Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 19(11): e1010928, 2023 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38011266

ABSTRACT

Knowledge of who infected whom during an outbreak of an infectious disease is important to determine risk factors for transmission and to design effective control measures. Both whole-genome sequencing of pathogens and epidemiological data provide useful information about the transmission events and underlying processes. Existing models to infer transmission trees usually assume that the pathogen is introduced only once from outside into the population of interest. However, this is not always true. For instance, SARS-CoV-2 is suggested to be introduced multiple times in mink farms in the Netherlands from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among humans. Here, we developed a Bayesian inference method combining whole-genome sequencing data and epidemiological data, allowing for multiple introductions of the pathogen in the population. Our method does not a priori split the outbreak into multiple phylogenetic clusters, nor does it break the dependency between the processes of mutation, within-host dynamics, transmission, and observation. We implemented our method as an additional feature in the R-package phybreak. On simulated data, our method correctly identifies the number of introductions, with an accuracy depending on the proportion of all observed cases that are introductions. Moreover, when a single introduction was simulated, our method produced similar estimates of parameters and transmission trees as the existing package. When applied to data from a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Dutch mink farms, the method provides strong evidence for independent introductions of the pathogen at 13 farms, infecting a total of 63 farms. Using the new feature of the phybreak package, transmission routes of a more complex class of infectious disease outbreaks can be inferred which will aid infection control in future outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Animals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Mink , Bayes Theorem , Farms , Phylogeny , COVID-19/epidemiology
2.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 211, 2021 08 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34446011

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants requires more efficient control measures to limit nosocomial transmission and maintain healthcare capacities during pandemic waves. Yet the relative importance of different strategies is unknown. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model and compared the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE), screening of healthcare workers (HCWs), contact tracing of symptomatic HCWs and restricting HCWs from working in multiple units (HCW cohorting) on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The model was fit on hospital data from the first wave in the Netherlands (February until August 2020) and assumed that HCWs used 90% effective PPE in COVID-19 wards and self-isolated at home for 7 days immediately upon symptom onset. Intervention effects on the effective reproduction number (RE), HCW absenteeism and the proportion of infected individuals among tested individuals (positivity rate) were estimated for a more transmissible variant. RESULTS: Introduction of a variant with 56% higher transmissibility increased - all other variables kept constant - RE from 0.4 to 0.65 (+ 63%) and nosocomial transmissions by 303%, mainly because of more transmissions caused by pre-symptomatic patients and HCWs. Compared to baseline, PPE use in all hospital wards (assuming 90% effectiveness) reduced RE by 85% and absenteeism by 57%. Screening HCWs every 3 days with perfect test sensitivity reduced RE by 67%, yielding a maximum test positivity rate of 5%. Screening HCWs every 3 or 7 days assuming time-varying test sensitivities reduced RE by 9% and 3%, respectively. Contact tracing reduced RE by at least 32% and achieved higher test positivity rates than screening interventions. HCW cohorting reduced RE by 5%. Sensitivity analyses show that our findings do not change significantly for 70% PPE effectiveness. For low PPE effectiveness of 50%, PPE use in all wards is less effective than screening every 3 days with perfect sensitivity but still more effective than all other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, PPE use in all hospital wards might still be most effective in preventing nosocomial transmission. Regular screening and contact tracing of HCWs are also effective interventions but critically depend on the sensitivity of the diagnostic test used.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL