| Literature DB >> 33824360 |
Debebe Shaweno1, Katherine C Horton2, Richard J Hayes2, Peter J Dodd3.
Abstract
Globally, men have higher tuberculosis (TB) burden but the mechanisms underlying this sex disparity are not fully understood. Recent surveys of social mixing patterns have established moderate preferential within-sex mixing in many settings. This assortative mixing could amplify differences from other causes. We explored the impact of assortative mixing and factors differentially affecting disease progression and detection using a sex-stratified deterministic TB transmission model. We explored the influence of assortativity at disease-free and endemic equilibria, finding stronger effects during invasion and on increasing male:female prevalence (M:F) ratios than overall prevalence. Variance-based sensitivity analysis of endemic equilibria identified differential progression as the most important driver of M:F ratio uncertainty. We fitted our model to prevalence and notification data in exemplar settings within a fully Bayesian framework. For our high M:F setting, random mixing reduced equilibrium M:F ratios by 12% (95% CrI 0-30%). Equalizing male case detection there led to a 20% (95% CrI 11-31%) reduction in M:F ratio over 10 years-insufficient to eliminate sex disparities. However, this potentially achievable improvement was associated with a meaningful 8% (95% CrI 4-14%) reduction in total TB prevalence over this time frame.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33824360 PMCID: PMC8024301 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86869-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Model structure, duplicated for each sex. Red transitions are sex-dependent to represent different risks in disease progression and care access. Blue transitions represent infection, and are also sex-dependent due to assortative mixing. Not shown: death from all states at rate (and at an additional rate from active TB disease); birth into Uninfected, at rate to keep population fixed.
Priors and sources for model parameters. NB the prior for is defined by comparison to competing hazard parameters to give an uninformative prior on the probability of a TB case being notified (p).
| Parameters | Description | Distribution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB-related mortality rate (year | lognormal( | Ragonnet[ | |
| TB self-cure rate (year | lognormal( | Ragonnet[ | |
| Fast progression rate (year | lognormal ( | Ragonnet[ | |
| Stabilization rate (year | lognormal (0.62, 0.068) | Ragonnet[ | |
| Reactivation rate (year | lognormal ( | Ragonnet[ | |
| Relapse rate (year | lognormal ( | Crampin[ | |
| Relative disease progression | lognormal ( | Shea[ | |
| Effective contact rate (year | lognormal (1.68, 0.37) | Dodd[ | |
| Relative detection rate | lognormal(-0.298, 0.20) | Horton[ | |
| Assortative mixing | Horton[ | ||
| Case detection rate | WHO[ | ||
| Partial protection | beta (20.7, 77.9) | Andrews[ |
The inference code implemented priors for the first ten parameters as truncated log-normal to ensure only positive values were considered. We chose the prior so that the mid value is centered at 1.0[22] and increased the reported standard deviation to 1 to allow for greater differences in other settings.
Posterior estimates for exemplar settings: calibration targets compared to data, and parameters determining sex difference for TB.
| Ethiopia | Uganda | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Posterior (95% CrI) | Data | Posterior (95% CrI) | |||
| Prevalence | 277 (208, 347)[ | 283 (232, 336) | 401 (292, 509)[ | 397 (321, 474) | ||
| Prevalence M:F ratio | 1.2[ | 1.24 (1.03, 1.45) | 4.1[ | 3.76 (3.0, 4.5) | ||
| Notifications | 188 | 181 (155,208) | 119[ | 120 (103, 136) | ||
| Notifications M:F ratio | 1.2 | 1.11(0.87, 1.40) | 2.03[ | 2.23 (1.75, 2.86) | ||
| Detection M:F ratio ( | – | 0.90 (0.69, 1.16) | – | 0.60 (0.46, 0.78) | ||
| Progression M:F ratio ( | – | 1.12 (0.95, 1.32) | – | 2.75 (2.17, 3.45) | ||
| Assortativity ( | – | 0.14 ( | – | 0.16 ( | ||
Figure 2Influence of assortativity () at invasion and equilibria for different . The effect of on: (a) ; (b) M:F ratio during early exponential growth from the disease-free equilibrium; (c) M:F ratio in TB prevalence at endemic equilibrium; (d) TB prevalence at endemic equilibrium. In (c, d), and were solved to give and fix , was varied, and . Other parameters were the means of priors in Table 1.
Figure 3Sobol’ first-order (one-way) and total sensitivity indices (including interactions) for equilibrium prevalence M:F ratio and total TB prevalence (shown on x-axes). Distributions of parameters (y-axis) are as in Table 1 (—partial protection, —reactivation, —fast progression, —stabilization, —relapse, —self-cure, —TB mortality, p—detection, —effective contact, —assortativity, —differential detection, —differential progression).
Figure 4Correlation between model parameters. The lower left corner plot shows the smoothed posterior samples (—partial protection, —reactivation, —fast progression, —stabilization, —relapse, —self-cure, —TB mortality, p—detection, —effective contact, —assortativity, —differential detection, —differential progression). The upper right plots show the ‘L’, ‘M’, and ‘U’ ellipses used for the sensitivity analysis in Table 3.
Sensitivity analysis of percentage reduction in TB prevalence and M:F ratios sampling from restricted regions of the posterior. ‘L’, ‘M’, and ‘U’ correspond to different elliptical regions shown top-right in Fig. 4. (—assortativity, —differential detection, —differential progression).
| Outcome | Parameter pair | Ethiopia | Uganda | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | M | U | L | M | U | ||
| Prevalence | 0.9 (0.5, 1.4) | 0.5 (0.3, 0.8) | 0.1 ( | 10 (7, 15) | 9 (6, 11) | 7 (5, 9) | |
| 0.8 ( | 0.6 ( | 0.6 ( | 9 (4, 15) | 8 (3, 13) | 8 (3, 13) | ||
| 0.9 (0.3, 1.8) | 0.4 (0.04, 1.1) | 0.1 (0, 0.3) | 10 (7, 13) | 9 (6, 12) | 7 (5, 9) | ||
| TB M:F ratio | 11 (9, 14) | 6 (5, 8) | 1 ( | 24 (20, 27) | 21 (17, 24) | 17 (14, 20) | |
| 6 ( | 5 ( | 6 ( | 21 (12, 30) | 20 (8, 29) | 20 (9, 29) | ||
| 11 (8, 14) | 6 (4, 9) | 1.5 ( | 23 (19, 28) | 20 (17, 24) | 18 (14, 21) | ||