Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/055871

Contact, travel, and transmission: The impact of winter holidays on influenza dynamics in the United States

Anne Ewing·Elizabeth C Lee·Shweta Bansal
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundThe seasonality of influenza is thought to vary according to environmental factors and human behavior. During winter holidays, potential disease-causing contact and travel deviate from typical patterns, and we aim to understand these changes on age-specific and spatial flu transmission.\n\nMethodsWe characterized the changes to transmission and epidemic trajectories among children and adults in a spatial context before, during, and after the winter holidays among aggregated physician medical claims in the United States from 2001 to 2009 and among synthetic data simulated from a deterministic, age-specific spatial metapopulation model.\n\nResultsWinter holidays reduced flu transmission and delayed the trajectory of flu season epidemics. The holiday period itself observed a shift in relative risk of disease from children towards adults. Model results indicated that holidays delay epidemic peaks and synchronize incidence across locations, and contact reductions from school closures rather than age-specific mixing and travel produce these observed holiday dynamics.\n\nConclusionsWinter holidays delay seasonal influenza epidemic peaks due to changes in contact patterns. These findings may improve the future design of influenza intervention strategies, such as the proper timing and duration of school closures, and the spatial and demographic allocation of vaccines.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Anne Ewing, Elizabeth C Lee, Shweta Bansal. 2016-06-02. Contact, travel, and transmission: The impact of winter holidays on influenza dynamics in the United States. https://doi.org/10.1101/055871

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2016

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology↗