Combining epidemiology and economics to assess control of a viral endemic animal disease: Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS).

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is an extremely contagious disease that causes great damage to the U.S. pork industry. PRRS is not subject to official control in the U.S., but most producers adopt control strategies, including vaccination. However, the PRRS virus mutates frequently, facilitating its ability to infect even vaccinated animals. In this paper we analyze how increased vaccination on sow farms reduces PRRS losses and when vaccination is profitable. We develop a SIR model to simulate the spread of an outbreak between and within swine farms located in a region of Minnesota. Then, we estimate economic losses due to PRRS and calculate the benefits of vaccination. We find that increased vaccination of sow farms increases the private profitability of vaccination, and also transmits positive externalities to farms that do not vaccinate. Although vaccination reduces industry losses, a low to moderate vaccine efficacy implies that large PRRS losses remain, even on vaccinated farms. Our approach provides useful insight into the dynamics of an endemic animal disease and the benefits of different vaccination regimens.

From outbreaks to endemic disease.

Relief from the effects of epidemics may signal the start of low-level disease persistence.

Low levels of soluble DPP4 among Saudis may have constituted a risk factor for MERS endemicity.

Most of the cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were reported in Saudi Arabia. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) was identified as the receptor for the virus. The level of soluble DPP4 (sDPP4) was found to be reduced in MERS-CoV infected patients while high levels of sDPP4 were suggested to be protective against MERS-CoV in animal models. We investigated whether the Saudi population has lower levels of sDPP4 which makes them more susceptible to MERS-CoV infection and, therefore, could explain the larger number of cases from the country. Blood samples were collected from 219 Saudi blood donors and 200 blood donors from other ethnic groups. The plasma level of sDPP4 was measured by ELISA and the following SNPs in the DPP4 gene; rs35128070, rs1861978, rs79700168, and rs17574, were genotyped by TaqMan SNP genotyping assay. The average level of plasma sDDP4 was significantly lower in Saudis than other Arabs and non-Arabs (P value 0.0003 and 0.012, respectively). The genotypes AG of rs35128070 and GT of rs1861978 were significantly associated with lower sDPP4 among Saudis (P value 0.002 for each). While both genotypes AA and AG of rs79700168 and rs17574 were associated with significantly lower average sDPP4 level in Saudis compared to other ethnic groups (P value 0.031 and 0.032, and 0.027 and 0.014, respectively). Herein, we report that the Saudi population has lower levels of plasma sDPP4 than other ethnic groups, which is associated with genetic variants in the DPP4 gene. This may have contributed to increase the susceptibility of the Saudi population to MERS-CoV infection and could be a factor in the long-lasting persistence of the virus in the country.

Endemic fatalism and why it will not resolve COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this commentary is to provide historical insight into the term endemicity and to demonstrate why framing COVID-19 as endemic in early 2022 is a misguided approach. STUDY DESIGN: The history of epidemiology as well as current data on COVID-19 as provided by the United States Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Resource Center was surveyed. METHODS: Records of the Epidemiological Society of London for the period 1850-1900 were analyzed, and several key publications on how infectious diseases were considered endemic were identified. RESULTS: The term endemicity has a long and twisting history, changing from its meaning in the mid-nineteenth century until our use of it today. The concept has long been tied to historical patterns of colonialism. CONCLUSION: Framing COVID-19 as an endemic disease in early 2022 is a misguided attempt and a result of cultural and political forces.

Comparison of Trials Using Ivermectin for COVID-19 Between Regions With High and Low Prevalence of Strongyloidiasis: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: A widely cited meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials has claimed ivermectin as an effective treatment for prevention of mortality in COVID-19. However, an unrecognized interaction variable with the relative risk (RR) of mortality may substantially change the appropriate interpretation of this analysis. Objective: To evaluate the association between regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis and ivermectin trial results for the outcome of mortality by testing the hypothesis that strongyloidiasis prevalence interacts with the RR of mortality. Data Sources: Original meta-analysis as well as a manual review of all references in a dedicated ivermectin trial database (c19ivermectin) from January 1, 2019, to November 6, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 and reporting the outcome of mortality. Studies were excluded in the event of publications revealing suspected trial fraud and/or randomization failure. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics and RR estimates were extracted from each source. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by strongyloidiasis prevalence were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risk of mortality in ivermectin trials in regions of high vs low strongyloidiasis prevalence and correlation coefficient of meta-regression analysis between RR of mortality and regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis. Results: A total of 12 trials comprising 3901 patients were included in the analysis. Four trials (33%) took place in regions of high strongyloidiasis prevalence and 8 (67%) trials took place in regions of low strongyloidiasis prevalence. Ivermectin trials that took place in areas of low regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.60-1.18]; P = .31). By contrast, ivermectin trials that took place in areas of high regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.70]; P = .008). Testing for subgroup differences revealed a significant difference between the results of groups with low and high strongyloidiasis prevalence (χ21 = 4.79; P = .03). The estimate for τ2 (the variance of the study effect sizes) was 0 (95% CI, 0.0000-0.2786), and the estimate for I2 (percentage of variability that is explained by between-study heterogeneity) was 0 (95% CI, 0-43.7%). The meta-regression analysis revealed an RR decrease of 38.83% (95% CI, 0.87%-62.25%) for each 5% increase in strongyloidiasis prevalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of 12 trials including 3901 patients, strongyloidiasis prevalence was found to interact with the RR of mortality for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. No evidence was found to suggest ivermectin has any role in preventing mortality among patients with COVID-19 in regions where strongyloidiasis was not endemic.

A Review of the Potential Roles of Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Pharmacological Approaches for the Management of Mild-to-Moderate Symptomatic COVID-19.

In the past 2 years, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has driven investigational studies and controlled clinical trials on antiviral treatments and vaccines that have undergone regulatory approval. Now that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants may become endemic over time, there remains a need to identify drugs that treat the symptoms of COVID-19 and prevent progression toward severe cases, hospitalization, and death. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is extremely important for the development of effective therapies against COVID-19. This review outlines the key pathways involved in the host response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and discusses the potential role of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory pharmacological approaches for the management of early mild-to-moderate COVID-19, using the examples of combined indomethacin, low-dose aspirin, omeprazole, hesperidin, quercetin, and vitamin C. The pharmacological targets of these substances are described here for their possible synergism in counteracting SARS-CoV-2 replication and progression of the infection from the upper respiratory airways to the blood, avoiding vascular complications and cytokine and bradykinin storms.

Measles.

Measles is a highly contagious, potentially fatal, but vaccine-preventable disease caused by measles virus. Symptoms include fever, maculopapular rash, and at least one of cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis, although vaccinated individuals can have milder or even no symptoms. Laboratory diagnosis relies largely on the detection of specific IgM antibodies in serum, dried blood spots, or oral fluid, or the detection of viral RNA in throat or nasopharyngeal swabs, urine, or oral fluid. Complications can affect many organs and often include otitis media, laryngotracheobronchitis, pneumonia, stomatitis, and diarrhoea. Neurological complications are uncommon but serious, and can occur during or soon after the acute disease (eg, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis) or months or even years later (eg, measles inclusion body encephalitis and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis). Patient management mainly involves supportive therapy, such as vitamin A supplementation, monitoring for and treatment of secondary bacterial infections with antibiotics, and rehydration in the case of severe diarrhoea. There is no specific antiviral therapy for the treatment of measles, and disease control largely depends on prevention. However, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine, measles is still endemic in many countries and causes considerable morbidity and mortality, especially among children in resource-poor settings. The low case numbers reported in 2020, after a worldwide resurgence of measles between 2017 and 2019, have to be interpreted cautiously, owing to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on disease surveillance. Disrupted vaccination activities during the pandemic increase the potential for another resurgence of measles in the near future, and effective, timely catch-up vaccination campaigns, strong commitment and leadership, and sufficient resources will be required to mitigate this threat.

Scientists call 'endemic' message premature.

As pandemic restrictions lift, virus tracking and preparation for next variant may suffer.

The elimination of human African trypanosomiasis: Achievements in relation to WHO road map targets for 2020.

BACKGROUND: In the 20th century, epidemics of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) ravaged communities in a number of African countries. The latest surge in disease transmission was recorded in the late 1990s, with more than 35,000 cases reported annually in 1997 and 1998. In 2013, after more than a decade of sustained control efforts and steady progress, the World Health Assembly resolved to target the elimination of HAT as a public health problem by 2020. We report here on recent progress towards this goal. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: With 992 and 663 cases reported in 2019 and 2020 respectively, the first global target was amply achieved (i.e. fewer than 2,000 HAT cases/year). Areas at moderate or higher risk of HAT, where more than 1 case/10,000 people/year are reported, shrunk to 120,000 km2 for the five-year period 2016-2020. This reduction of 83% from the 2000-2004 baseline (i.e. 709,000 km2) is slightly below the target (i.e. 90% reduction). As a result, the second global target for HAT elimination as a public health problem cannot be considered fully achieved yet. The number of health facilities able to diagnose and treat HAT expanded (+9.6% compared to a 2019 survey), thus reinforcing the capacity for passive detection and improving epidemiological knowledge of the disease. Active surveillance for gambiense HAT was sustained. In particular, 2.8 million people were actively screened in 2019 and 1.6 million in 2020, the decrease in 2020 being mainly caused by COVID-19-related restrictions. Togo and Côte d'Ivoire were the first countries to be validated for achieving elimination of HAT as a public health problem at the national level; applications from three additional countries are under review by the World Health Organization (WHO). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The steady progress towards the elimination of HAT is a testament to the power of multi-stakeholder commitment and coordination. At the end of 2020, the World Health Assembly endorsed a new road map for 2021-2030 that set new bold targets for neglected tropical diseases. While rhodesiense HAT remains among the diseases targeted for elimination as a public health problem, gambiense HAT is targeted for elimination of transmission. The goal for gambiense HAT is expected to be particularly arduous, as it might be hindered by cryptic reservoirs and a number of other challenges (e.g. further integration of HAT surveillance and control into national health systems, availability of skilled health care workers, development of more effective and adapted tools, and funding for and coordination of elimination efforts).

Supporting countries to achieve their malaria elimination goals: the WHO E-2020 initiative.

BACKGROUND: Malaria causes more than 200 million cases of illness and 400,000 deaths each year across 90 countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) set a goal for 35 countries to eliminate malaria by 2030, with an intermediate milestone of 10 countries by 2020. In 2017, the WHO established the Elimination-2020 (E-2020) initiative to help countries achieve their malaria elimination goals and included 21 countries with the potential to eliminate malaria by 2020. METHODS: Across its three levels of activity (country, region and global), the WHO developed normative and implementation guidance on strategies and activities to eliminate malaria; provided technical support and subnational operational assistance; convened national malaria programme managers at three global meetings to share innovations and best practices; advised countries on strengthening their strategy to prevent re-establishment and preparing for WHO malaria certification; and contributed to maintaining momentum towards elimination through periodic evaluations, monitoring and oversight of progress in the E-2020 countries. Changes in the number of indigenous cases in E-2020 countries between 2016 and 2020 are reported, along with the number of countries that eliminated malaria and received WHO certification. RESULTS: The median number of indigenous cases in the E-2020 countries declined from 165.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 14.25-563.75) in 2016 to 78 (IQR 0-356) in 2020; 12 (57%) countries reported reductions in indigenous cases over that period, of which 7 (33%) interrupted malaria transmission and maintained a malaria-free status through 2020 and 4 (19%) were certified malaria-free by the WHO. Two countries experienced outbreaks of malaria in 2020 and 2021 attributed, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although the E-2020 countries contributed to the achievement of the 2020 global elimination milestone, the initiative highlights the difficulties countries face to interrupt malaria transmission, even when numbers of cases are very low. The 2025 global elimination milestone is now approaching, and the lessons learned, experience gained, and updated guidance developed during the E-2020 initiative will help serve the countries seeking to eliminate malaria by 2025.