Transmission dynamics and control of Ebola virus disease (EVD): a review

The 1918 influenza pandemic killed 20–40 million people worldwide 1 , and is seen as a worst-case scenario for pandemic planning. Like other pandemic influenza strains, the 1918 A/H1N1 strain spread extremely rapidly. A measure of transmissibility and of the stringency of control measures required to stop an epidemic is the reproductive number, which is the number of secondary cases produced by each primary case 2 . Here we obtained an estimate of the reproductive number for 1918 influenza by fitting a deterministic SEIR (susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered) model to pneumonia and influenza death epidemic curves from 45 US cities: the median value is less than three. The estimated proportion of the population with A/H1N1 immunity before September 1918 implies a median basic reproductive number of less than four. These results strongly suggest that the reproductive number for 1918 pandemic influenza is not large relative to many other infectious diseases 2 . In theory, a similar novel influenza subtype could be controlled. But because influenza is frequently transmitted before a specific diagnosis is possible and there is a dearth of global antiviral and vaccine stores, aggressive transmission reducing measures will probably be required. Supplementary information The online version of this article (doi:10.1038/nature03063) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Planning a response to an outbreak of a pandemic strain of influenza is a high public health priority. Three research groups using different individual-based, stochastic simulation models have examined the consequences of intervention strategies chosen in consultation with U.S. public health workers. The first goal is to simulate the effectiveness of a set of potentially feasible intervention strategies. Combinations called targeted layered containment (TLC) of influenza antiviral treatment and prophylaxis and nonpharmaceutical interventions of quarantine, isolation, school closure, community social distancing, and workplace social distancing are considered. The second goal is to examine the robustness of the results to model assumptions. The comparisons focus on a pandemic outbreak in a population similar to that of Chicago, with approximately 8.6 million people. The simulations suggest that at the expected transmissibility of a pandemic strain, timely implementation of a combination of targeted household antiviral prophylaxis, and social distancing measures could substantially lower the illness attack rate before a highly efficacious vaccine could become available. Timely initiation of measures and school closure play important roles. Because of the current lack of data on which to base such models, further field research is recommended to learn more about the sources of transmission and the effectiveness of social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has been the first severe contagious disease to emerge in the 21st century. The available epidemic curves for SARS show marked differences between the affected regions with respect to the total number of cases and epidemic duration, even for those regions in which outbreaks started almost simultaneously and similar control measures were implemented at the same time. The authors developed a likelihood-based estimation procedure that infers the temporal pattern of effective reproduction numbers from an observed epidemic curve. Precise estimates for the effective reproduction numbers were obtained by applying this estimation procedure to available data for SARS outbreaks that occurred in Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, and Canada in 2003. The effective reproduction numbers revealed that epidemics in the various affected regions were characterized by markedly similar disease transmission potentials and similar levels of effectiveness of control measures. In controlling SARS outbreaks, timely alerts have been essential: Delaying the institution of control measures by 1 week would have nearly tripled the epidemic size and would have increased the expected epidemic duration by 4 weeks.