5 research outputs found
Assortative mixing as a source of bias in epidemiological studies of sexually transmitted infections: the case of smoking and human papillomavirus
For studies examining risk factors of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), confounding can stem from characteristics of partners of study subjects, and persist after adjustment for the subjects’ individual-level characteristics. Two conditions that can result in confounding by the subjects’ partners are: (C1) partner choice is assortative by the risk factor examined and, (C2) sexual activity is associated with the risk factor. The objective of this paper is to illustrate the potential impact of the assortativity bias in studies examining STI risk factors, using smoking and human papillomavirus (HPV) as an example. We developed an HPV transmission-dynamic mathematical model in which we nested a cross-sectional study assessing the smoking–HPV association. In our base case, we assumed (1) no effect of smoking on HPV, and (2) conditions C1–C2 hold for smoking (based on empirical data). The assortativity bias caused an overestimation of the odds ratio (OR) in the simulated study after perfect adjustment for the subjects’ individual-level characteristics (adjusted OR 1·51 instead of 1·00). The bias was amplified by a lower basic reproductive number (R(0)), greater mixing assortativity and stronger association of smoking with sexual activity. Adjustment for characteristics of partners is needed to mitigate assortativity bias
Time trends in social contacts before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: the CONNECT study
Background Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries, including Canada, have adopted unprecedented physical distancing measures such as closure of schools and non-essential businesses, and restrictions on gatherings and household visits. We described time trends in social contacts for the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods in Quebec, Canada. Methods CONNECT is a population-based study of social contacts conducted shortly before (2018/2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 – February 2021), using the same methodology for both periods. We recruited participants by random digit dialing and collected data by self-administered web-based questionnaires. Questionnaires documented socio-demographic characteristics and social contacts for two assigned days. A contact was defined as a two-way conversation at a distance ≤ 2 m or as a physical contact, irrespective of masking. We used weighted generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and robust variance (taking possible overdispersion into account) to compare the mean number of social contacts over time and by socio-demographic characteristics. Results A total of 1291 and 5516 Quebecers completed the study before and during the pandemic, respectively. Contacts significantly decreased from a mean of 8 contacts/day prior to the pandemic to 3 contacts/day during the spring 2020 lockdown. Contacts remained lower than the pre-COVID period thereafter (lowest = 3 contacts/day during the Christmas 2020/2021 holidays, highest = 5 in September 2020). Contacts at work, during leisure activities/in other locations, and at home with visitors showed the greatest decreases since the beginning of the pandemic. All sociodemographic subgroups showed significant decreases of contacts since the beginning of the pandemic. The mixing matrices illustrated the impact of public health measures (e.g. school closure, gathering restrictions) with fewer contacts between children/teenagers and fewer contacts outside of the three main diagonals of contacts between same-age partners/siblings and between children and their parents. Conclusion Physical distancing measures in Quebec significantly decreased social contacts, which most likely mitigated the spread of COVID-19
Modelling multi-site transmission of the human papillomavirus and its impact on vaccination effectiveness
Objective: Previous HPV models have only included genital transmission, when evidence suggests that transmission between several anatomical sites occurs. We compared model predictions of population-level HPV vaccination effectiveness against genital HPV16 infection in women, using a 1) uni-site (genital site), and a 2) multi-site model (genital and one extragenital site).
Methods: We developed a uni-site and a multi-site deterministic HPV transmission model, assuming natural immunity was either site-specific or systemic. Both models were calibrated to genital HPV16 prevalence (5%–7.5%), whilst the multi-site model was calibrated to HPV16 prevalence representative of oral (0%–1%) and anal (1%–7.5%) sites. For each model, we identified 2500 parameter sets that fit endemic genital and extragenital prevalences within pre-specified target ranges. In the Base-case analysis, vaccination was girls-only with 40% coverage. Vaccine efficacy was 100% for all sites with lifetime protection. The outcome was the relative reduction in genital HPV16 prevalence among women at post-vaccination equilibrium (RRprev). RRprev was stratified by extragenital prevalence pre-vaccination.
Results: Under assumptions of site-specific immunity, RRprev with the multi-site model was generally greater than with the uni-site model. Differences between the uni-site and multi-site models were greater when transmission from the extragenital site to the genital site was high. Under assumptions of systemic immunity, the multi-site and uni-site models yielded similar RRprev in the scenario without immunity after extragenital infection. In the scenario with systemic immunity after extragenital infection, the multi-site model yielded lower predictions of RRprev than the uni-site model.
Conclusions: Modelling genital-site only transmission may overestimate vaccination impact if extragenital infections contribute to systemic natural immunity or underestimate vaccination impact if a high proportion of genital infections originate from extragenital infections. Under current understanding of heterosexual HPV transmission and immunity, a substantial bias from using uni-site models in predicting vaccination effectiveness against genital HPV infection is unlikely to occur