Search

Traveller screening is being used to limit further spread of COVID-19 following its recent emergence, and symptom screening has become a ubiquitous tool in the global response. Previously, we developed a mathematical model to understand factors governing the effectiveness of traveller screening to prevent spread of emerging pathogens (Gostic et al., 2015). Here, we estimate the impact of different screening programs given current knowledge of key COVID-19 life history and epidemiological parameters. Even under best-case assumptions, we estimate that screening will miss more than half of infected people. Breaking down the factors leading to screening successes and failures, we find that most cases missed by screening are fundamentally undetectable, because they have not yet developed symptoms and are unaware they were exposed. Our work underscores the need for measures to limit transmission by individuals who become ill after being missed by a screening program. These findings can support evidence-based policy to combat the spread of COVID-19, and prospective planning to mitigate future emerging pathogens.

Traveller screening is being used to limit further global spread of 2019 novel coronavirus (nCoV) following its recent emergence. Here, we project the impact of different travel screening programs given remaining uncertainty around the values of key nCoV life history and epidemiological parameters. Even under best-case assumptions, we estimate that screening will miss more than half of infected travellers. Breaking down the factors leading to screening successes and failures, we find that most cases missed by screening are fundamentally undetectable, because they have not yet developed symptoms and are unaware they were exposed. These findings emphasize the need for measures to track travellers who become ill after being missed by a travel screening program. We make our model available for interactive use so stakeholders can explore scenarios of interest using the most up-to-date information. We hope these findings contribute to evidence-based policy to combat the spread of nCoV, and to prospective planning to mitigate future emerging pathogens.

Background: Serology (the detection of antibodies formed by the host against an infecting pathogen) is frequently used to assess current infections and past exposure to specific pathogens. However, the presence of cross-reactivity among host antibodies in serological data makes it challenging to interpret the patterns and draw reliable conclusions about the infecting pathogen or strain. Methodology/Principal findings: In our study, we use microscopic agglutination test (MAT) serological data from three host species [California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), island fox (Urocyon littoralis), and island spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis)] with confirmed infections to assess differences in cross-reactivity by host species and diagnostic laboratory. All host species are known to be infected with the same serovar of Leptospira interrogans. We find that absolute and relative antibody titer magnitudes vary systematically across host species and diagnostic laboratories. Despite being infected by the same Leptospira serovar, three host species exhibit different cross-reactivity profiles to a 5-serovar diagnostic panel. We also observe that the cross-reactive antibody titer against a non-infecting serovar can remain detectable after the antibody titer against the infecting serovar declines below detectable levels. Conclusions/Significance: Cross-reactivity in serological data makes interpretation difficult and can lead to common pitfalls. Our results show that the highest antibody titer is not a reliable indicator of infecting serovar and highlight an intriguing role of host species in shaping reactivity patterns. On the other side, seronegativity against a given serovar does not rule out that serovar as the cause of infection. We show that titer magnitudes can be influenced by both host species and diagnostic laboratory, indicating that efforts to interpret absolute titers (e.g., as indicators of recent infection) must be calibrated to the system under study. Thus, we implore scientists and health officials using serological data for surveillance to interpret the data with caution. Author summary: Serology is frequently used for disease surveillance, especially in systems that are resource constrained or logistically challenging. Serological testing involves analyzing blood serum samples to detect antibodies with reactivity toward specific pathogens (or more generally, molecular antigens), with the goal of characterizing past exposure to those pathogens. However, these antibodies can be non-specific and may react against other related pathogens or strains–a phenomenon known as cross-reactivity. Interpretation of serological data exhibiting cross-reactivity is difficult and simplifying assumptions are often made (e.g., to interpret the strain that elicits the highest antibody titer level as the infecting pathogen strain). Our work shows that interpreting antibody data requires more nuance and more caution. Both absolute titers and relative reactivity against different strains can vary across host species and diagnostic laboratories, so it is essential to interpret these data in the appropriate context. These host species differences in antibody reactivity and cross-reactivity patterns make direct comparisons across species inadvisable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]