Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/073700

Assessing the public health impact of tolerance-based therapies with mathematical models

Nathanael Hoze·Sebastian Bonhoeffer·Roland Regoes
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Disease tolerance is a defense strategy against infections that aims at maintaining host health even at high pathogen replication or load. Tolerance mechanisms are currently intensively studied with the long-term goal of exploiting them therapeutically. Because tolerance-based treatment imposes less selective pressure on the pathogen it has been hypothesised to be \"evolution-proof\". However, the primary public health goal is to reduce the incidence and mortality associated with a disease. From this perspective, tolerance-based treatment bears the risk of increasing the prevalence of the disease, which may lead to increased mortality. We assessed the promise of tolerance-based treatment strategies using mathematical models. Conventional treatment was implemented as an increased recovery rate, while tolerance-based treatment was assumed to reduce the disease-related mortality of infected hosts without affecting recovery. We investigated the endemic phase of two types of infections: acute and chronic. Additionally, we considered the effect of pathogen resistance against conventional treatment. We show that, for low coverage of tolerance-based treatment, chronic infections can cause even more deaths than without treatment. Overall, we found that conventional treatment always outperforms tolerance-based treatment, even when we allow the emergence of pathogen resistance. Our results cast doubt on the potential benefit of tolerance-based over conventional treatment. Any clinical application of tolerance-based treatment of infectious diseases has to consider the associated detrimental epidemiological feedback.\n\nAuthor summaryConventional therapies improve patient health by eliminating the pathogen, or, at least, reducing its burden. Recently, alternative therapies that exploit host tolerance mechanisms have received attention from the medical community as a promising strategy. These treatments aim at reducing the level of illness due to the infection, rather than eliminating the pathogen directly. Using a mathematical model, we show that although these treatments are beneficial at the individual level, they can have undesired public health consequences. In particular we show that tolerance-based treatment gives more time for the disease to spread in the population, which in turn increase its prevalence. Moreover, in the case of a low coverage of the treatment of a chronic infection, the overall mortality can increase.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Nathanael Hoze, Sebastian Bonhoeffer, Roland Regoes. 2016-09-08. Assessing the public health impact of tolerance-based therapies with mathematical models. https://doi.org/10.1101/073700

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↗