| Literature DB >> 31014341 |
Anna Maria Niewiadomska1, Bamini Jayabalasingham1,2, Jessica C Seidman1, Lander Willem3, Bryan Grenfell1,4, David Spiro1, Cecile Viboud5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mathematical transmission models are increasingly used to guide public health interventions for infectious diseases, particularly in the context of emerging pathogens; however, the contribution of modeling to the growing issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains unclear. Here, we systematically evaluate publications on population-level transmission models of AMR over a recent period (2006-2016) to gauge the state of research and identify gaps warranting further work.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial; Communicable diseases; Computational; Epidemiology; Mathematical; Models; Resistance; Transmission
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31014341 PMCID: PMC6480522 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1314-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Fig. 1Sources of antimicrobial contamination, transmission of AMR, and development of mathematical models. Drivers of AMR as well as resistant pathogens themselves (antimicrobial, biocides, metals) may enter the environment through water (as effluent or through water sanitation systems) or soil (manure application or illegal dumping) from various sources including (i) medical therapeutic and prophylactic use in humans, (ii) veterinary use in companion or food animals, (iii) non-veterinary use in animals (growth promoters), (iv) direct or indirect use in horticulture and crop farming, (v) industrial scale prophylactic use in aquaculture, and (vi) pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves and various industrial applications. Resistant pathogens may then be transmitted to various living organisms through various routes including foodborne, waterborne, airborne, vectorborne, or direct contact. Zoonotic transmission is possible between humans and animals (domestic and wild). Transmission can be further intensified by insect vectors such as mosquitoes and flies, as well as human activity, such as global travel (tourism, migration) and food importation. The goal of mathematical modeling is to synthesize the data collected on AMR and design models to inform public health policy: step 1, identify key questions; step 2, extract or estimate disease parameters based on available data to build a model; step 3, assess model uncertainty/sensitivity; step 4, validate model results with an independent dataset and use to inform policy; and step 5, refine and revise model as needed with new data.
Fig. 2PRISMA flowchart outlining selection of studies included in the review.
Fig. 3Yearly number of AMR modeling studies (1990–2016). This figure compares the yearly number of AMR modeling studies (based on data from Temime et al. (1990–2006) [11] as well our analysis (2006–2016), with the number of individual-based models used to analyze infectious disease (IBM ID) identified by Willem et al. between 2006 and 2015 [16]
Distribution of selected studies according to study characteristics.
| TOTAL | MRSA | TB | HIV | Influenza | Malaria | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host type | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Human | 233 (89%) | 62 (95%) | 43 (100%) | 34 (100%) | 28 (93%) | 21 (95%) |
| Animal | 18 (7%) | 2 (3%) | – | – | 2 (7%) | 1 (5%) |
| Human-animal | 7 (2%) | 1 (2%) | – | – | – | – |
| Plant | 5 (2%) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Population type | ||||||
| Community (endemic) | 154 (58%) | 7 (11%) | 40 (93%) | 34 (100%) | 25 (83%) | 21 (95%) |
| Healthcare facility | 71 (27%) | 49 (75%) | 1 (2%) | – | – | – |
| Community-healthcare facility | 11 (4%) | 5 (8%) | 2 (5%) | – | 1 (3.5%) | – |
| Agricultural-farming | 20 (8%) | 1 (1.5%) | – | – | 1 (3.5%) | – |
| Other | 8 (3%) | 3 (4.5%) | – | – | 3(10%) | 1 (5%) |
| Model parameters | ||||||
| Referenced data | 191 (72%) | 34 (52%) | 38 (88%) | 32 (94%) | 29 (97%) | 17 (77%) |
| Primary data | 73 (28%) | 31 (48%) | 5 (12%) | 2 (6%) | 1 (3%) | 5 (23%) |
| Model type | ||||||
| Deterministic | 175 (66%) | 30 (46%) | 36 (84%) | 23 (70%) | 18 (60%) | 18 (82%) |
| Stochastic | 57 (22%) | 30 (46%) | 6 (14%) | 5 (12%) | 3 (10%) | 2 (9%) |
| Both (D and S) | 25 (9%) | 5 (8%) | 1 (2%) | 4 (12%) | 8 (27%) | 1 (5%) |
| Hybrid | 7 (3%) | – | – | 2 (6%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (5%) |
| Model class | ||||||
| Compartmental | 201 (76%) | 34 (52%) | 37 (86%) | 27 (79%) | 26 (87%) | 19 (86%) |
| Individual-based | 33 (12%) | 19 (29%) | 3 (7%) | 4 (12%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (5%) |
| Both | 7 (3%) | 1 (2%) | – | 2 (6%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (5%) |
| Other | 23 (9%) | 11 (17%) | 3 (7%) | 1 (3%) | 2 (7%) | 1 (5%) |
| Model features | ||||||
| Multi-strain model | 190 (72%) | 23 (35%) | 42 (98%) | 32 (94%) | 29 (97%) | 17 (77%) |
| Co-infection of hosts | 22 (8%) | 5 (8%) | 9 (21%) | 5 (15%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (14%) |
| Fitness cost modeled | 132 (50%) | 15 (23%) | 32 (74%) | 20 (59%) | 25 (83%) | 13 (59%) |
| Acquired and transmitted resistance | 89 (34%) | 1 (2%) | 26 (60%) | 28 (82%) | 20 (67%) | 5 (23%) |
| Within-host model | 17 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 3 (7%) | 2 (6%) | 1 (3%) | 4 (18%) |
| Population stratification | 48 (18%) | 4 (6%) | 11 (26) | 18 (53%) | 3 (10%) | 4 (18%) |
| Model rigor | ||||||
| Calibration | 115 (43%) | 33 (51%) | 26 (60%) | 16 (47%) | 4 (13%) | 3 (14%) |
| Validation | 36 (14%) | 10 (15%) | 11 (26%) | 5 (15%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) |
| Sensitivity analyses | 159 (60%) | 36 (55%) | 32 (74%) | 25 (74%) | 16 (53%) | 14 (64%) |
| Economics | ||||||
| Cost/benefit analysis | 23 (9%) | 8 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (18%) | 1 (3%) | 3 (14%) |
Fig. 4Geographic locations of models and pathogens modeled. A visual representation of 146 models that used parameters specific to geographic settings. One hundred seventeen models did not specify a particular geographic location. We also show the percentage of modeling studies by WHO region, categorized by the most highly represented pathogen types (HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; Influenza; Malaria; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; TB, tuberculosis). The size of the pie charts is proportional to the number of studies
Pathogens modeled by World Bank income level.
| Infectious disease system | Total | High | Upper-middle | Low-middle | Low | ND |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRSA | 65 | 38 | 2 | 1 | 24 | |
| TB | 43 | 3 | 15 | 7 | 25 | |
| HIV | 34 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 15 |
| Influenza | 30 | 5 | 25 | |||
|
| 21 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 14 | |
| General bacteria | 17 | 4 | 13 | |||
|
| 12 | 6 | 1 | 5 | ||
| 10 | 7 | 3 | ||||
|
| 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | ||
|
| 6 | 3 | 3 | |||
|
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
|
| 4 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||
|
| 3 | 3 | ||||
|
| 3 | 3 | ||||
|
| 2 | 2 | ||||
| General protozoan | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Nematodes | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
|
| 2 | 2 | ||||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||
|
| 2 | 2 | ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| NS | 1 | 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||||
|
| 1 | 1 |
A representation of pathogens modeled by the World Bank income level classification: high, upper-middle, low-middle, low, or not described (ND).
Characteristics of AMR-specific interventions reviewed
| Resistance target | |
| Acquired | 20 (17%) |
| Transmitted | 82 (70%) |
| Both | 15 (13%) |
| Intervention scale | |
| Micro | 85 (73%) |
| Macro | 32 (27%) |
| Both | 0 |
| Recommended strategies to combat AMR | |
| 1. Education or awareness campaigns | 3 (3%) |
| 2. Improved hygiene and Infection Control | 59 (50%) |
| 3. Reduction in use of antimicrobials | 16 (14%) |
| 4. Improved surveillance of resistance | 32 (27%) |
| 5. Improved and rapid diagnostics | 10 (9%) |
| 6. Vaccines and alternatives | 11 (9%) |
| 7. Changes to drug regimens | 46 (39%) |
We categorized the interventions from 117 studies that were specifically aimed at blocking AMR based on whether the interventions targeted acquired or transmitted resistance, the scale of interventions, and the type of intervention strategy modeled, motivated by the categories identified in a seminal report [18]. It should be noted that several models investigated the effects of more than one intervention; therefore, the sum of total strategies evaluated (n = 177) exceeds the total number of studies evaluated (n = 117).
The number of modeling studies compared to the WHO and CDC lists of important AMR threats.
| Pathogen | WHO category | CDC category | AMR models | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C1 | 1 | [ | |
| C1 | C2 | 3 | [ | |
| C1 | C2 | 4 | [ | |
| C1 | C2 | 2 | [ | |
| C2 | C1 | 6 | [ | |
| C2 | C2 | 65 | [ | |
| C2 | C2 | 10 | [ | |
| C2 | C2 | 2 | [ | |
| C2 | C2 | 2 | [ | |
| C2 | C3 | – | – | |
|
| C2 | – | – | – |
| C3 | – | – | – | |
| C3 | C2 | 12 | [ | |
| C3 | C2 | 1 | [ | |
|
| – | C1 | – | – |
| – | C2 | 43 | [ | |
| Fluconazole-resistant | – | C2 | – | – |
| – | C3 | – | – | |
| – | C3 | – | – |
The pathogens that pose the greatest threat to human health according to the WHO and the top drug-resistant threats in the USA according to the CDC. Category 1 (C1) threats are described as “Critical” (WHO) or “Urgent” (CDC); category 2 (C2) as “High” (WHO) or “Serious” (CDC); and category 3 (C3) as “Medium” (WHO) or “Concerning” (CDC).