Molecular Infectious Disease Epidemiology: Survival Analysis and Algorithms Linking Phylogenies to Transmission Trees

Recent work has attempted to use whole-genome sequence data from pathogens to reconstruct the transmission trees linking infectors and infectees in outbreaks. However, transmission trees from one outbreak do not generalize to future outbreaks. Reconstruction of transmission trees is most useful to public health if it leads to generalizable scientific insights about disease transmission. In a survival analysis framework, estimation of transmission parameters is based on sums or averages over the possible transmission trees. A phylogeny can increase the precision of these estimates by providing partial information about who infected whom. The leaves of the phylogeny represent sampled pathogens, which have known hosts. The interior nodes represent common ancestors of sampled pathogens, which have unknown hosts. Starting from assumptions about disease biology and epidemiologic study design, we prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the possible assignments of interior node hosts and the transmission trees simultaneously consistent with the phylogeny and the epidemiologic data on person, place, and time. We develop algorithms to enumerate these transmission trees and show these can be used to calculate likelihoods that incorporate both epidemiologic data and a phylogeny. A simulation study confirms that this leads to more efficient estimates of hazard ratios for infectiousness and baseline hazards of infectious contact, and we use these methods to analyze data from a foot-and-mouth disease virus outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. These results demonstrate the importance of data on individuals who escape infection, which is often overlooked. The combination of survival analysis and algorithms linking phylogenies to transmission trees is a rigorous but flexible statistical foundation for molecular infectious disease epidemiology.Comment: 28 pages, 11 figures, 3 table

Influence of Contact Definitions in Assessment of the Relative Importance of Social Settings in Disease Transmission Risk

BACKGROUND: Realistic models of disease transmission incorporating complex population heterogeneities require input from quantitative population mixing studies. We use contact diaries to assess the relative importance of social settings in respiratory pathogen spread using three measures of person contact hours (PCH) as proxies for transmission risk with an aim to inform bipartite network models of respiratory pathogen transmission. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our survey examines the contact behaviour for a convenience sample of 65 adults, with each encounter classified as occurring in a work, retail, home, social, travel or "other" setting. The diary design allows for extraction of PCH-interaction (cumulative time in face-face conversational or touch interaction with contacts)--analogous to the contact measure used in several existing surveys--as well as PCH-setting (product of time spent in setting and number of people present) and PCH-reach (product of time spent in setting and number of people in close proximity). Heterogeneities in day-dependent distribution of risk across settings are analysed using partitioning and cluster analyses and compared between days and contact measures. Although home is typically the highest-risk setting when PCH measures isolate two-way interactions, its relative importance compared to social and work settings may reduce when adopting a more inclusive contact measure that considers the number and duration of potential exposure events. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneities in location-dependent contact behaviour as measured by contact diary studies depend on the adopted contact definition. We find that contact measures isolating face-face conversational or touch interactions suggest that contact in the home dominates, whereas more inclusive contact measures indicate that home and work settings may be of higher importance. In the absence of definitive knowledge of the contact required to facilitate transmission of various respiratory pathogens, it is important for surveys to consider alternative contact measures

Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. FINDINGS: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5-31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7-27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

Abstract Background Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment. Methods All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals. Results A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death. Conclusion Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions. </jats:sec

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Creating new user experiences to enhance collaboration.

When technologies are introduced into collaborative settings, people are often required to work together in new, unfamiliar ways. This can lead to problems of resistance, and even non-adoption. Conscious of this issue, we have developed a system which is designed to support collaboration, not through any major change to the work process, but rather by improving people’s experience of working together. Here we report on a system designed to support the collaborative use of information accessed by salesperson and customer during the early stages of a sales transaction. The system, embedded in a shared worktable, promotes a number of new user experiences, changing the way people are able to meet, sit together, communicate, and represent what they are discussing. We found that the new user experiences enhance collaboration, supporting the work process while avoiding problems of resistance

Designing novel interactional workspaces to support face-to-face consultations

This paper describes the design and deployment of a novel interactional workspace, intended to provide more effective support for face-to-face consultations between two parties. We focus on the initial consultations between customer and agent that take place during the development of complex products. Findings from an ethnographic study of the existing use of technological systems show the interaction during such consultations to be disjointed and not well supported. As an alternative approach, we developed a novel arrangement of multiple displays intended to promote shoulder-to-shoulder collaboration using a variety of interlinked representations and visualizations. The resulting interactional workspace was used by a travel company as part of a large international trade show attended by the general public. The many consultations that took place between agents and customers were quite different, proving to be more equitable, open, fluid and congenial

One versus two doses: What is the best use of vaccine in an influenza pandemic?

Avian influenza A (H7N9), emerged in China in April 2013, sparking fears of a new, highly pathogenic, influenza pandemic. In addition, avian influenza A (H5N1) continues to circulate and remains a threat. Currently, influenza H7N9 vaccines are being tested to be stockpiled along with H5N1 vaccines. These vaccines require two doses, 21 days apart, for maximal protection. We developed a mathematical model to evaluate two possible strategies for allocating limited vaccine supplies: a one-dose strategy, where a larger number of people are vaccinated with a single dose, or a two-dose strategy, where half as many people are vaccinated with two doses. We prove that there is a threshold in the level of protection obtained after the first dose, below which vaccinating with two doses results in a lower illness attack rate than with the one-dose strategy; but above the threshold, the one-dose strategy would be better. For reactive vaccination, we show that the optimal use of vaccine depends on several parameters, with the most important one being the level of protection obtained after the first dose. We describe how these vaccine dosing strategies can be integrated into effective pandemic control plans