| Literature DB >> 28183336 |
Peter Winskill1,2, Wendy E Harrison3,2, Michael D French3,2,4, Matthew A Dixon2, Bernadette Abela-Ridder5, María-Gloria Basáñez6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pork tapeworm, Taenia solium, and associated human infections, taeniasis, cysticercosis and neurocysticercosis, are serious public health problems, especially in developing countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has set goals for having a validated strategy for control and elimination of T. solium taeniasis/cysticercosis by 2015 and interventions scaled-up in selected countries by 2020. Timely achievement of these internationally-endorsed targets requires that the relative benefits and effectiveness of potential interventions be explored rigorously within a quantitative framework.Entities:
Keywords: Basic reproduction number; Cysticercosis; EPICYST; Intervention; Latin-hypercube sampling; Mathematical modelling; Neurocysticercosis; Partial rank correlation coefficient index; Taenia solium; Taeniasis; Tapeworm
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28183336 PMCID: PMC5301381 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-017-1988-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Flow diagram of the transmission model. State variables are represented by compartments; flows or rates associated with model parameters by arrows. The three model sections from top to bottom represent, respectively, human compartments, the environmental compartment and pig compartments. (The silhouettes of the human, pig and tree are from https://commons.wikimedia.org/)
Definition of variables and parameters used in the transmission model
| State variables | Description | |
|
| Susceptible humans | |
|
| Humans with taeniasis only | |
|
| Humans with cysticercosis only | |
|
| Humans with taeniasis and cysticercosis | |
|
| Susceptible pigs | |
|
| Pigs with cysticercosis (low cyst burden) | |
|
| Pigs with cysticercosis (high cyst burden) | |
|
| Recovered (immune) pigs | |
|
| Vaccinated pigs | |
|
|
| |
| Demographic rates | Description | Units |
|
| Human births (net rate, set to maintain stable population size) | Month-1 |
|
| Human death rate (per capita) | Month-1 |
|
| Pig births (net rate, set to maintain stable population size) | Month-1 |
|
| Pig death rate (per capita) | Month-1 |
|
| Egg removal/death rate (per capita) | Month-1 |
| Transmission parameters | Description | Units |
|
| Human recovery rate from taeniasis (reciprocal of the average lifespan of the adult | Month-1 |
|
| Egg to pig transmission coefficient (product of the contact rate and the probability of infection upon consumption of a | Month-1 |
|
| Proportion of pigs with low cyst burden; (1- | – |
|
| Egg production rate | Month-1 |
|
| Rate of loss of immunity in pigs | Month-1 |
|
| Rate of human pork meal procurement | Month-1 |
|
| Probability of human becoming infected having consumed infected pork with a low cyst burden | – |
|
| Risk multiplier of discarding high cyst-burden pork (relative to discarding low cyst-burden pork) | – |
|
| Risk multiplier of infection on consuming high cyst-burden pork (relative to consuming low cyst-burden pork) | – |
|
| Probability of human becoming infected having consumed infected pork with a high cyst burden, | – |
|
| Pig (low cyst burden) to human transmission coefficient (a product of the contact rate and the probability of infection upon consumption of infected pork, | Month-1 |
|
| Pig (high cyst burden) to human transmission coefficient (a product of the contact rate and probability of infection upon consumption of infected pork, | Month-1 |
|
| Egg to human cysticercosis transmission coefficient (a product of the contact rate and probability of infection upon consumption of | Month-1 |
|
| Risk multiplier for cysticercosis (applied to theta if the individual has taeniasis) | – |
|
| Human recovery rate from cysticercosis (reciprocal of the average duration of cysticercosis infection in humans) | Month-1 |
Parameter values for cysticercosis model (values are expressed per month). Minimum and maximum values were used for the sensitivity analysis
| Parameter | Value | Minimum | Maximum | Derivation (min, max) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human population size | 10,000 | – | – | – | – |
| Pig population size | 2000 | – | – | – | – |
|
| 0.0015 | 0.0013 | 0.0018 | Average human life expectancy of 54 years (46, 64) | [ |
|
| 0.083 | 0.042 | 0.17 | Average age at slaughter: 1 year (0.5, 2) | [ |
|
| 2 | 0.083 | 4 | Average period of persistence of eggs in environment: 2 weeks (1 week, 3 months) | [ |
|
| 0.042 | 0.017 | 0.17 | Average lifespan of | [ |
|
| 2.36 × 10-10 | 0.25 | 4 | – | b |
|
| 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.9 | – | [ |
|
| 960,000 | 640,000 | 1,800,000 | – | [ |
|
| 0.01 | 0.0075 | 0.0125 | – | [ |
|
| 0.5 | 0.083 | 0.68 | Assumes 1 pork meal = 200 g; 1.2 kg per capita per annum (0.2 kg, 3.4 kg) = an average 6 pork meals per year | [ |
|
| 0.0084 | 0.25 | 4 | – | b |
|
| -0.25 | -0.66 | 0 | – | c |
|
| 1 | 0 | 2 | – | c |
|
| 2.45 × 10-11 | 0.25 | 4 | – | b |
|
| 1 | 0 | 4 | – | [ |
|
| 0.0277 | 0.00167 | 0.083 | Average duration of cysticercosis infection in humans: 3 years (1, 50) | [ |
aIndicates that a uniform distribution was specified for the LHS-PRCC, a triangle distribution was used for all other parameters
bParameter values were derived by equilibrium analysis
cWhere evidence in the literature was scarce to motivate parameter values, the values chosen were based upon expert opinion of plausible and conservatively wide ranges and their influence was further explored in the sensitivity analysis
Fig. 2Impact of single interventions on: a the prevalence of taeniasis in humans, b the prevalence of cysticercosis in humans, c the number of eggs in the environment, and d the prevalence of cysticercosis in pigs. The black horizontal line represents the infection levels according to the baseline model, run at stable equilibrium in the absence of any intervention; the orange line represents enhanced husbandry; the green dashed line improved sanitation, the purple line improved meat inspection; the mauve line vaccination of the pig population, the blue line pig mass drug administration (MDA) and the dark red line human test & treat
Fig. 3Impact of interventions on the number of human cysticercosis cases. Single a and the most effective b pairwise combinations of interventions from the behavioural, pig-targeted and human categories (all pairwise combinations are included in the SI). Intervention colours as in Fig. 2. Box and whiskers represent the range of impact estimates from 1000 sensitivity draws of intervention efficacy parameters, the midline represents the median impact, the hinges the 25th and 75th percentiles and whiskers the range. Points show individual run output. Due to the large amount of uncertainty in parameters estimates, the impact of parameter estimates was explored separately (see Fig. 4)
Fig. 4Sensitivity of model output to parameter values and their uncertainty. The metrics used is the partial rank correlation coefficient (PRCC) as described in the Main Text. ***P ≤ 0.001; ****P ≤ 0.0001