Picornaviridae family. The disease has had a substantial burden throughout East and Southeast Asia over the past 15 y. China reported 9 million cases of HFMD between 2008 and 2013, with the two serotypes Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) and Coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) being responsible for the majority of these cases. Three recent phase 3 clinical trials showed that inactivated monovalent EV-A71 vaccines manufactured in China were highly efficacious against HFMD associated with EV-A71, but offered no protection against HFMD caused by CV-A16. To better inform vaccination policy, we used mathematical models to evaluate the effect of prospective vaccination against EV-A71-associated HFMD and the potential risk of serotype replacement by CV-A16. We also extended the model to address the co-circulation, and implications for vaccination, of additional non-EV-A71, non-CV-A16 serotypes of enterovirus. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26882540 PMCID: PMC4755668 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001958
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Fig 1Weekly reported time series of HFMD cases between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013.
Weekly reported time series of number of HFMD cases (y-axis) across time (years 2009–2013, x-axis), aggregated across all 31 provinces of Mainland China, not adjusted for estimated reporting rate and stratified by serotype: EV-A71 (green), CV-A16 (red), or other non-EV-A71 and non-CV-A16 serotypes of enterovirus (blue).
Median and interquartile range of R 0 by serotype and by province.
| Province |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 16.42 (13.68, 18.40) | 34.26 (28.54, 37.27) |
| Tianjin | 7.64 (6.60, 9.82) | 20.28 (17.70, 26.95) |
| Hebei | 23.67 (20.65, 27.50) | 27.31 (23.08, 31.48) |
| Shanxi | 34.96 (28.80, 42.05) | 34.91 (28.53, 42.27) |
| Inner Mongolia | 1.61 (1.32, 2.09) | 25.13 (19.56, 30.37) |
| Liaoning | 33.76 (27.42, 45.24) | 29.67 (23.70, 39.00) |
| Jilin | 3.39 (2.95, 4.36) | 38.33 (32.64, 47.55) |
| Heilongjiang | 16.79 (14.68, 22.00) | 55.87 (46.21, 70.06) |
| Shanghai | 19.96 (16.34, 22.44) | 26.33 (21.92, 29.99) |
| Jiangsu | 26.13 (20.72, 28.41) | 30.11 (24.74, 33.17) |
| Zhejiang | 28.33 (23.91, 31.96) | 21.80 (18.69, 24.39) |
| Anhui | 27.70 (24.25, 31.45) | 22.48 (19.74, 25.70) |
| Fujian | 29.34 (25.87, 32.30) | 24.68 (22.09, 27.21) |
| Jiangxi | 19.44 (17.09, 22.25) | 16.30 (14.80, 18.37) |
| Shandong | 7.01 (6.01, 8.86) | 10.16 (8.72, 12.06) |
| Henan | 9.26 (8.09, 10.18) | 25.37 (22.45, 27.72) |
| Hubei | 11.85 (9.84, 13.76) | 27.58 (23.44, 31.23) |
| Hunan | 27.56 (23.43, 30.19) | 26.68 (22.87, 30.09) |
| Guangdong | 44.91 (40.13, 48.66) | 32.31 (27.48, 35.04) |
| Guangxi | 27.21 (24.13, 29.87) | 15.87 (14.62, 18.31) |
| Hainan | 11.08 (10.42, 12.45) | 21.17 (19.86, 23.53) |
| Chongqing | 80.81 (69.14, 91.82) | 22.51 (18.87, 25.49) |
| Sichuan | 41.31 (37.66, 47.22) | 38.30 (34.02, 42.82) |
| Guizhou | 26.86 (24.08, 32.46) | 24.48 (22.28, 28.61) |
| Yunnan | 61.47 (57.91, 65.91) | 26.48 (23.51, 29.16) |
| Tibet | 30.88 (22.85, 38.39) | 16.75 (13.19, 23.93) |
| Shaanxi | 53.09 (45.31, 63.09) | 40.84 (33.66, 49.20) |
| Gansu | 20.29 (16.08, 24.02) | 32.66 (25.79, 42.67) |
| Qinghai | 6.98 (5.18, 9.03) | 4.41 (3.18, 5.63) |
| Ningxia | 4.12 (3.09, 4.70) | 9.33 (7.67, 11.99) |
| Xinjiang | 4.17 (3.34, 5.43) | 24.49 (20.50, 30.63) |
|
|
|
|
Shown by province and national average, weighted by provincial population size, for EV-A71 and CV-A16 from the two-serotype model with α = 0.95 and province-specific maximum likelihood estimates of cross-protection. Point estimate shown is the median , and the IQR is the 25th and 75th percentiles of .
Cross-protection parameter estimates by province.
| Province |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 21 (9, 25) | 1.00 (0.65, 1.00) | 21.00 (8.25, 25.00) |
| Tianjin | 22 (2, 31) | 1.00 (0.40, 1.00) | 22.00 (1.80, 31.00) |
| Hebei | 4 (3, 4) | 1.00 (0.80, 1.00) | 4.00 (2.85, 3.80) |
| Shanxi | 0 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 5.20) |
| Inner Mongolia | 2 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.10 (0.00, 33.80) |
| Liaoning | 4 (3, 8) | 1.00 (0.70, 1.00) | 4.00 (3.00, 8.00) |
| Jilin | 2 (0, 52) | 0.95 (0.00, 1.00) | 1.90 (0.00, 3.20) |
| Heilongjiang | 52 (0, 52) | 0.10 (0.00, 1.00) | 5.20 (0.00, 13.00) |
| Shanghai | 9 (6, 18) | 1.00 (0.60, 1.00) | 9.00 (5.20, 18.00) |
| Jiangsu | 8 (1, 14) | 0.40 (0.10, 1.00) | 3.20 (0.55, 7.65) |
| Zhejiang | 8 (3, 9) | 0.65 (0.40, 1.00) | 5.20 (2.55, 8.00) |
| Anhui | 9 (1, 16) | 0.30 (0.05, 1.00) | 2.70 (0.05, 7.65) |
| Fujian | 6 (3, 8) | 1.00 (0.80, 1.00) | 6.00 (3.00, 8.00) |
| Jiangxi | 0 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 4.50) |
| Shandong | 4 (3, 7) | 1.00 (0.65, 1.00) | 4.00 (2.25, 7.00) |
| Henan | 6 (4, 6) | 1.00 (0.60, 1.00) | 6.00 (3.00, 5.70) |
| Hubei | 2 (0, 52) | 1.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 2.00 (0.00, 9.00) |
| Hunan | 6 (5, 8) | 0.35 (0.15, 0.55) | 2.10 (0.90, 3.30) |
| Guangdong | 11 (11, 12) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 11.00 (11.00, 12.00) |
| Guangxi | 9 (8, 14) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.00) | 9.00 (8.00, 14.00) |
| Hainan | 0 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 3.25) |
| Chongqing | 3 (2, 52) | 1.00 (0.05, 1.00) | 3.00 (1.20, 6.90) |
| Sichuan | 6 (5, 8) | 1.00 (0.30, 1.00) | 6.00 (1.80, 8.00) |
| Guizhou | 52 (2, 52) | 0.15 (0.05, 1.00) | 7.80 (1.20, 15.60) |
| Yunnan | 26 (6, 32) | 0.20 (0.15, 0.55) | 5.20 (2.25, 7.80) |
| Tibet | 3 (2, 31) | 1.00 (0.40, 1.00) | 3.00 (1.40, 20.15) |
| Shaanxi | 1 (0, 52) | 0.75 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.75 (0.00, 1.50) |
| Gansu | 0 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 0.00 (0.00, 31.20) |
| Qinghai | 26 (0, 52) | 0.05 (0.00, 1.00) | 1.30 (0.00, 13.75) |
| Ningxia | 4 (1, 29) | 0.75 (0.20, 1.00) | 3.00 (0.40, 13.05) |
| Xinjiang | 52 (0, 52) | 0.15 (0.00, 1.00) | 7.80 (0.00, 52.00) |
|
|
|
|
|
δ is the proportion of those infected with one serotype who are cross-protected against infection from all other serotypes for a fixed duration of k time steps, and the product k ⋅ δ represents the average duration of cross-protection. 95% CIs for the individual parameters are derived from the profile likelihood using the χ2 distribution with 1 degree of freedom.
Fig 2Two-serotype TSIR model fit for Beijing province.
(A and B) Estimated (y-axis) by week (x-axis) for (A) EV-A71 and (B) CV-A16. (C and D) Observed number of cases adjusted for reporting rate (y-axis) by week (years 2010–2013, x-axis) (black line) against predictions from 1,000 stochastic simulations of the entire time series for (C) EV-A71 and (D) CV-A16, showing median value (solid colored line) and 5th and 95th percentiles of the simulations (shaded area). Calculated with α = 0.95 and province-specific maximum likelihood estimates of cross-protection (k = 21 wk and δ = 1).
Fig 3Simulation of national EV-A71 vaccination and corresponding change in CV-A16 incidence.
(A–C) Relative change in incidence of EV-A71 (green) and CV-A16 (red) (y-axis) by year (x-axis) for 10 y following vaccine initiation compared to pre-vaccination equilibria (shown at year 0) in the two-serotype model, ignoring seasonality in β. The circles indicate the output from the deterministic simulation, with error bars indicating the 5th and 95th percentiles of 500 stochastic simulations. Vaccine scenarios explored: (A) broad monovalent EV-A71 vaccine (administered at birth) achieving 90% coverage, (B) narrow monovalent EV-A71 vaccine achieving 90% coverage, and (C) narrow bivalent EV-A71, CV-A16 vaccine achieving 90% coverage. (D) Duration and magnitude of change in CV-A16 yearly incidence compared to pre-vaccination equilibria, as a function of narrow monovalent EV-A71 vaccine coverage (0%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100%). Calculated with α = 0.95 and the highest province-specific maximum likelihood estimates of cross-protection (k infection = 22 wk and δinfection = 1).