Abstract
Background Respiratory pathogens inflict a substantial burden on public health and the economy. Although the severity of symptoms caused by these pathogens can vary from asymptomatic to fatal, the factors that determine symptom severity are not fully understood. Correlations in symptoms between infector-infectee pairs, for which evidence is accumulating, can generate large-scale clusters of severe infections that could be devastating to those most at risk, whilst also conceivably leading to chains of mild or asymptomatic infections that generate widespread immunity with minimal cost to public health. Although this effect could be harnessed to amplify the impact of interventions that reduce symptom severity, the mechanistic representation of symptom propagation within mathematical and health economic modelling of respiratory diseases is understudied.
Methods and Findings We propose a novel framework for incorporating different levels of symptom propagation into models of infectious disease transmission via a single parameter, α. Varying α tunes the model from having no symptom propagation (α = 0, as typically assumed) to one where symptoms always propagate (α = 1). For parameters corresponding to three respiratory pathogens — seasonal influenza, pandemic influenza and SARS-CoV-2 — we explored how symptom propagation impacted the relative epidemiological and health-economic performance of three interventions, conceptualised as vaccines with different actions: symptom-attenuating (labelled SA), infection-blocking (IB) and infection-blocking admitting only mild breakthrough infections (IB MB).
In the absence of interventions, with fixed underlying epidemiological parameters, stronger symptom propagation increased the proportion of cases that were severe. For SA and IB MB, interventions were more effective at reducing prevalence (all infections and severe cases) for higher strengths of symptom propagation. For IB, symptom propagation had no impact on effectiveness, and for seasonal influenza this intervention type was more effective than SA at reducing severe infections for all strengths of symptom propagation. For pandemic influenza and SARS-CoV-2, at low intervention uptake, SA was more effective than IB for all levels of symptom propagation; for high uptake, SA only became more effective under strong symptom propagation. Health economic assessments found that for SA-type interventions, the amount one could spend on control whilst maintaining a cost-effective intervention (termed threshold unit intervention cost) was very sensitive to the strength of symptom propagation.
Conclusions Overall, the preferred intervention type depended on the combination of the strength of symptom propagation and uptake. Given the importance of determining robust public health responses, we highlight the need to gather further data on symptom propagation, with our modelling framework acting as a template for future analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
PA and MJK were supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the MathSys CDT [grant number EP/S022244/1]. MJK was also supported by the Medical Research Council through the JUNIPER partnership award [grant number MR/X018598/1]. RM was supported by The Leckie Fellowship, the Medical Research Council [grant number MC\_UU\_00022/4] and the Chief Scientist Office [grant number SPHSU19]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Methods updated to clarify how beta was chosen to fix R_0 and give more detail about the parameters values used; discussion updated to include further analysis of the limitations and future work related to this paper, in particular relating to inference of the alpha parameter; Supporting information: Section S2 added with plots for fixed beta instead of fixed R_0 (Figs S1 & S2).
