INFERENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN LARGE POPULATIONS.

Individual Level Models (ILMs), a new class of models, are being applied to infectious epidemic data to aid in the understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of infectious diseases. These models are highly flexible and intuitive, and can be parameterised under a Bayesian framework via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Unfortunately, this parameterisation can be difficult to implement due to intense computational requirements when calculating the full posterior for large, or even moderately large, susceptible populations, or when missing data are present. Here we detail a methodology that can be used to estimate parameters for such large, and/or incomplete, data sets. This is done in the context of a study of the UK 2001 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemic.

Effect of data quality on estimates of farm infectiousness trends in the UK 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

Most of the mathematical models that were developed to study the UK 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic assumed that the infectiousness of infected premises was constant over their infectious periods. However, there is some controversy over whether this assumption is appropriate. Uncertainty about which farm infected which in 2001 means that the only method to determine if there were trends in farm infectiousness is the fitting of mechanistic mathematical models to the epidemic data. The parameter values that are estimated using this technique, however, may be influenced by missing and inaccurate data. In particular to the UK 2001 epidemic, this includes unreported infectives, inaccurate farm infection dates and unknown farm latent periods. Here, we show that such data degradation prevents successful determination of trends in farm infectiousness.

Topographic determinants of foot and mouth disease transmission in the UK 2001 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: A key challenge for modelling infectious disease dynamics is to understand the spatial spread of infection in real landscapes. This ideally requires a parallel record of spatial epidemic spread and a detailed map of susceptible host density along with relevant transport links and geographical features. RESULTS: Here we analyse the most detailed such data to date arising from the UK 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. We show that Euclidean distance between infectious and susceptible premises is a better predictor of transmission risk than shortest and quickest routes via road, except where major geographical features intervene. CONCLUSION: Thus, a simple spatial transmission kernel based on Euclidean distance suffices in most regions, probably reflecting the multiplicity of transmission routes during the epidemic.