Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-8cb25 Total loading time: 1.469 Render date: 2022-11-26T12:31:13.595Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Simulations to compare efficacies of tetravalent dengue vaccines and mosquito vector control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2013

U. THAVARA
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
A. TAWATSIN
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
Y. NAGAO*
Affiliation:
Onoda Hospital, Haramachi-ku, Minami-soma city, Fukushima, Japan
*
*Author for correspondence: Dr Y. Nagao, Onoda Hospital, Haramachi-ku, Minami-soma city, Fukushima, Japan. (Email: in_the_pacific214@yahoo.co.jp)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Summary

Infection with dengue, the most prevalent mosquito-borne virus, manifests as dengue fever (DF) or the more fatal dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF). DHF occurs mainly when an individual who has acquired antibodies to one serotype is inoculated with another serotype. It was reported that mosquito control may have increased the incidence of DF and DHF due to age-dependency in manifesting these illnesses or an immunological mechanism. Tetravalent dengue vaccine is currently being tested in clinical trials. However, seroconversions to all four serotypes were achieved only after three doses. Therefore, vaccines may predispose vaccinees to the risk of developing DHF in future infections. This study employed an individual-based computer simulation, to emulate mosquito control and vaccination, incorporating seroconversion rates reported from actual clinical trials. It was found that mosquito control alone would have increased incidence of DF and DHF in areas of high mosquito density. A vaccination programme with very high coverage, even with a vaccine of suboptimal seroconversion rates, attenuated possible surges in the incidence of DF and DHF which would have been caused by insufficient reduction in mosquito abundance. DHF cases attributable to vaccine-derived enhancement were fewer than DHF cases prevented by a vaccine with considerably high (although not perfect) seroconversion rates. These predictions may justify vaccination programmes, at least in areas of high mosquito abundance. In such areas, mosquito control programmes should be conducted only after the vaccination programme with a high coverage has been initiated.

Type
Original Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

INTRODUCTION

Infection by dengue virus causes a wide variety of illnesses ranging from rarely lethal dengue fever (DF) to dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF), the latter of which results in a case-fatality rate of more than 10% unless adequately treated [Reference Kalayanarooj1, 2]. With no approved vaccine available, reduction of vector mosquitoes has been regarded as the only means of controlling dengue. However, whether mosquito control has actually reduced dengue illnesses is under debate. Reduction of vector mosquitoes results in a higher average age at which primary infections occur [Reference Anderson and May3]. Since primary infections often are asymptomatic in children but manifest as illness in adults [Reference Dantes4, Reference Egger and Coleman5], this rise in host age appears to have increased the incidence of DF in Singapore [Reference Egger6]. As the average age of dengue infection is increasing in many countries [Reference Guha-Sapir and Schimmer7], this mechanism, known as ‘endemic stability’ [Reference Coleman, Perry and Woolhouse8], may explain the rising incidence of DF in some countries.

The unique immunological aetiology of DHF may have led to a similar unwanted consequence as well [Reference Nagao and Koelle9]. DHF is known to occur in a secondary infection more frequently than in a primary infection, due to immunological mechanisms including antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) [Reference Halstead, Shotwell and Casals10]. On the other hand, many of the individuals in areas of high vector mosquito abundance would be infected by, and acquire immunity against, multiple serotypes while they are clinically protected by this cross-immunity [Reference Sabin11]. Consequently, these individuals develop resistance to DHF unknowingly, since those infected by more than one serotype rarely manifest DHF [Reference Sangkawibha12]. As mosquito abundance decreases, an increasing number of individuals would experience secondary infections after the protective cross-immunity has waned, and the incidence of DHF would increase. Consistent with this hypothesis, incidence of DHF was in a negative relationship with mosquito abundance in Thailand [Reference Nagao and Koelle9, Reference Thammapalo13].

Whether these seemingly paradoxical hypotheses are true or not, the concern that insufficient mosquito control may increase the incidence of DF and DHF underscores the importance of understanding the effect of mosquito control and future vaccination on the target population. In effect, two tetravalent live vaccines were developed and tested in clinical trials: a classical live-attenuated vaccine from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) [Reference Sun14] and a chimeric yellow fever–dengue composite vaccine (ChimeriVax or CYD) from Sanofi-Pasteur [Reference Guy15]. Of these, only CYD remained in phase II b trials [Reference Sabchareon16]. However, dengue vaccines harbour a unique concern: enhancing antibodies may be induced by the vaccine itself [Reference Morens17, Reference Huisman18]. In particular, a classical live-attenuated vaccine, which induces immune responses similar to those induced by wild-type viruses [Reference Guy19], may predispose a vaccinee to the risk of enhancement upon a subsequent infection. The risk of inducing enhancement by CYD, which is a yellow fever vaccine framework inserted with prM and E genes from dengue viruses, is regarded as being less than for classical live-attenuated vaccine [Reference Guy19]. However, ‘only phase IV trials and post-marketing surveillance will provide a definitive answer as to whether ADE constitutes a risk for vaccinees’ [Reference Guy15]. Therefore, seroconversion to all four serotypes is regarded as a prerequisite for a tetravalent dengue vaccine. By contrast, in clinical trials conducted to date, live tetravalent vaccines induced antibodies to less than four serotypes in a considerably large proportion of vaccinees, even after two consecutive injections [Reference Poo20, Reference Morrison21]. Although seroconversions to all four serotypes were achieved after three injections, such a three-dose regimen of a live vaccine is unprecedented. Furthermore, administering all three doses to all vaccinees may be difficult to achieve in developing countries.

It is recognized that mathematical models are useful to predict the population-level effects of dengue vaccine [Reference Beatty22]. Alternatively, the present study used an individual-based model, based upon results from clinical trials. Mathematical models creates a set of differential equations. In contrast, individual-based models create a large number of human individuals in the computer's memory, and observes their behaviour [Reference Grimm23]. Diverse scenarios, regarding seroconversion rates of dengue vaccine and vaccination coverage were compared. In addition, the incidence of DHF attributable to ADE derived from prior vaccination was estimated. Finally, the optimal strategy for dengue control is discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assumptions for protective and enhancing antibodies

While the titre of antibodies against dengue virus is high, the protective role of antibodies is dominant: however, as the titre wanes, antibodies enhance development of DHF [Reference Kliks24]. It is not known whether protective antibodies and enhancing antibodies are physically separable (Fig. 1 a) ([Reference Brandt25] and E. Konishi et al., personal communication), or whether the same antibodies switch from protection to enhancement as their titres wane − in other words, virtual enhancing antibody (Fig. 1 b) [Reference Morens, Halstead and Marchette26]. However, these two hypotheses converge into an identical software coding if the first hypothesis (Fig. 1 a) surmises that the enhancing antibody persists life-long and if the second hypothesis (Fig. 1 b) assumes that antibody induced by viral inoculation exerts life-long enhancement. This framework enabled the distinction between enhancing antibodies induced by prior wild-type infection and those attributable to vaccine.

Fig. 1. Two hypotheses regarding antibodies to dengue viruses. (a) Enhancing antibodies and protective antibodies are different. Enhancing antibodies react with all virus serotypes (broken arrows). In contrast, protective antibodies are specific to a serotype (D1 in this figure), but exert transient cross-reactive protection against other serotypes (solid arrows). (b) The same antibodies may play different roles in protection and enhancement, depending on their titres. Antibodies (specific to D1 in this figure) exert protection against other serotypes when their titres are high (solid arrows). As the titre wanes, these antibodies act as enhancing antibodies (broken arrows). D1, D2, D3, and D4 represent dengue virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

An inoculation with a wild-type virus induces protective antibodies specific to that serotype. On the other hand, an individual inoculated with a tetravalent live vaccine acquires protective antibodies specific only to the serotype(s) to which s/he seroconverted. The protective antibodies are assumed to exert life-long serotype-specific protection, as well as transient cross-serotype protection for a duration of C years from the latest inoculation. Sabin [Reference Sabin11] observed volunteers who were inoculated sequentially with two different strains of dengue virus, with the interval between the inoculations being maximally 9 months. It was found that cross-protection against severe illness still persisted at least after this interval. In addition, vaccination with yellow fever–dengue 2 chimeric vaccine induced cross-serotype protection that lasted >1 year [Reference Guirakhoo27]. Furthermore, it was reported that secondary infections resulted in DHF, DF, and asymptomatic infections at 2·6, 1·9, and 1·6 years after the primary infections, respectively [Reference Anderson28]. These observations suggested that cross-serotype protection against DHF may last for >1 year. Therefore, C was assumed to follow a normally distributed probability distribution function (PDF) with a mean equal to 2 years (Table 1). An individual inoculated with either wild-type or vaccine acquires enhancing antibodies, which persist throughout that individual's life [Reference Guzman29, Reference Gonzalez30].

Table 1. Variable parameters given to simulations

PDF, Probability distribution function with normal distribution; s.d., standard deviation.

* Fixed, a fixed value was input into each simulation to examine the effect of the parameter on the simulation result.

Table 2. Serotype-specific seroconversion rates (%) of CYD tetravalent dengue vaccine based on a PRNT50 of 1:10, obtained from clinical trials conducted in non-endemic areas

D1, D2, D3, and D4 represent dengue virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

Assumptions for DF and DHF

Individual-based model simulation software (detailed in Protocol S1 of reference [Reference Thammapalo13]) was modified to describe immunological behaviour of the host (Fig. 2 a). When a naive individual is inoculated by wild-type dengue virus, s/he transitions to the cross-protected state. In the course of this transition, s/he may develop DF with an age-dependent probability defined in Figure 2 b (constructed based upon reference [Reference Egger and Coleman5] and P. G. Coleman, personal communication), and DHF with a fixed small probability of 0·2% [Reference Sangkawibha12]. If an individual in the cross-protected state is inoculated with a virus serotype, s/he acquires antibodies specific to this serotype and remains in the cross-protected state. C years after the most recent inoculation, the individual moves to the expired cross-protection state. When an individual in this state is inoculated with a serotype to which s/he does not possess specific antibodies (i.e. unexperienced serotype), s/he may manifest DF. The individual may also develop DHF with an enhanced probability of 4% [Reference Sangkawibha12], if s/he already possesses enhancing antibodies. An individual who has seroconverted to ‘L’ serotype transitions to the completely immune state (Table 1). The transmissibility (or viraemia) may be enhanced ‘T’-fold during manifestation of DHF [Reference Vaughn31] (Table 1).

Fig. 2. Individual-based model for dengue infections. (a) Diagram of the transition between immunological states. Transition between immunological states (filled arrow) occurs as a result of either viral inoculation or expiration of time from the most recent inoculation (open arrow). During a state transition, the individual may manifest dengue fever (DF) or dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) (arrow head). * A modification of the model in reference [Reference Thammapalo13] was made: the individual is predisposed to the risk of DHF only if enhancing antibodies pre-exist. (b) Age-dependent probability for an infection to manifest as DF in an individual who is not protected specifically or cross-reactively. The probability is expressed as: 100/[1 + 1/exp(−3·44 + 0·177 × age)] % ([Reference Egger and Coleman5] and P. G. Coleman, personal communication).

Basic and effective reproductive numbers

In the mathematical models for dengue proposed so far, transmission intensity was often expressed as mosquito density [Reference Wearing and Rohani32, Reference Chikaki and Ishikawa33] or as basic reproductive number (R 0) [Reference Nagao and Koelle9, Reference Massad34, Reference Coelho35]. In the present study, R 0 represents transmission intensity, since R 0 is proportional to vector abundance [Reference Anderson and May3, Reference Macdonald36, Reference Macdonald37]. The range of R 0 was selected, considering previous estimates [Reference Massad34, Reference Ferguson, Donnelly and Anderson38, Reference Johansson, Hombach and Cummings39].

The immunological state of each individual was updated at discrete time-steps of 2 weeks' length, which approximates the sum of intrinsic incubation and infectious periods [Reference Sabin11, Reference Vaughn31, Reference Gubler40]. The risk of being infected by a serotype (force of infection or viral inoculation rate) at the ith time-step (F i ) was obtained as:

(1) $$F_i = R_{0,i - 1} \times U_{i - 1} /N_{i - 1} , $$

where R 0,i−1, U i−1 and N i−1 represent basic reproductive number, viraemic load and population size in the (i−1)th time-step, respectively. Here, the viraemic load at the ith time step (U i ) is defined as:

(2) $$U_i = {\rm DF}_i + (T \times {\rm DHF}_i ),$$

where DF i and DHF i denote the number of patients with DF and DHF, respectively. T is the above-mentioned enhancement in transmissibility (Table 1). Effective reproductive number, which is defined as the secondary infectious cases originating from a primary infectious case, was estimated for each time step to be compared with R 0 given to the simulation.

Estimation of vaccine seroconversion rates

To exclude the effect of natural infections, the results of clinical trials conducted in non-endemic areas were used in the present study (Table 2). Two trials adopted a regimen of 0–3·5–12 months [Reference Poo20, Reference Morrison21]. However, the short first interval resulted in trans-serotype interference [Reference Guy15, Reference Morrison21]. Therefore, the present study assumed 0–6–12 months interval (Table 3). The results in adult vaccinees were applied to paediatric vaccinations. All the trials in Table 2 defined a 50% plaque reduction neutralization titre (PRNT50) of 1:10 as the cut-off for seropositivity. This titre had been considered as the surrogate for maximal protection, as in Japanese encephalitis [Reference Hombach41]. The clinical studies reported the seroconversion rate after the first dose (R i ,1%), that after the second dose (R i ,1 + 2%) and that after the third dose (R i ,1 + 2+3%) for each serotype i (i = 1, 2, 3, or 4). From these values, the seroconversion rate achieved solely by the second dose (R i ,2) was estimated as:

(3) $$ R_i, _{2{\rm}} = 100{\rm} \times (R_i, _{1 + 2{\rm}} - {\rm} R_i, _1 \kern -2pt)/(100 - R_i, _1 \kern -2pt),$$

Similarly, the seroconversion rate achieved solely by the third dose (R i ,3) was estimated as:

(4) $$\eqalign {R_i, _{3{\rm}} = 100 \times (R_i, _{1 + 2 + 3{\rm}} - {\rm} R_i, _{1 + 2} \kern -2pt)/(100 - R_i, _{1 + 2} \kern -2pt),}\hskip-10pt$$

Here, it was assumed that vaccinees that had seroconverted would not turn seronegative.

Table 3. Dengue serotype-specific seroconversion rates (%) assumed in simulations

R i,1, R i,1 + 2 and R i,1 + 2+3 denote the seroconversion rate for serotype i after the first, second, and third doses, respectively. R i,2 and R i,3 represent the seroconversion rate achieved solely by the second and third doses, respectively. R i,2 and R i,3 of CYD100 were estimated using equations (3) and (4) in the main text, respectively. R i,1, R i,2, and R i,3 of CYD40 and those of CYD20 were 40% and 20% of the corresponding values for CYD100, respectively. R I,1, R i2 and R i,3 were input into the simulations. D1, D2, D3, and D4 represent dengue virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

Compromised protective seroconversion rates

R i,j (i = 1−4, j = 1−3) represents the maximal achievable protective potencies. However, the efficacies reported in the clinical trial were low (i.e. 30·2%) [Reference Sabchareon16], indicating that ‘protective’ seroconversion rates for CYD may be much lower than R i,j , which was measured based on a PRNT50 of 1:10. Therefore, the present study conducted a sensitivity analysis by considering tetravalent vaccines with compromised protective potencies (Table 3). CYD40 and CYD20 were assumed to induce protective seroconversion rates of 40% and 20%, respectively, compared to the seroconversion rates measured as PRNT50 of 1:10. CYD100 induces protective seroconversion rates equal to those measured as PRNT50 of 1:10.

Vaccine assumptions

Enhancing antibodies derived from vaccine and those from wild-type virus were differentiated in the software. Inoculation by a vaccine will not manifest as clinical illness or lead to development of transmissible viraemia. Since CYD tetravalent vaccine contains only two dengue-virus peptides (E and prM), this vaccine may not confer efficient cross-protection. Consistent with this assumption, the efficacy of CYD measured within 2 years after vaccination was only 30% [Reference Sabchareon16]. Therefore, this study adopted an unfavourable scenario for CYD, assuming that CYD does not induce cross-serotype protection.

Emulation of vaccination programme

A future vaccination programme was emulated. At the 100th year in a 150-year simulation, a vaccination programme was initiated. After this year, an attempt was made to vaccinate all children who reached age 2 years but only with a successful coverage of V%. This age was selected because it was the youngest age tested in the clinical trials so far conducted. It was attempted to re-vaccinate the vaccinees at 6 months and 12 months after the first dose, but with a successful follow-up coverage of V%, respectively. This was because 100% accomplishment of any vaccination programme, especially of three-dose regimen, is difficult to achieve in developing countries.

Inhomogeneous mixing

The degree of inhomogeneity in the mixing pattern was represented by I, where I = 0 indicated completely homogeneous mixing and I = 1 indicated maximally inhomogeneous mixing (see Supplementary online Appendix 1 and Table 1).

Seasonality

Since vector mosquito abundance fluctuates seasonally [Reference Strickman and Kittayapong42], seasonality is an important factor which should be considered in modelling a mosquito-borne disease [Reference Chikaki and Ishikawa33]. Therefore, the present study expressed seasonality as a sinusoidal function of R 0, as follows:

(5) $$R_0 (\theta ) = \bar R_0 \; \times {\rm [}1 - \cos (\theta ) \times {\rm} S{\rm ]},$$

where θ represents the phase of a time-step in a year [0 ⩽ θ⩽ 2π], R 0(θ) indicates R 0 at this phase, and $\bar R_0 \; $ expresses the average annual R 0. S represents the strength of seasonality. S = 1 indicates the strongest seasonality and S = 0 represents no seasonality (Table 1).

Age-specific birth rate and mortality rate

Demographic data from Thailand were used as an example of a region heavily afflicted by dengue. Age-population structure of Thailand in 1960 was used as the initial population structure. Population growth was represented by the total fertility rate (TFR) [Reference Russel and Cohn43]. Based on the TFR given to a simulation, age-specific birth rate was reconstructed for the each age class of females (Supplementary Appendix 2). The age-specific mortality rate reported from Thailand in 2005 was used throughout the entire simulation. TFR of Thailand was 1·86 in 2000.

Source code

The source code, which was written in PERL language, can be obtained from Supplementary Appendix 3.

RESULTS

Effects of vaccination and vector control on the incidence of DF and DHF

As a result of simulations, the viral inoculation rate (or force of infection) decreased linearly as the mosquito abundance (represented by R 0) decreased or as the vaccination coverage increased (Fig. 3 ac). However, the behaviour of the incidence of DF and DHF was more complex. A steep high ridge of DF incidence occurred (Fig. 3 df), while the ridge of DHF incidence was blunt (Fig. 3 gi). DHF incidence decreased substantially as the vaccination coverage increased at any given mosquito abundance represented by R 0 (Fig. 3 gi). However, reduction in mosquito abundance would not necessarily decrease the incidences unanimously. In particular, at low vaccine coverage (<60%), reducing the mosquito abundance from a high level (R 0 > 15) to a moderate level (R 0 < 4) would increase the incidence, especially of DF. The maximal incidence of DHF attributable to vaccine-derived ADE was in the order of CYD20, CYD40, and CYD100 (Fig. 3 jl). This incidence of vaccine-derived DHF for CYD100 was relatively small at a very high vaccination coverage (Fig. 3 j). In contrast, the incidence of vaccine-derived DHF for CYD40 and CYD20 was highest at 100% vaccination coverage (Fig. 3 k, l). The effect of vaccination on effective reproductive number is presented in Supplementary Appendix 4.

Fig. 3. Results from simulations plotted over mosquito abundance and vaccination coverage. Mosquito abundance is represented as basic reproductive number (R 0). Vaccination coverage is defined as V in the Methods section. (ac) Viral inoculation rate (/1000 individuals per year), incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of dengue fever (DF) (df), dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) (gi), and DHF attributable to vaccine-derived antibody-dependent enhancement (jl), were averaged from the last 30 years in each 150-year simulation and then averaged from 20 simulations. (a, d, g, j) CYD100, (b, e, h, k) CYD40, and (c, f, i, l) CYD20 are compared. Parameter setting for the simulations was (TFR, I, S) = (2, 0, 0·2).

Fig. 4. Incidence of dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic (DHF), and DHF attributable to vaccine-derived antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), from simulations that assumed moderate or high mosquito abundance, plotted over vaccination coverage. Incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of (a, b) DF, (c, d) DHF, and (e, f) DHF attributable to vaccine-derived ADE, were compared in CYD100, CYD40, and CYD20. Simulations were conducted assuming (a, c, e) moderate mosquito abundance (R 0 = 4) or (b, d, f) high mosquito abundance (R 0 = 15). Parameters were set to the same values as in Figure 3.

Preventive and predisposing effects of vaccines

Figure 3 was intersected at R 0 = 4 (moderate mosquito abundance) and R 0 = 15 (high mosquito abundance; Fig. 4). The incidence of DF responded to vaccination coverage differently between high and moderate mosquito abundances: DF incidence was more refractory to vaccination in areas of high mosquito abundance (Fig. 4 b) than in areas of moderate mosquito abundance (Fig. 4 a). The vaccines affected DHF incidence in a contrasting manner. At both high and moderate mosquito abundance, all the vaccines reduced DHF incidence (Fig. 4 c,d). Vaccine-derived DHF (Fig. 4 e,f) was much less frequent than DHF preventable by CYD100 and CYD40 (Fig. 4 c,d), while this margin was more obscure for CYD20.

Effect of inhomogeneous mixing, seasonality, and population growth

The effects of inhomogeneous mixing, seasonality, and population growth rate on the epidemiological parameters were examined at different levels of vaccination coverage (Fig. 5). It is intuitive that less inhomogeneous mixing and larger population growth were associated with increased viral inoculation rate (Fig. 5 a, c). Interestingly, stronger seasonality was correlated with slightly increased viral inoculation rate (Fig. 5 b). However, the response of disease incidence to increased viral inoculation rate was counter-intuitive. Under the situation of high mosquito abundance (R 0 = 15), the increased viral inoculation rate led to decreased DF incidence (Fig. 5 df), as predicted by the endemic stability hypothesis. The incidence of DHF and its relationship to vaccination coverage was affected only slightly by the variation in inhomogeneous mixing, seasonality, and population growth rate (Fig. 5 gi).

Fig. 5. Effects of inhomogeneous mixing (I), seasonality (S), and total fertility rate (TFR) at different levels of vaccination coverage. Results from simulations are plotted over vaccination coverage and (a, d, g) inhomogeneous mixing (I), (b, e, h) seasonality (S), and (c, f, i) TFR. R 0 was set at 15. (ac) Viral inoculation rate (/1000 individuals per year), incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of (df) dengue fever (DF) and (gi) dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) were averaged from the last 30 years in each 150-year simulation and then averaged from 20 simulations. CYD40 was used. Parameter settings were: (TFR, S) = (2, 0·2) for (a, d, g); (TFR, I) = (2, 0) for (b, e, h); (I, S) = (0, 0·2) for (c, f, i).

Temporal patterns

In Figure 6, the temporal patterns in the incidence of DF and DHF are presented for three control strategies: mosquito vector control only (Fig. 6 a), vaccination only (Fig. 6 b), and vaccination followed by vector control (Fig. 6 c). In the area of moderate mosquito abundance, all three strategies reduced the incidence of both DF and DHF (data not shown). In contrast, in an area of high mosquito abundance (R 0 = 15), mosquito control of moderate achievement (to R 0 = 4) led to an increase in incidence of DF (Fig. 6 d) and DHF (Fig. 6 g). Vaccination alone by CYD40 did not affect DF incidence markedly (Fig. 6 e), but reduced DHF incidence noticeably (Fig. 6 h). Vaccination using CYD40 followed by vector control achieved a substantial reduction in incidence of both DF (Fig. 6 f) and DHF (Fig. 6 i). Vaccination alone by CYD20 did not exert a noticeable influence on the incidence of DF (Fig. 6 j) or DHF (Fig. 6 l). However, vaccination by CYD20 which preceded vector control attenuated the potential increase in incidence that would have resulted from vector control alone for DF (cf. Fig. 6 d,k) and DHF (cf. Fig. 6 g,m).

Fig. 6. Temporal patterns in simulations employing different dengue control strategies. Incidence of dengue fever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) is plotted over years in simulation. The strategy was based on either (a, d, g) vector mosquito control only (b, e, h, j, l) vaccination only, or (c, f, i, k, m) vaccination followed by vector control. The temporal change in mosquito abundance (R 0) and vaccination coverage are presented in panels (ac), while incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) is presented in (df, j, k) for DF and in (gi, l, m) for DHF. CYD40 was used in (e, f, h, i) while CYD20 was used in (jl, m). Parameters were set to the same values as in Figure 3.

DISCUSSION

Individual-based model simulation has become increasingly common for comparing disease control strategies [Reference Epstein44Reference Morimoto and Ishikawa46]. The present study employed this methodology to predict the effects of vector control and vaccination on the incidence of dengue-related diseases.

As a result, it was predicted that mosquito control alone is likely to increase the incidence of both DF and DHF in areas of high mosquito abundance. Although extremely strong suppression of vector abundance could decrease the incidence eventually, incidence would increase transiently while mosquito reduction remains incomplete. Despite this concern, mosquito control activities will probably be continued in developing countries, partly because being endemic for dengue virus reduces the attractiveness for tourism and overseas investment. Since the vector mosquito larvae infest intended water containers as well as disposals [Reference Focks and Chadee47, Reference Manrique-Saide48], not only mosquito control but also improvement in water supply and garbage collection systems will decrease mosquito abundance [Reference Knudsen and Slooff49, Reference Reiter, Gubler, Gubler and Kuno50].

The present study emulated seroconversion rates of CYD, the dengue vaccine with the highest prospect of proceeding to phase III trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to compensate for the uncertainties in seroconversion rates. Consequently, the main conclusion was not affected by these uncertainties; the vaccine could attenuate the possible surge in DF and DHF driven by the decrease in mosquito abundance. However, the predisposing effect of vaccine-derived ADE would vary greatly depending on protective seroconversion rates. It should be noted that the least-favourable assumptions for a vaccine were adopted, including that vaccines always induce enhancing antibodies, the enhancing capability persists throughout life, and the vaccine does not confer cross-protection. Hence, the estimates of a predisposing effect of vaccine may be exaggerated. In addition, DHF cases caused by vaccine-derived ADE would be much fewer than DHF cases prevented by a vaccine of considerably high (although not perfect) seroconversion rates. Therefore, a vaccination programme which uses such a sub-optimal vaccine may be justifiable, at least in areas of high mosquito abundance where mosquito reduction may increase the incidence of DF and DHF. As represented by the arrows in Figure 7, the peaks of DF/DHF incidence could be circumvented if mosquito control is preceded by high vaccination coverage. Since some may feel that any vaccine that predisposes vaccinees to the risk of DHF cannot be ethically acceptable, the present study provides quantitative information to ethical and economic discussions of this issue. Although vaccination of not only small children but a large part of the population may be necessary at the initial phase of a vaccination programme [Reference Massad51], the present study did not investigate this important topic. Further studies are warranted on these issues.

Fig. 7. Optimal strategy to reduce viral inoculation rate and incidence of dengue fever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic (DHF). The optimal strategy, which reduces the viral inoculation rate and incidence of DF and DHF, is superimposed on the results of simulations which used CYD40 (Fig. 3). This strategy, which is represented by the curved arrow in (a) and (b) is composed of a vaccination phase, and a mosquito control phase. Initially, by attaining high coverage of vaccination in ‘vaccination phase’, (a) DF incidence and (b) DHF incidence decrease. In the subsequent ‘mosquito control phase’, R 0 is reduced, thereby decreasing these incidences to a lower level. With this strategy, combining vaccination and mosquito control, the ridges of incidence of (a) DF and (b) DHF can be circumvented.

Collectively, the present study proposes a new methodology to predict and compare the population-level effect of dengue vaccines. The prediction can be updated easily as seroconversion rates are improved, or as currently unknown parameters are reported from field/experimental studies. The predictions made here, however peculiar they may appear, should be considered in developing a global dengue control strategy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Katia Koelle, Eiji Konishi, Bruno Guy, Paul G. Coleman, and the late Clive Davies for assistance and advice. The corresponding author would be pleased to provide technical assistance in installing, executing, and modifying the simulation software upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268813001866.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

References

REFERENCES

1. Kalayanarooj, S. Standardized clinical management: evidence of reduction of dengue haemorrhagic fever case-fatality rate in Thailand. Dengue Bulletin 1999; 23: 1017.Google Scholar
2. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. Dengue/DHF: case fatality rate (%) of DF/DHF in the South-East Asia Region (1985–2006). (http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section10/Section332_1102.htm). Accessed 24 September 2007.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, RM, May, RM. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
4. Dantes, HG, et al. Dengue epidemics on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. International Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 17: 178186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Egger, JR, Coleman, PG. Age and clinical dengue illness. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2007; 13: 924925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Egger, JR, et al. Reconstructing historical changes in the force of infection of dengue fever in Singapore: implications for surveillance and control. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008; 86: 187196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Guha-Sapir, D, Schimmer, B. Dengue fever: new paradigms for a changing epidemiology. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2005; 2: 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Coleman, PG, Perry, BD, Woolhouse, ME. Endemic stability – a veterinary idea applied to human public health. Lancet 2001; 357: 12841286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Nagao, Y, Koelle, K. Decreases in dengue transmission may act to increase the incidence of dengue hemorrhagic fever. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2008; 105: 22382243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Halstead, SB, Shotwell, H, Casals, J. Studies on the pathogenesis of dengue infection in monkeys. II. Clinical laboratory responses to heterologous infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1973; 128: 1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sabin, AB. Research on dengue during World War II. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1952; 1: 3050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Sangkawibha, N, et al. Risk factors in dengue shock syndrome: a prospective epidemiologic study in Rayong, Thailand. I. The 1980 outbreak. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984; 120: 653669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Thammapalo, S, et al. Relationship between transmission intensity and incidence of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Thailand. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2008; 2: e263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Sun, W, et al. Phase 2 clinical trial of three formulations of tetravalent live-attenuated dengue vaccine in flavivirus-naive adults. Human Vaccines 2009; 5: 3340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Guy, B, et al. From research to phase III: preclinical, industrial and clinical development of the Sanofi Pasteur tetravalent dengue vaccine. Vaccine 2011; 29: 72297241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Sabchareon, A, et al. Protective efficacy of the recombinant, live-attenuated, CYD tetravalent dengue vaccine in Thai schoolchildren: a randomised, controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet 2012; 380: 15591567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Morens, DM. Antibody-dependent enhancement of infection and the pathogenesis of viral disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1994; 19: 500512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Huisman, W, et al. Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections. Vaccine 2009; 27: 505512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Guy, B, et al. Evaluation by flow cytometry of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of dengue infection by sera from Thai children immunized with a live-attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccine. Vaccine 2004; 22: 35633574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Poo, J, et al. Live-attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccine in dengue-naive children, adolescents, and adults in Mexico City: randomized controlled phase 1 trial of safety and immunogenicity. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2011; 30: e9e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Morrison, D, et al. A novel tetravalent dengue vaccine is well tolerated and immunogenic against all 4 serotypes in flavivirus-naive adults. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010; 201: 370377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Beatty, M, et al. Assessing the potential of a candidate dengue vaccine with mathematical modeling. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2012; 6: e1450.Google ScholarPubMed
23. Grimm, V, et al. Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 2005; 310: 987991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Kliks, SC, et al. Evidence that maternal dengue antibodies are important in the development of dengue hemorrhagic fever in infants. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1988; 38: 411419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Brandt, WE, et al. Infection enhancement of dengue type 2 virus in the U-937 human monocyte cell line by antibodies to flavivirus cross-reactive determinants. Infection and Immunity 1982; 36: 10361041.Google Scholar
26. Morens, DM, Halstead, SB, Marchette, NJ. Profiles of antibody-dependent enhancement of dengue virus type 2 infection. Microbial Pathogenesis 1987; 3: 231237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Guirakhoo, F, et al. Live attenuated chimeric yellow fever dengue type 2 (ChimeriVax-DEN2) vaccine: Phase I clinical trial for safety and immunogenicity: effect of yellow fever pre-immunity in induction of cross neutralizing antibody responses to all 4 dengue serotypes. Human Vaccines 2006; 2: 6067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Anderson, KB, et al. A short time interval between first and second dengue infections is associated with protection from clinical illness in a prospective school-based cohort in Thailand. In: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.Google Scholar
29. Guzman, MG, et al. Epidemiologic studies on dengue in Santiago de Cuba, 1997. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 152: 793799; discussion 804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Gonzalez, D, et al. Classical dengue hemorrhagic fever resulting from two dengue infections spaced 20 years or more apart: Havana, Dengue 3 epidemic, 2001–2002. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2005; 9: 280285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Vaughn, DW, et al. Dengue viremia titer, antibody response pattern, and virus serotype correlate with disease severity. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2000; 181: 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Wearing, HJ, Rohani, P. Ecological and immunological determinants of dengue epidemics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2006; 103: 1180211807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Chikaki, E, Ishikawa, H. A dengue transmission model in Thailand considering sequential infections with all four serotypes. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries 2009; 3: 711722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Massad, E, et al. Dengue and the risk of urban yellow fever reintroduction in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Revista de Saude Publica 2003; 37: 477484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Coelho, GE, et al. Dynamics of the 2006/2007 dengue outbreak in Brazil. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2008; 103: 535539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Macdonald, G. The analysis of equilibrium in malaria. Tropical Diseases Bulletin 1952; 49: 813829.Google ScholarPubMed
37. Macdonald, G. The Epidemiology and Control of Malaria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.Google ScholarPubMed
38. Ferguson, NM, Donnelly, CA, Anderson, RM. Transmission dynamics and epidemiology of dengue: insights from age-stratified sero-prevalence surveys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 1999; 354: 757768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Johansson, MA, Hombach, J, Cummings, DA. Models of the impact of dengue vaccines: a review of current research and potential approaches. Vaccine 2011; 29: 58605868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Gubler, DJ, et al. Viraemia in patients with naturally acquired dengue infection. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1981; 59: 623630.Google ScholarPubMed
41. Hombach, J, et al. Report on a WHO consultation on immunological endpoints for evaluation of new Japanese encephalitis vaccines, WHO, Geneva, 2–3 September, 2004. Vaccine 2005; 23: 52055211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Strickman, D, Kittayapong, P. Dengue and its vectors in Thailand: introduction to the study and seasonal distribution of Aedes larvae. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2002; 67: 247259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Russel, J, Cohn, R. Total Fertility Rate. Edinburgh: Lennex Corp, 2012.Google Scholar
44. Epstein, JM, et al. Toward a Containment Strategy for Smallpox Bioterror: An Individual-based Computational Approach. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2004.Google Scholar
45. Vardavas, R, Breban, R, Blower, S. Can influenza epidemics be prevented by voluntary vaccination? PLoS Computational Biology 2007; 3: e85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Morimoto, T, Ishikawa, H. Assessment of intervention strategies against a novel influenza epidemic using an individual-based model. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2010; 15: 151161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Focks, DA, Chadee, DD. Pupal survey: an epidemiologically significant surveillance method for Aedes aegypti: an example using data from Trinidad. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1997; 56: 159167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Manrique-Saide, P, et al. Pupal surveys for Aedes aegypti surveillance and potential targeted control in residential areas of Merida, Mexico. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 2008; 24: 289298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Knudsen, AB, Slooff, R. Vector-borne disease problems in rapid urbanization: new approaches to vector control. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1992; 70: 16.Google ScholarPubMed
50. Reiter, P, Gubler, DJ. Surveillance and control of urban dengue vectors. In: Gubler, DJ, Kuno, G, eds. Dengue and Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever. Wallingford: CAB International, 1998, pp. 425462.Google Scholar
51. Massad, E, et al. A model-based design of a vaccination strategy against rubella in a non-immunized community of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Epidemiology and Infection 1994; 112: 579594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Two hypotheses regarding antibodies to dengue viruses. (a) Enhancing antibodies and protective antibodies are different. Enhancing antibodies react with all virus serotypes (broken arrows). In contrast, protective antibodies are specific to a serotype (D1 in this figure), but exert transient cross-reactive protection against other serotypes (solid arrows). (b) The same antibodies may play different roles in protection and enhancement, depending on their titres. Antibodies (specific to D1 in this figure) exert protection against other serotypes when their titres are high (solid arrows). As the titre wanes, these antibodies act as enhancing antibodies (broken arrows). D1, D2, D3, and D4 represent dengue virus serotypes 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

Figure 1

Table 1. Variable parameters given to simulations

Figure 2

Table 2. Serotype-specific seroconversion rates (%) of CYD tetravalent dengue vaccine based on a PRNT50 of 1:10, obtained from clinical trials conducted in non-endemic areas

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Individual-based model for dengue infections. (a) Diagram of the transition between immunological states. Transition between immunological states (filled arrow) occurs as a result of either viral inoculation or expiration of time from the most recent inoculation (open arrow). During a state transition, the individual may manifest dengue fever (DF) or dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) (arrow head). * A modification of the model in reference [13] was made: the individual is predisposed to the risk of DHF only if enhancing antibodies pre-exist. (b) Age-dependent probability for an infection to manifest as DF in an individual who is not protected specifically or cross-reactively. The probability is expressed as: 100/[1 + 1/exp(−3·44 + 0·177 × age)] % ([5] and P. G. Coleman, personal communication).

Figure 4

Table 3. Dengue serotype-specific seroconversion rates (%) assumed in simulations

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Results from simulations plotted over mosquito abundance and vaccination coverage. Mosquito abundance is represented as basic reproductive number (R0). Vaccination coverage is defined as V in the Methods section. (ac) Viral inoculation rate (/1000 individuals per year), incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of dengue fever (DF) (df), dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) (gi), and DHF attributable to vaccine-derived antibody-dependent enhancement (jl), were averaged from the last 30 years in each 150-year simulation and then averaged from 20 simulations. (a, d, g, j) CYD100, (b, e, h, k) CYD40, and (c, f, i, l) CYD20 are compared. Parameter setting for the simulations was (TFR, I, S) = (2, 0, 0·2).

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Incidence of dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic (DHF), and DHF attributable to vaccine-derived antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), from simulations that assumed moderate or high mosquito abundance, plotted over vaccination coverage. Incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of (a, b) DF, (c, d) DHF, and (e, f) DHF attributable to vaccine-derived ADE, were compared in CYD100, CYD40, and CYD20. Simulations were conducted assuming (a, c, e) moderate mosquito abundance (R0 = 4) or (b, d, f) high mosquito abundance (R0 = 15). Parameters were set to the same values as in Figure 3.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Effects of inhomogeneous mixing (I), seasonality (S), and total fertility rate (TFR) at different levels of vaccination coverage. Results from simulations are plotted over vaccination coverage and (a, d, g) inhomogeneous mixing (I), (b, e, h) seasonality (S), and (c, f, i) TFR. R0 was set at 15. (ac) Viral inoculation rate (/1000 individuals per year), incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) of (df) dengue fever (DF) and (gi) dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) were averaged from the last 30 years in each 150-year simulation and then averaged from 20 simulations. CYD40 was used. Parameter settings were: (TFR, S) = (2, 0·2) for (a, d, g); (TFR, I) = (2, 0) for (b, e, h); (I, S) = (0, 0·2) for (c, f, i).

Figure 8

Fig. 6. Temporal patterns in simulations employing different dengue control strategies. Incidence of dengue fever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic (DHF) is plotted over years in simulation. The strategy was based on either (a, d, g) vector mosquito control only (b, e, h, j, l) vaccination only, or (c, f, i, k, m) vaccination followed by vector control. The temporal change in mosquito abundance (R0) and vaccination coverage are presented in panels (ac), while incidence (/100 000 individuals per year) is presented in (df, j, k) for DF and in (gi, l, m) for DHF. CYD40 was used in (e, f, h, i) while CYD20 was used in (jl, m). Parameters were set to the same values as in Figure 3.

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Optimal strategy to reduce viral inoculation rate and incidence of dengue fever (DF) and dengue haemorrhagic (DHF). The optimal strategy, which reduces the viral inoculation rate and incidence of DF and DHF, is superimposed on the results of simulations which used CYD40 (Fig. 3). This strategy, which is represented by the curved arrow in (a) and (b) is composed of a vaccination phase, and a mosquito control phase. Initially, by attaining high coverage of vaccination in ‘vaccination phase’, (a) DF incidence and (b) DHF incidence decrease. In the subsequent ‘mosquito control phase’, R0 is reduced, thereby decreasing these incidences to a lower level. With this strategy, combining vaccination and mosquito control, the ridges of incidence of (a) DF and (b) DHF can be circumvented.

Supplementary material: File

Thavara Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Thavara Supplementary Material(File)
File 329 KB
Supplementary material: File

Thavara Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Thavara Supplementary Material(File)
File 678 KB
Supplementary material: File

Thavara Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Thavara Supplementary Material(File)
File 77 KB
Supplementary material: File

Thavara Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Thavara Supplementary Material(File)
File 264 KB
You have Access Open access
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Simulations to compare efficacies of tetravalent dengue vaccines and mosquito vector control
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Simulations to compare efficacies of tetravalent dengue vaccines and mosquito vector control
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Simulations to compare efficacies of tetravalent dengue vaccines and mosquito vector control
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *