Inferring transmission trees to guide targeting of interventions against visceral leishmaniasis and post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis

Lloyd A. C. Chapman; Simon E. F. Spencer; Timothy M. Pollington; Chris P. Jewell; Dinesh Mondal; Jorge Alvar; T. Deirdre Hollingsworth; Mary M. Cameron; Caryn Bern; Graham F. Medley

The posterior probabilities that individuals were asymptomatically infected during the study (shown in Figure S11 , with is higher). This is as expected given the structure of the model (the decrease in the risk of infection with distance from an 622 infectious individual encoded in the spatial kernel) and the estimates of the transmission parameters. The examples shown in Figure S12 demonstrate that non-symptomatic individuals' asymptomatic "infection" time posterior distributions (red). Note that asymptomatic "infection" in months 0 and T + 1 = 109, represent asymptomatic infection before the study and no asymptomatic infection before the end of the study, respectively. (A) Individual who migrated into a house with an active VL case from outside the study area in month 53 and therefore had a high initial probability of asymptomatic infection, followed by further peaks in asymptomatic infection risk in months 64 and 69 with the PKDL and VL onsets of two other household members in months 63 and 68 respectively. (B) Individual born in month 2 with a high probability of having avoided asymptomatic infection for the duration of the study. (C) Individual who was 23-years-old at the start of the study with a moderately high risk of having been asymptomatically infected before the study and a small peak in asymptomatic infection risk when a fellow household member had VL onset in month 45.