Incubation Periods Impact the Spatial Predictability of Cholera and Ebola Outbreaks in Sierra Leone
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Incubation periods impact the spatial predictability of cholera and Ebola outbreaks in Sierra Leone Rebecca Kahna,1, Corey M. Peaka,1, Juan Fernández-Graciaa,b, Alexandra Hillc, Amara Jambaid, Louisa Gandae, Marcia C. Castrof, and Caroline O. Buckeea,2 aCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115; bInstitute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems, Universitat de les Illes Balears - Consell Superior d’Investigacions Científiques, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain; cDisease Control in Humanitarian Emergencies, World Health Organization, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland; dDisease Control and Prevention, Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation, Freetown, Sierra Leone FPGG+89; eCountry Office, World Health Organization, Freetown, Sierra Leone FPGG+89; and fDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115 Edited by Burton H. Singer, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and approved January 22, 2020 (received for review July 29, 2019) Forecasting the spatiotemporal spread of infectious diseases during total number of secondary infections by an infectious individual in an outbreak is an important component of epidemic response. a completely susceptible population (i.e., R0) (13, 14). Indeed, the However, it remains challenging both methodologically and with basis of contact tracing protocols during an outbreak reflects the respect to data requirements, as disease spread is influenced by need to identify and contain individuals during the incubation numerous factors, including the pathogen’s underlying transmission period, and the relative effectiveness of interventions such as parameters and epidemiological dynamics, social networks and pop- symptom monitoring or quarantine significantly depends on the ulation connectivity, and environmental conditions. Here, using data relationship between infectiousness and symptoms (14). Additional from Sierra Leone, we analyze the spatiotemporal dynamics of re- related metrics, the generation interval (i.e., the time between in- cent cholera and Ebola outbreaks and compare and contrast the fection of an infector−infectee pair) and the serial interval (i.e., the spread of these two pathogens in the same population. We develop time between symptom onset of an infector−infectee pair), as well a simulation model of the spatial spread of an epidemic in order to as their variances, can further impact the growth rate and total examine the impact of a pathogen’s incubation period on the dy- number of infections during an epidemic (15). The incubation namics of spread and the predictability of outbreaks. We find that period is also likely to play a particularly important role in de- differences in the incubation period alone can determine the limits of termining the spatial spread of an epidemic, because one’stypical POPULATION BIOLOGY predictability for diseases with different natural history, both empir- travel may continue prior to symptom onset, whereas travel be- ically and in our simulations. Our results show that diseases with havior may change or stop altogether during illness (16), particu- longer incubation periods, such as Ebola, where infected individuals larly when symptoms are severe or immobilizing; even if symptoms can travel farther before becoming infectious, result in more long- are mild, if one knows they are infected, behavior may also change, distance sparking events and less predictable disease trajectories, as impacting transmission. compared to the more predictable wave-like spread of diseases with Back-to-back epidemics of cholera (2012−2013) and Ebola shorter incubation periods, such as cholera. (2014−2015) in Sierra Leone present a unique opportunity to compare the spatial dynamics of two epidemics in the same cholera | Ebola | epidemics | modeling | predictability Significance pidemics of emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola and EZika underscore the need to improve global capacity for Understanding how infectious diseases spread is critical for surveillance and response (1–3). Forecasting the spatiotemporal preventing and containing outbreaks. While advances have spread of infectious diseases during an outbreak can enable re- been made in forecasting epidemics, much is still unknown. sponders to stay ahead of an epidemic. However, it remains Here we show that the incubation period, the time between challenging both methodologically and with respect to data re- exposure to a pathogen and onset of symptoms, is an impor- quirements (4, 5), as disease spread is influenced by multiple tant factor in predicting spatiotemporal spread of disease and factors, including the pathogen’s underlying transmission pa- provides one explanation for the different trajectories of re- rameters and epidemiological dynamics, social networks and cent Ebola and cholera outbreaks in Sierra Leone. We find that population connectivity, and environmental conditions (6–9). outbreaks of pathogens with longer incubation periods, such Previous forecasting efforts have had varying levels of success in as Ebola, tend to have less predictable spread, whereas path- predicting the total number of cases and spatiotemporal spread of ogens with shorter incubation periods, such as cholera, spread outbreaks like Ebola, and few have actually been used in real time in a more predictable, wavelike pattern. These findings have in the midst of an epidemic (7). Efforts to understand the likely implications for the scale and timing of reactive interventions, performance of forecasts have shown that heterogeneity in contact such as vaccination campaigns. structure and number of secondary infections can pose challenges, but reasonable predictions can be made in some cases, depending Author contributions: R.K., C.M.P., J.F.-G., A.H., A.J., L.G., M.C.C., and C.O.B. designed on disease-specific parameters (6). However, the epidemiological research; R.K., C.M.P., and J.F.-G. performed research; R.K., C.M.P., J.F.-G., and M.C.C. attributes that determine predictability remain uncertain in real- analyzed data; and R.K., C.M.P., J.F.-G., L.G., and C.O.B. wrote the paper. world settings (10–12). The authors declare no competing interest. The time from when individuals are infected to when they be- This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. come infectious (the latent period) and to when they become Published under the PNAS license. symptomatic (the incubation period), and the relationship between Data deposition: Code and data are available on Github, https://github.com/rek160/Sierra- the two, have been shown to play a large role in the epidemic Leone-Cholera-Ebola. potential of diseases (9, 13, 14). In particular, transmission that 1R.K. and C.M.P. contributed equally to this work. occurs during the incubation period before an individual develops 2To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected]. symptoms can contribute to rapid disease spread. When the latent This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/ period is shorter than the incubation period for an infectious in- doi:10.1073/pnas.1913052117/-/DCSupplemental. dividual, presymptomatic transmission can be a strong driver of the First published February 13, 2020. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913052117 PNAS | March 3, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 9 | 5067–5073 Downloaded by guest on September 26, 2021 predictable disease trajectories, as compared to the more pre- dictable wave-like spread of diseases with shorter incubation periods, such as cholera. Results We first summarize the cholera and Ebola epidemics in terms of their dynamics in time and space. More cases were reported during the cholera epidemic (22,691) than during the Ebola epidemic (11,903); however, far fewer cholera cases were fatal (324 vs. 3,956). Both epidemics lasted for similar periods of time, with cholera (January 7, 2012 to May 14, 2013) occurring 2 y prior to Ebola (May 18, 2014 to September 12, 2015). Data for both outbreaks were reported at the chiefdom level, the third- level administrative units. The times between the onset of an outbreak and when half or all of its cases were reported were longer when outbreaks were aggregated by district (second-level administrative units, comprised of chiefdoms) instead of chief- dom (Fig. 1), which has implications for the optimal scale for surveillance and response measures. The median time for a chiefdom cholera outbreak to report half of its case total was 3.9 wk, and median outbreak duration was 11.3 wk. The median time for Fig. 1. The proportion of cholera and Ebola cases reported over time dif- district outbreaks to report half of their cholera cases was 7.9 wk, fered between district and chiefdom levels. The times between the onset of and the median outbreak duration was 43.7 wk. Analysis of an outbreak and when half or all of its cases were reported were longer Ebola revealed similar trends, with chiefdoms reporting half of when outbreaks were aggregated by district instead of chiefdom, which has their cases at a median of 13.9 wk and median outbreak duration implications for the optimal scale for surveillance and response measures. of 43.3 wk, and districts reporting half of their cases at a median The median time for a chiefdom cholera outbreak to report half of its case total was 3.9 wk, and a median of 7.9 wk for district cholera outbreaks. For of 23.5 wk and median outbreak duration of 64.1 wk. Ebola, chiefdoms reported half of their cases at a median of 13.9 wk, and Both the cholera and Ebola epidemics were widespread, each districts reported at a median of 23.5 wk. reaching more than 75% of the country’s chiefdoms. However, population caused by pathogens with notable similarities in both the drivers of outbreaks and the interventions used to curtail them, including oral rehydration (17, 18). Both are transmitted through contact with contaminated diarrhea or vomitus (plus other bodily fluids for Ebola), and the basic reproductive number (R0) for both diseases is thought to be between 1 and 3 (19, 20).