Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:50:58.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The consequences of uncertainty for the prediction of the effects of schistosomiasis control programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. S. Chan
M. S. Chan
Affiliation:
Centre for the Epidemiology of Infectious Disease, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Progress in the development of schistosomiasis models for use in control programmes is limited by the considerable uncertainty in many of the biological parameters. In this paper, this problem is addressed by a comprehensive sensitivity analysis of a schistosomiasis model using the Latin Hypercube method. Fifty simulations with different parameter contributions are run for 50 years with treatment during the first 20 years and reinfection thereafter. The analysis shows only a relatively small divergence between simulations during the chemotherapy treatment programme but considerable divergence in reinfection levels after treatment is stopped. A skewed distribution of outcomes was seen with most simulations showing effective control and a few where control had less impact. The most important uncertainty source was due to the unknown levels of acquired immunity and also uncertainty in the true worm burden. In particular, the strength of the immune response was most important in determining whether control was effective with higher immunity leading to less effective control. Among those simulations in which control was not very effective, those in which the mean worm burden was high showed the least effective control. Since both these are areas of genuine uncertainty, it is proposed that uncertainty analysis should be an integral part of any projection of control programmes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 117 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 537 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

1.WHO. The control of schistosomiasis. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1993. (Technical Report Series; vol. 830.)Google Scholar
2.WHO. Progress in the assessment of morbidity due to schistosomiasis. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1989.Google Scholar
3.Warren, KS, Bundy, DAP, Anderson, RM et al. , Helminth infections. In: Jamison, DT, Mosley, WH, Measham, AR, Bobadilla, JL, eds. Disease control priorities in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
4.Hairston, NG. On the mathamatical analysis of schistosome populations. Bull WHO 1965; 33: 45–62.Google Scholar
5.MacDonald, G. The dynamics of helminth infections, with special reference to schistosomes. Trans Royal Soc Trop Med Hyg 1965; 59: 489–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Anderson, RM, May, RM. Herd immunity to helminth infection and implications for parasite control. Nature 1985; 315: 493–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Anderson, RM, May, RM. Helminth infections of humans: mathematical models, population dynamics and control. Adv Parasitol 1985; 24: 1–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Woolhouse, MEJ. On the application of mathematical models of schistosome transmission dynamics. 1. Natural transmission. Acta Tropica 1991; 49: 241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Chan, MS, Guyatt, HL, Bundy, DAP, Booth, M, Fulford, A, Medley, GF. The development of an age structured model for schistosomiasis transmission dynamics and its validation for Schistosoma mansoni. Epidemiol Infect 1995; 115: 325–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Plaisier, AP, van Oortmarsenn, GJ, Habbema, JDF, Remme, J, Alley, ES. ONCHOSIM: a model and computer simulation program for the transmission and control of onchocerciasis. Comp Methods Prog Biomed 1990; 31: 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Chan, MS, Guyatt, HL, P Bundy, DAP, Medley, GF. Dynamic models of schistosomiasis morbidity. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1996; 51: 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Chan, MS, Anderson, RM, Medley, GF, Bundy, DAP. Dynamic aspects of morbidity and acquired immunity in schistosomiasis control. Acta Tropica 1996. In press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Chan, MS, Bundy, DAP. The effects of community chemotherapy on patterns of morbidity due to Schistosoma mansoni. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1996. In press.Google Scholar
14.Blower, SM, Dowlatabadi, H. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models of disease transmission: an HIV model, as an example. Internal Stat Rev 1994; 62: 229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Blower, SM, Hartel, D, Dowlatabadi, H, Anderson, RM, May, RM. Drugs, sex and HIV: a mathematical model for New York City. Philosoph Trans Royal Soc London, Series B, Biological Sciences 1991; 331: 171–87.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Rowley, JT, Dowlatabadi, H, Anderson, RM. The potential magnitude and demographic consequences of the HIV epidemic: parameter uncertainties and the reliability of model projections. J AIDS 1996. In press.Google Scholar
17.Lord, CC, Woolhouse, MEJ, Rawlings, P, Mellor, PS. Simulation studies of African Horse Sickness and Culicoides imicola (Diptera: Ceraopogonidae). J Med Entomol 1996; 33: 328–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.McKay, MD, Beckman, RJ, Conover, WJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 1979; 21: 239–45.Google Scholar
19.Iman, RL, Conover, WJ. Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models, with an application to risk assessment. Communications Stats 1980; A9: 1749–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Butterworth, AE, Sturrock, RF, Ouma, JH et al. , Comparison of different chemotherapy strategies against Schistosoma mansoni in Machakos District, Kenya: effects on human infection and morbidity. Parasitol 1991; 103: 339–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.RIVM. UNCSAM version 1.1 Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo sampling. 1.1 ed.The Netherlands: National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, 1992.Google Scholar
22.Woolhouse, MEJ. A theoretical framework for the immunoepidemiology of human helminth infection. Parasite Immunol 1992; 14: 563–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Cheever, AW. A quantitative post-mortem study of Schistosomiasis mansoni in man. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1968; 17: 38–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Domingues, L, Silveira, M, Lima, JF, Carreiro, JC, Kelner, S. Removal of S. mansoni in patients with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis: an estimate of the parasitological load by means of quantitative coproscopy. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1983; 25: 2–15.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Booth, M. The epidemiology and population biology of multiple infections with Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura and hookworms. Doctoral thesis: London: University of London, Imperial College, 1994.Google Scholar
26.de Vlas, SJ, Gryseels, B, van Oortmarssen, GJ, Polderman, AM, Habbema, JDF. A model for variations in single and repeated egg counts in Schistosoma mansoni infections. Parasitology 1990; 104: 451–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Butterworth, AE, Dunne, DW, Fulford, AJ et al. , Human immunity to Schistosoma mansoni: observations on mechanisms, and implications for control. Immunol Invest 1992; 21: 391–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Maizels, RM, Bundy, DAP, Selkirk, ME, Smith, DF, Anderson, RM. Immunological modulation and evasion by helminth parasites in human populations. Nature 1993; 365: 797–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed