Cyclic epidemics of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in England and Wales from 1975 to 2009: time-series analysis and mathematical modelling

Nguipdop-Djomo, Patrick; Fine, Paul E. M.; Halsby, Kate; Chalker, Victoria J.; Vynnycky, Emilia

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62503-9

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The basic reproduction number ( R 0 ) was fixed at 1.7 as estimated by Nguipdop-Djomo et al . (2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Epidemics of MP tend to occur every 3-7 years in the general population (Chalker et al ., 2011; Jacobs, 2012; Brown et al ., 2016). Analysis of laboratory reports of MP infections in England and Wales from 1975 to 2009 (Nguipdop-Djomo et al ., 2013) has indicated that these epidemics last on average 18 months occurring at approximately four yearly intervals. M. pneumoniae is a polymorphic pathogen (Dorigo-Zetsma et al ., 2000; Pereyre et al ., 2012): for example, Chalker et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The transmissibility of an infectious agent can be estimated by calculating the basic reproduction number (R0), which is defined as the mean number of secondary infectious cases generated by one primary infectious case introduced into a totally susceptible population (Anderson and May, 1991). Using seroprevalence data from a western population, Nguipdop-Djomo et al . (2013) estimated R 0 of MP to be 1.7 (95% CI 1.6–1.9), indicating low transmissibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Positively interacting strains that circulate in a network structured population induce cycling epidemics of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae

Zhang

Zhao

Vynnycky

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many countries Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) epidemics last approximately 1 4 one to two years and occur every three to seven years. Poor understanding of the drivers of 1 5 recurrent MP epidemics limits the predictability of and dynamic responses to the outbreak.1 6 Taking into account network structured contacts among people and co-circulating strains of 1 7 MP, we propose a multi-strain SIRS network model of epidemics of MP where different 1 8 strains interact during re-infection and within secondary infection. Simulations show that 1 9 although strain interactions and network-mediated spatial correlations are two separate 2 0 mechanisms for MP epidemics cycling, each requires very restricted model parameter values 2 1 such as strong strain interactions and strong network contacts, respectively. When both 2 2 mechanisms work collectively, MP recurrent epidemics become feasible within the plausible 2 3 ranges of model parameters. This indicates that positively interacting strains that co-circulate 2 4 within network contacts induce periodicity and dominant strain shift in observed MP 2 5 incidence. 2 6 2 7

show abstract

“…The basic reproduction number ( R 0 ) was fixed at 1.7 as estimated by Nguipdop-Djomo et al . (2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Positively interacting strains that circulate in a network structured population induce cycling epidemics of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae

Zhang

Zhao

Vynnycky

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection is thought to vary cyclically, 4,5 and has been the cause of outbreaks of LRTI. 6 Not to be confused with Chlamydia psittaci (which also causes respiratory infections but is contracted from birds), Chlamydophila pneumoniae is more common in children, but has been associated with subsequent serious adult disease as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Atypical Pathogens in Patients With Cough and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis

Marchello

Dale

Thai

et al. 2016

The Annals of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute cough, bronchitis, and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are often caused by infections with viruses or Streptococcus pneumoniae. The prevalence of atypical pathogens Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and Bordetella pertussis among patients with these illnesses in the ambulatory setting has not been previously summarized. We set out to derive prevalence information from the existing literature. METHODSWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE for prospective, consecutive-series studies reporting the prevalence of M pneumoniae, C pneumoniae, L pneumophila and/or B pertussis in outpatients with cough, acute bronchitis, LRTI, or CAP. Articles were independently reviewed by 2 authors for inclusion and abstraction of data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion. A meta-analysis was performed on each pathogen to calculate the pooled prevalence estimates using a random effects model of raw proportions.RESULTS Fifty studies met our inclusion criteria. While calculated heterogeneity was high, most studies reported prevalence for each pathogen within a fairly narrow range. In patients with CAP, the overall prevalences of M pneumoniae and C pneumoniae were 10.1% (95% CI, 7.1%-13.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), respectively. Consistent with previous reports, M pneumoniae prevalence peaked in roughly 6-year intervals. Overall prevalence of L pneumophila was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%), but the organism was rare in children, with only 1 case in 1,765. In patients with prolonged cough in primary care, the prevalence of B pertussis was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.9%-19.8%), although it was higher in studies that included only children (17.6%; 95% CI, 3.4%-31.8%).CONCLUSIONS Atypical bacterial pathogens are relatively common causes of lower respiratory diseases, including cough, bronchitis, and CAP. Where surveillance data were available, we found higher prevalences in studies where all patients are tested for these pathogens. It is likely that these conditions are underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated in current clinical practice.

show abstract

“…)’ [5]human ‘potency is the specific ability or capacity of the vaccine as measured by a laboratory test’ [6] difference similar definition but less frequently used for human vaccine evaluation vaccine efficacyveterinary‘specific ability of the biological product to produce the result for which it is offered when used under the conditions recommended by the manufacturer’ [5]‘the ability of the vaccine to give protection against the adverse effects of the infection to the vaccinated animal...’ [7]human‘...the percentage reduction in disease incidence attributable to vaccination [usually] calculated by means of the following equation: where R U = the incidence risk or rate in unvaccinated people and R V = the incidence in vaccinated people … measured in an individually randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial’ [1]. The equation for vaccine efficacy can be reformulated as: where R V / R U is the relative risk or rate ratio. difference veterinary usage has not been standardized vaccine effectivenessveterinaryusually not a specific term, more the ability of a vaccine to control disease in the field [8]humanvaccine efficacy measured by observational studies under field conditions within a vaccination programme [1] or measured by trials conducted under normal programme conditionscorrelate of protectionveterinarya variety of terms are used to describe this widely used concepthumana specific response to a vaccine that is associated with protection against infection, disease, or other defined endpoint [9,10]vaccine coverageveterinaryas for human—although occasionally it refers to the proportion of the target population that have sero-converted to a protective titre; the latter is sometimes called immunization coverage or population immunity [11]humanthe proportion of the target population that have been vaccinated according to a defined schedule. Sometimes called immunization coverage [12] difference occasionally in veterinary programmes ‘immunization coverage’ may refer to the proportion t...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

show abstract

Cyclic epidemics of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in England and Wales from 1975 to 2009: time-series analysis and mathematical modelling

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Positively interacting strains that circulate in a network structured population induce cycling epidemics of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae

Positively interacting strains that circulate in a network structured population induce cycling epidemics of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae

Prevalence of Atypical Pathogens in Patients With Cough and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About