| Literature DB >> 27955630 |
C M Saad-Roy1, P van den Driessche1, Junling Ma2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There currently is a severe Zika Virus (ZIKV) epidemic in Brazil and other South American countries. Due to international travel, this poses severe public health risk of ZIKV importation to other countries. We estimate the prevalence of ZIKV in an import region by the time a microcephaly case is detected, since microcephaly is presently the most significant indication of ZIKV presence.Entities:
Keywords: Contact network; Mathematical model; Microcephaly; Sexual transmission; Vector transmission; Zika prevalence
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27955630 PMCID: PMC5153823 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-2076-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Flowchart of two-region model for ZIKV transmission with vectors V, males M, females F, sexually inactive humans N, and subscripts representing regions. The solid lines represent contacts within a region, and dashed curves represent contacts between regions
Parameter definitions, values and ranges for two-region model
| Parameter | Definition (time-1) | Estimated baseline value (day-1) | Range (day-1) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Transmission rate, mosquitoes to humans within region | 0.105 | 0.0975 to 0.1125 | [ |
|
| Transmission rate, humans to mosquitoes within region | 0.105 | 0.0975 to 0.1125 | [ |
|
| Transmission rate, mosquitoes to humans between regions | 0.00003 | 0.00003 to 0.00006 | Estimated (TA, Additional file |
|
| Transmission rate, humans to mosquitoes between regions | 0.00003 | 0.00003 to 0.00006 | Estimated (TA, Additional file |
|
| Mean infectious period from blood | 7 | 4 to 11 | [ |
|
| Mean infectious period from semen | 62 | 57 to 67 | [ |
|
| Transmission rate, males to females within region | 0.5 | 0.3 to 0.7 | Estimated |
|
| Transmission rate, males to females between region | 0.01 | 0.005-0.105 | Estimated |
|
| Death rate of mosquitoes | 1/50 | [ |
Fig. 2a. Time until the first pregnant female contracts ZIKV and passes it on to her fetus (T ). b. Time until detection of a ZIKV outbreak (T ). Here, z is the proportion of pregnancies resulting in abnormalities from ZIKV and Region 1 has a population of 2 million
Fig. 3a. Prevalence of ZIKV at the time of detection as a function of the fraction of pregnancies that are affected by ZIKV. One hundred points are sampled (by LHS maximin criteria) from parameter values in Table 1 as well as z, assuming all parameters but d follow uniform distributions, and d ~ N(μ = 50,σ = 3). For every point, 100 subsequent points are selected randomly from the probability density function of the time until detection, and the prevalence at each of the 10,000 points is computed for each population size. These data points are summarized in boxplots. Note that the upper whisker of the boxplot for z = 0.01 with 2 million people extends to about 14,000 but is not shown in its entirety. For z = 0.01 with 0.25, 0.5 and 1 million people, and for z = 0.05 with 0.25 million people, we omit parameter sets in the LH for which microcephaly may not occur during an epidemic. b. Using the same sampling procedure as in a, total cases by the time of detection in the second region are determined as a function of z, and results are also presented in boxplots. Note that the upper whisker of the boxplot for z = 0.01 with 2 million people extends to about 70,000 but is not shown in its entirety. In both a and b, upper whiskers for all populations with z = 0.01 are not completely shown, and outliers are not plotted