Additional file 1 of Optimizing antiviral treatment for seasonal influenza in the USA: a mathematical modeling analysis
Creators: name: Yechezkel, Matan
name: Mbah, Martial L. Ndeffo
name: Yamin, Dan
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2021
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Ecology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: 19999 Mathematical Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Mathematics
subject: FOS: Mathematics
subject: Cancer
subject: 110309 Infectious Diseases
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: 60506 Virology

description: Additional file 1: Supplementary material for: Optimizing antiviral treatment for seasonal influenza in the United States: A mathematical modeling analysis. Table S1. Age-specific rates Ce, j between an infected individual e and their contact j. Figure. S1. Daily log viral load following influenza infection for asymptomatic, symptomatic high and low-risk and treated high risk who got treated on the first three days since symptoms onset. Initiating antiviral treatment following 72 h after symptom onset: viral load will mimic symptomatic high-risk infection until three days of symptom onset. At that point, the viral load will mimic the antiviral treatment curve. Table S2. mean vaccination coverage [69]. Table S3: Fixed parameters used in the transmission model. Table S4. Calibrated parameters. Figure S2. Model fit. Time series of recorded weekly symptomatic influenza cases and model fit to Texas, California, Connecticut and Virginia (A, C, E &amp; G). Data and model fit to the age distribution among symptomatic influenza cases (B, D, F &amp; H). Figure S3. Model projection of additional symptomatic influenza cases and hospitalizations averted annually in Texas, California, Connecticut, and Virginia by increasing the number of high-risk patients who received treatment within 48 h of symptom onset. Here, a proportion of high-risk patients who received antiviral treatment more than 48 h after symptom onset was assumed to receive treatment earlier. For the sensitivity analysis, we increased and decreased the effective vaccination coverage by 10% and 20%. (A, C, E &amp; G) Total number of symptomatic cases averted. (B, D, F &amp; H) Total number of hospitalizations averted. Figure S4. Model projections of symptomatic influenza cases and hospitalizations averted in Texas, California, Connecticut, and Virginia by increasing the portion of treated high-risk individuals who sought care and received treatment within 48 h of symptom onset. For the sensitivity analysis, we increased and decreased the effective vaccination coverage by 10% and 20%. (A, C, E &amp; G) Total number of symptomatic cases averted. (B, D, F &amp; H) Total number of hospitalizations averted. Figure S5. Model projections of symptomatic influenza cases and hospitalizations averted per person treated by treating each age group within 48 h after symptom onset in Texas, California, Connecticut, and Virginia. (A, C, E &amp; G) The number of symptomatic cases averted per person treated for each group stratified by age. (B, D, F &amp; H) The number of hospitalizations averted per person treated for each group stratified by age. Figure S6. The mutual effect of attack rate and effective vaccination coverage level in Connecticut and Virginia on the number of symptomatic cases averted per person treated for different treatment coverage values among high-risk individuals with influenza. Infected high-risk individuals sought care and received treatment within 48 h after symptom onset. (A, B) Low attack rate settings. (C, D) Median attack rate settings. (E, F) High attack rate settings.