Quantifying the population-level impact of expanded antibiotic treatment for cholera outbreak management

Sharia M. Ahmed; Cormac R. LaPrete; Iza Ciglenecki; Andrew Azman; Daniel T. Leung; Lindsay T. Keegan

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980

Abstract

Since 2021, there has been a resurgence in the number of cholera cases, countries affected, and the case fatality rate. Because most cholera patients recover without antibiotic treatment, current cholera treatment guidelines only consider the tradeoffs between patient recovery and antibiotic stewardship. However, antibiotics also greatly reduce bacteria shedding, creating a potential role for antibiotics in cholera outbreak response through reduced transmission. We developed a compartmental model of cholera transmission in a non-endemic setting to quantify the potential impact of expanded antibiotic treatment on disease burden and antibiotic use. Through simulations, we evaluated different outbreak scenarios, by varying the reproductive number, care-seeking behavior, and proportion of non-severe cases receiving antibiotics. We found that expanding antibiotic treatment could significantly reduce the final outbreak size under certain outbreak characteristics. In these scenarios, treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics decreased cholera transmission and, in some cases, the total number of antibiotic doses used. We show that the effectiveness of expanded antibiotic treatment is highly dependent on achieving high care-seeking rates among non-severely symptomatic infections and tailoring the approach to specific outbreak conditions. While expanding antibiotic eligibility could enhance outbreak control in some settings, careful consideration of antibiotic resistance risks is necessary in high-transmission contexts.

Author summary

Cholera remains a dangerous infectious disease in many parts of the world, with more deaths occurring in more countries in recent years. Most people recover from cholera with simple rehydration. For high-risk and severe cases, antibiotics are used to clear the infection faster. Without antibiotics, people can continue to shed cholera bacteria even after they feel better. Antibiotics stop this bacterial shedding, which decreases how much bacteria is spreading in the community. However, the more antibiotics are used, the greater the likelihood that cholera develops antibiotic resistance, which would make antibiotics no longer an effective treatment. In this study, we use a mathematical model to test two antibiotic prescribing scenarios: a) the current guidelines of antibiotics only for high-risk/severe patients, and b) prescribing antibiotics to more cholera patients, with the idea that this will lead to less spreading of cholera and fewer cases overall. We show treating more types of patients (severely and moderately ill) with antibiotics can lead to smaller outbreaks and fewer doses of antibiotics prescribed under certain outbreak conditions. We also show which parts of the model are most important, and highlight areas that need more scientific research before we can be confident in our results.

Citation: Ahmed SM, LaPrete CR, Ciglenecki I, Azman A, Leung DT, Keegan LT (2026) Quantifying the population-level impact of expanded antibiotic treatment for cholera outbreak management. PLoS Comput Biol 22(2): e1013980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980

Editor: Claudio José Struchiner, Fundação Getúlio Vargas: Fundacao Getulio Vargas, BRAZIL

Received: May 28, 2025; Accepted: February 4, 2026; Published: February 18, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Ahmed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant code available at: https://github.com/UT-IDDynamics/Cholera_Threshold.

Funding: SMA, LTK acknowledge funding from the CDC Centers for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics (CFA) (Grant #1NU38FT000009-01-00). CRL, LTK acknowledge funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) TRANSMIT: Training Research Acumen in Students Modeling Infectious Threats (Grant #1U01CK000675). AA acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health (Grant #1R01AI179917-01A1) and funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant # INV-044856). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Cholera, causxed by the toxigenic bacterium Vibrio cholerae O1/O139, remains a significant public health threat [1]. It is characterized by severe acute watery diarrhea that can cause death within hours if left untreated [1,2]. Despite its severe clinical manifestations, the true burden of cholera is not well characterized, as only approximately 10% of cases experience severe symptoms and it has been estimated that the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic or unreported [3–6]. A 2015 global burden analysis estimated 2.86 million cases (uncertainty range 1.3–4 million cases) and 95,000 deaths (uncertainty range 21,000–143,000 deaths) in endemic countries annually [7]. Although the global burden of cholera has been declining in recent decades, a notable resurgence in cases, countries affected, and the case fatality rate has been described since 2021 [8], with 32 countries reporting over 565,000 cases from January to October 2025 [9].

Patterns of cholera transmission vary between endemic regions and non-endemic regions, in part due to protective immunity [10]. Importantly, the estimated durability of natural immunity varies from several months to 10 years [11]. Subclinical cholera infections may confer lower protection than clinical infections [12]. As a result, in endemic regions where local transmission has been detected over the past 3 years, incidence of cholera is highest among young children, as young children are the least likely to have previous exposure and therefore immunity. Whereas in non-endemic (outbreak) settings where cholera does not regularly occur, attack rates among children and adults are similar, as the entire population has a similarly low or non-existent level of pre-existing immunity [13,14].

Cholera is an easily treatable disease, with oral rehydration solution (ORS) serving as the cornerstone of treatment. Non-severe cholera cases can be successfully managed with ORS, which, when administered promptly, can reduce the mortality rate to below 1% [1,6,15,16]. Antibiotics, though available for cholera treatment, are generally reserved for severely dehydrated patients or those with high-risk conditions such as pregnancy or severe acute malnutrition, in part due to concerns about antibiotic resistance [15–17]. While antibiotics reduce the duration of symptoms and stool volume, their use is not typically recommended for non-severely ill infections, as the benefit to the patient is modest relative to the risk of development of antibiotic resistance at the population level [16,18,19]. Antibiotics do however confer benefits related to transmissibility: infections untreated with antibiotics shed V. cholerae for up to 10 days after symptom resolution, contributing to community transmission [1]. In contrast, antibiotic treatment reduces the duration of bacterial shedding by up to 90% and likely the concentration of infectious bacteria in the stool, thereby considerably reducing cases’ transmission potential [16,17].

Currently, treatment guidelines reserve antibiotics for cholera patients who are severely dehydrated, having severe challenges in rehydration, or have coexisting conditions (e.g., severe acute malnutrition, pregnancy) [16]. When indicated, the recommended treatment for cholera is a single dose of doxycycline, though azithromycin and ciprofloxacin can be used in certain situations [16]. Antibiotics are often under-regulated in areas where cholera is most likely to occur, and people frequently self-medicate with antibiotics before presenting to formal clinical care [20–22]. These self-medicated antibiotics are often inappropriate to treat cholera and further contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance [20]. Recently, it has been proposed that the reduction in transmissibility associated with antibiotic treatment could offer public health benefits by curtailing outbreak transmission [23]. If expanding antibiotic treatment guidelines to include mild and moderately symptomatic infections reduces transmission, this could lead to fewer infectious and potentially fewer antibiotic doses used over the course of an outbreak.

While modeling methodology continues to advance [24,25], the majority of modern cholera modeling studies continue to use compartmental models, and most include direction and indirect transmission pathways [26]. Many recent models also include separate compartments for hyperinfectious vs lower infectivity individuals [27] When human behavior has been incorporated into cholera math models, it encompasses behavior changes that alter likelihood of disease transmission, such as safer drinking water practices or reducing social contacts [27] While models incorporating antibiotic treatment do exist, they do not separate antibiotic use by disease severity ([28–30], for example). In fact, only 4% of studies included in a recent review of mathematical models of cholera included both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. [26] Given that cholera antibiotic treatment guidelines are based on symptom severity, simulating possible changes in antibiotic guidelines requires a model that includes symptom severity-specific care-seeking behavior and antibiotic prescribing.

In this study, we develop and apply a compartmental model of cholera transmission to quantify the impact of expanding antibiotic treatment to include mild or moderately symptomatic infections. Our objective was twofold: 1) to assess how treatment of those with moderate/some dehydration could impact the overall burden of cholera in an outbreak as well as the risk of developing antibiotic resistance, and 2) to highlight what additional epidemiological information is most needed to improve our understanding of cholera dynamics, which would improve our ability to evaluate potential treatment policy changes. The main difference in our model compared to previous cholera models is the inclusion of three separate symptom severities, with their own treatment and recovery streams. This was required in order to align with current treatment guidelines and address our primary study question. In the interest of mathematical tractability and to avoid introducing poorly constrained parameters, we do not explicitly model environmental reservoirs. We also only consider medically-prescribed antibiotic treatment, as self-prescribing is unlikely to be affected by medical prescribing policy changes, and is often ineffective for the treatment of cholera anyway. Therefore, we focus on non-endemic outbreak settings.

Methods

Model

To assess the impact of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines on cholera outbreaks, we developed and analyzed a compartmental model of cholera transmission in a non-endemic setting (Fig 1). Susceptible () individuals, with no immunity from prior infection or vaccination become exposed upon successful transmission and then progress to one of the infectious compartments (). We differentiate within the infectious compartments based on symptomatology: asymptomatic (), non-severely symptomatic infections, including both mild and moderately symptomatic (), (hereafter referred to collectively as “moderate”), and severely symptomatic () as defined by dehydration. Additionally, we differentiate within the symptomatic infections based on care seeking behavior: seeking care () or not seeking care ().

Download:

Fig 1. Compartmental diagram of the cholera transmission model.

All individuals start as susceptible () and become exposed () at a rate . is derived from , which is in turn derived from the effective reproductive number () which is supplied to the model, see Table 1 and Supplement Information. Exposed individuals transition to the infected () compartment and we differentiate by symptoms (, asymptomatic, non-severely, or severely symptomatic, respectively) and by care seeking behavior (, not care seeking and care seeking, respectively). All severely symptomatic infections are treated with antibiotics whereas not all non-severely symptomatic infections who seek treatment receive antibiotics. The proportion of healthcare seeking non-severely symptomatic infections who receive antibiotics is governed by . Untreated infections, both non-severe and severe, continue to shed for a longer duration following the resolution of symptoms (), occurring at rate , respectively. Non-severely symptomatic infections who are treated with antibiotics continue to shed for a shorter duration following treatment (), occurring at rate , whereas severely symptomatic infections who are treated with antibiotics remain in a treatment facility and do not contribute to transmission (). Compartments with a dark grey outline indicate they contribute to transmission. Infectious individuals either recover (, at rates ) or die (, at rates ) and we differentiate between individuals who recover without antibiotic treatment () and those who recover with antibiotics () to compare the number of doses used under different treatment scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.g001

Download:

Table 1. Summary of the model parameters (and available sources) used in model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.t001

We do not attempt to parameterize care seeking behavior, rather, we vary the proportion of symptomatic infections who seek care and the rate at which symptomatic care-seekers receive antibiotic treatment between simulations. Due to the nature of their symptoms, we assume that all severely symptomatic infections who seek care () receive antibiotic treatment () and that severely symptomatic infections are much more likely to seek treatment. We model the effect of varying the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections that seek () and receive antibiotic treatment (). We assume that asymptomatic infections never seek treatment and thus do not further divide this compartment by treatment. Further, we do not model treatment adherence, since antibiotic treatment for cholera is a single dose regimen. We assume this single dose is given by a trained health professional at the place of care-seeking and is appropriate for the age, weight, etc. of the patient, at the minimum effective quantity (i.e., mg/kg) [16]. We continue the assumption used in the current cholera treatment guidelines, namely that fewer doses (equivalent to fewer people treated with antibiotics) results in less development of resistance.

We assume that all infected individuals (including asymptomatic infections) contribute to transmission until they are either treated with antibiotics or their infection resolves. Since infected individuals untreated with antibiotics continue to shed V. cholerae for up to 10 days post-symptom resolution [51], we assume that they continue to contribute to transmission after the conclusion of symptoms, but at a reduced rate (, for non-severely and severely symptomatic infections, respectively). For non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics (), we assume that they contribute to transmission after receiving antibiotic treatment but at a reduced rate and for a reduced duration. In contrast, we assume that severely symptomatic infections that receive care () are admitted to a treatment center and therefore no longer shed into the community, and thus do not contribute to transmission after receiving antibiotic treatment. In general, we parameterize our model to ensure key rates for non-severely symptomatic infections, such as treatment seeking () and proportion in each symptom class () are proportional to those for severe infections. For full model equations, see S1 File. See [23] for a detailed derivation of the reproductive number for this model.

Finally, we assume that cholera transmission is adequately captured by human-to-human transmission. As Wang et. al. [27] discuss while citing [52,53], hyper-infectivity in environmental-to-human transmission may not be meaningfully different than human-to-human transmission, especially when interested in transmission shortly after the onset of symptoms. Because our goal is to evaluate a public health intervention that acts on a short time-scale relative to symptom onset, and for mathematical tractability, we do not include compartments for an environmental reservoir such as contaminated water supply. Consistent with this assumption, we only consider non-endemic outbreaks, with infection rapidly spreading in a naïve population, and assume births, deaths, disease seasonality, and the development of antibiotic resistance etc. are negligible over the modeled time period.

Scenarios

We evaluate the impact of treating mild and moderately (non-severe) symptomatic infections with antibiotics over different outbreak scenarios. These scenarios are characterized by varying the effective reproductive number, the proportion care seeking, and proportion treated with appropriate antibiotics.

Because cholera outbreaks have high variability in the reported effective reproductive number by outbreak setting, we designed three scenarios based on these different transmission characteristics at the start of the outbreak: low and intermediate based off outbreaks from Africa [33–37] and high based off outbreaks from the Americas [31,32,38,39].

Our primary interest lies in understanding the impact of expanding antibiotic treatment eligibility guidelines to include non-severely symptomatic infections. However, the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections that receive appropriate antibiotics is governed both by the proportion that seek care () as well as the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections who are treated (). Care-seeking behavior among non-severely symptomatic infections is not well characterized and is likely influenced by the current treatment guidelines that limit antibiotics to severely symptomatic infections. As such, we explore five scenarios for care seeking: 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of non-severely symptomatic infections seeking care (five values of .

Within the scenarios described above, we also vary the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections who have sought care that receive antibiotic treatment (“proportion treated with antibiotics,” derived from , see supplement) from no one (current treatment guidelines) to everyone (all care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections receive antibiotics).

Simulations

We simulate our model using R statistical software [54] over the range of parameter values presented in Table 1. Since we are modeling a non-endemic outbreak, we initialize our model with 0.01% of the entirely susceptible population infected. We simulate each scenario 1000 times until stochastic extinction.

Many key parameters are not well characterized for cholera, as evidenced by the wide range of many parameters presented in Table 1. As such, we use Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) to sample across the full parameter uncertainty range [55,56]. LHS ensures comprehensive exploration of the parameter space by sampling each interval only once, allowing for the distinction between variability in outcomes driven by the stochastic nature of the model from that arising due to parameter uncertainty [56]. In other words, if our range of parameter value encompasses the true parameter value, the outcome metric should also encompass the truth. We constrain all parameters to ensure that no draws from the LHS yield epidemiologically implausible values.

Epidemiologic outcomes

We evaluate the scenarios across several metrics, including the total number of infections (final size), the total number of antibiotic doses used over the course of the outbreak, the number of infections under expanded treatment minus the number of infections under current treatment guidelines (infections averted), as well as the number of doses used under expanded treatment minus the number of doses used under current treatment guidelines (additional doses used).

Results

We created a compartmental model of cholera transmission in a non-endemic setting to assess the population level effects of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines to include moderately symptomatic cases.

Through simulation, we show that expanding antibiotic treatment guidelines to include non-severely symptomatic infections can substantially reduce the burden of cholera in low and intermediate transmission settings, especially when rates of care-seeking behavior is high. In high transmission settings, the impact of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines is less pronounced but still offers marginal reductions in the final outbreak size.

We find that treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics decreases the final size of the outbreak across all care seeking scenarios and transmission scenarios except in high outbreaks with very low proportion of care seeking (5%) among non-severely symptomatic infections (Fig 2). While treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics almost always decreases the final outbreak size, the effect is largest when more non-severely symptomatic infections seek care and receive appropriate antibiotics as well as when the effective reproductive number is low.

Download:

Fig 2. Plot of the final outbreak size by the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics.

Each plot shows the final proportion of the population infected by the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections who receive treatment for low (yellow), intermediate (pink), and high (purple) effective reproductive numbers, for a different percent of non-severely symptomatic infections who seek treatment (5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). The solid line indicates the mean estimate under expanded treatment guidelines, the shaded region represents the 25% and 75% quantiles, and the dashed line shows the final size of the outbreak under current antibiotic treatment guidelines (treating no non-severely symptomatic infections).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.g002

While treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics can substantially reduce cholera transmission, we show that expanded antibiotic eligibility alone is not sufficient to significantly reduce transmission unless it is coupled with high care-seeking rates.

The development of antibiotic resistance remains a significant concern that informs current cholera treatment guidelines. Although we did not explicitly model the evolution of resistance, we use the number of antibiotic doses administered as a proxy for selective pressure. As such, we evaluated our scenarios based on the number of antibiotic doses used and categorized them by the scale of impact: isolated, expanding, and broad. Our simulations reveal three distinct regions within the range of tested parameters (Fig 3). In one region, extending antibiotic treatment guidelines to include non-severely symptomatic infections confer only isolated benefits, as less than one infection is averted per additional antibiotic dose over the course of the outbreak (yellow points, Fig 3). The next region is such that extending antibiotic treatment criteria provides an expanding benefit, whereby treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics reduces transmission sufficiently such that each additional dose averts more than one infection (green points, Fig 3). In the final region extending antibiotic treatment criteria results in broad benefits where fewer antibiotic doses are used over the course of an outbreak compared to current treatment practices (purple points, Fig 3). Which region a simulation falls into is governed by both and the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics. As increases, the benefits of treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics shifts from population-level benefits and antibiotic dose reduction to primarily individual-level benefits. Likewise, as the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics increases, the population-level benefit of expanded antibiotic use becomes more pronounced.

Download:

Fig 3. Plot of the population-level impact of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines.

Each plot compares the relative infections averted per population to the relative antibiotic usage per population. The relative infections averted is calculated as the ratio of the number of infections in a given scenario (combination of R_e and antibiotic deployment in moderates), divided by the number of infections under the current antibiotic treatment guidelines (only severely-symptomatic infections receive antibiotics), using the same LHS sampled parameters and normalized by population size. Similarly, the relative antibiotic usage is calculated as the ratio of antibiotic doses used in a given scenario, divided by the number of antibiotic doses used under current antibiotic treatment guidelines (only severely-symptomatic infections receive antibiotics), again using the same LHS sampled parameters and normalized by population size. Each plot represents a different proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections seeking care who receive antibiotic (ABX) treatment (5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and a different scenario (low (), intermediate ), high ()). The outcomes are split into three regions by the impact of expanded eligibility criteria: between the dashed line along the x-axis (expanding criteria averts no infections) and the diagonal dashed line (each addition dose of antibiotics deployed averts one infection), yellow points represent simulations in which expanded eligibility only has isolated benefits; between the diagonal dashed line and the vertical dashed line (no additional doses are used to avert infections), green points represent simulations in which expanded eligibility results in each dose preventing more than one additional infection; and in the region left of the vertical dashed line, purple points represent simulations in which expanded eligibility results in fewer doses used over the course of the outbreak than compared to current antibiotic treatment guidelines.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.g003

To further explore the impact of expanded treatment on the number of antibiotic doses used over the course of the outbreak, we evaluate how the proportion of care-seeking non-severe individuals who receive appropriate antibiotics impacts the proportion of the total population who receive appropriate antibiotics (Fig 4). Recall that antimicrobial treatment for cholera involves a single dose of antibiotics per patient per illness. As with infections averted, when the transmission rate is lower and when more non-severely symptomatic infections are treated, treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics has greater public health benefits. Indeed, when is low, increasing the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics results in fewer antibiotic doses used. For intermediate and high transmission settings, increasing the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections treated with antibiotics only results in an increase in the proportion of the total population treated with antibiotics.

Download:

Fig 4. Plot of population-level antibiotic treatment.

Each plot shows the proportion of the total population who receive appropriate antibiotics, by the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections that receive appropriate antibiotics, separated by scenario (low (), intermediate ), high ()). For each scenario, we show five values for the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections that seek care, 5% (yellow), 25% (green), 50% (teal), 75% (blue), 100% (navy), and vary the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections who receive antibiotics from 0 – 100%.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.g004

Discussion

This study builds on prior research suggesting that, under certain circumstances, expanding antibiotic treatment of cholera cases can provide population-level benefits by reducing transmission and limiting an outbreak size such that fewer antibiotic doses are used over the course of the outbreak. We also highlight how a better understanding of the epidemiology of cholera, especially reproductive number and care-seeking behavior, are critical for accurate treatment policy evaluation. While previous models have included antibiotic treatment, [29,30] they have not separated infections by symptom severity. Other models also explicitly explore the dynamics of antibiotic resistance in cholera outbreaks, [29,30] but do not separate medically-guided antibiotic use by symptom severity. In our model, we have separated infections into symptom-severity-specific streams, with unique care-seeking and antibiotic treatment. We also only considered medically-guided antibiotic use, and did not incorporate self-prescribing of appropriate or inappropriate antibiotics. While this introduces some bias into our model, it allows us to directly simulate different antibiotic treatment policies. We previously proposed a theoretical mechanism for the relationship between antibiotic treatment policy and disease burden [23]. In this paper we identified the specific conditions where these benefits can be achieved for cholera. Our findings show how treating non-severe cholera cases with antibiotics can help control outbreaks and highlight the critical role of linking these cases to healthcare in achieving impact. We detail how outbreak specific quantitates such as the effective reproductive number and the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections that seek care impact the effectiveness of this strategy. Finally, we present a broad range of estimated effects consistent with the parameters currently available in the literature, and detail how these effects could become clearer with more refined knowledge of cholera epidemiology.

The effectiveness of expanding antibiotic treatment criteria improves as the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections seeking care increases. In the majority of outbreaks which experience low to intermediate transmission rates (measured by the reproductive number), such as those seen in most cholera outbreaks [21,22,24,25,57], reducing transmission can substantially lower the proportion of the population infected, supporting the theoretical findings that expanded antibiotic access can enhance outbreak control.

A key distinction emerges between low and high settings. In lower settings, treating a high proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections reduces both cholera burden and number of antibiotic doses used over the course of the outbreak. However, as increases, these benefits disappear, though an intermediate range exists where each additional dose of antibiotics used averts more than one infection, still providing a public health benefit. In high settings, treating non-severely symptomatic infections may reduce the outbreak size, but it requires treating a larger portion of the population. These results suggest that treating non-severe cholera cases may be effective in low settings but may carry a risk of antibiotic resistance in high-transmission contexts, underscoring the importance of tailoring treatment strategies to the specific outbreak context. In this paper, the only intervention we consider is expanding antibiotic treatment guidelines, however this could be combined with other interventions as a component in a large outbreak containment strategy.

Across all simulations, the most important factor governing the effectiveness of treating non-severely symptomatic infections with antibiotics is achieving high antibiotic treatment rates. Our related analysis explicitly demonstrates the importance of reproductive number and proportion of moderate cases receiving antibiotics in driving the effectiveness of expanded antibiotic eligibility. [23] While we do not directly parameterize care-seeking or treatment availability, we do incorporate variation in antibiotic treatment rates by varying the proportion of symptomatic infections who seek care and the rate at which they receive antibiotics. Often the focus on clinical care during outbreaks is at cholera treatment centers, typically located at secondary and tertiary health structures. While there are gaps in our understanding of care seeking behavior for non-severely symptomatic infections, experience in endemic settings suggest that most people with non-severe disease will seek care at pharmacies or lower-level health facilities, frequently obtaining inappropriate or non-indicated antibiotics [21,22,20,58,59]. Developing strategies to expand access to appropriate antibiotics at decentralized oral treatment posts or pharmacies could have a critical impact on achieving sufficiently high coverage of antibiotics among non-severely symptomatic infections to reduce cholera transmission while also improving antibiotic stewardship. Expanded access could be coupled with the use of rapid diagnostic tests for cholera to improve the specificity of targeting people with diarrhea caused by Vibrio cholerae O1. Addressing barriers to care seeking behavior either through outreach or through expanded access to appropriate antibiotics through pharmacies is necessary to achieve sufficiently high treatment rates. Cholera contact targeted interventions are an active and promising area of research, and may offer a strategy to achieve these desired antibiotic treatment rates [60–62].

An important limitation of our study is the fact that many of the key parameters necessary for modeling cholera have not been well characterized in the literature. Accurate estimates of, in particular, and the proportion of non-severely symptomatic infections seeking treatment are crucial and would require purposefully designed epidemiological studies in a well-characterized population with comprehensive diagnostic testing in order to refine the parameters used in our model. We only consider non-endemic settings, assuming no prior immunity. Further analysis is needed to assess how prior immunity or vaccination affects our results, but these analyses will require additional parameters that are also not well characterized in the literature. While we do not model immunity directly, in a supplementary analysis, we evaluate the impact of varying the ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic infections, one of the expected main differences between an outbreak setting to an endemic setting. We find that our final size results are robust to variations in the proportion asymptomatic, but for outbreaks with a very high proportion of infections that are asymptomatic (consistent with highly endemic settings), the broad impacts from expanding antibiotic eligibility disappear (Fig A in S1 File). Conversely, for outbreaks with a very low proportion of infections that are asymptomatic (consistent with totally naïve settings), not only are broad and expanded impacts more pronounced (Fig B in S1 File), in low outbreak settings, expanding antibiotic treatment guidelines has such a substantial benefit that it halts transmission so effectively that it can prevent an outbreak from ever taking off (Fig C in S1 File). Thus, we expect expanded treatment guidelines may have a smaller impact in endemic settings than outbreak settings.

Additionally, we only consider three symptom categories – severely symptomatic, non-severely symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections. A more granular distinction within the non-severely symptomatic compartment (e.g., mild and moderate) may refine treatment estimates, but again the literature lacks this level of specificity on necessary parameters. Since infectiousness correlates with symptom severity [5], it may suffice to target the most symptomatic non-severely symptomatic infections. Achieving a high enough treatment coverage may be a barrier to utilizing this strategy as an outbreak containment strategy, particularly in resource-limited settings where both antibiotics and healthcare infrastructure may be constrained.

Future model expansions should explore the impact of adding environmental reservoirs to the model (hyper-infective and lower infectivity bacterial contamination, as well as a reservoir for re-introduction) to better account for environmental-to-human transmission. This would have the added benefit of allowing a side-by-side comparison of expanded antibiotic eligibility and water, sanitation, & hygiene interventions on outbreak dynamics. Addition model expansions should also include more nuanced antibiotic prescribing, including self-prescribing, administration of antibiotics against which cholera is not sensitive, and feedback loops for the development of antibiotic resistance. Finally, future work on infectious disease model development will need to explore the feasibility and utility of incorporating artificial intelligence and similar technologies into infectious disease modeling studies [63].

Our study builds on phenomenological findings which suggest that treating non-severely symptomatic infections can reduce the number of antibiotic doses needed and may therefore lower the selective pressure for cholera to develop resistance. However, uncertainties in parameter estimates raise concerns about balancing these benefits with the risks of promoting antimicrobial resistance, which would hinder future cholera treatment and outbreak response efforts. Future studies aimed at improving characterization of key parameters or a clinical trial aimed at validating these model results and assessing the feasibility of implementing expanded treatment guidelines are a critical next step towards implementing these findings. Careful monitoring of key parameters and resistance patterns will be crucial in ensuring that the benefits of expanded antibiotic treatment criteria do not increase the risk of developing antibiotic resistant cholera.

Supporting information

S1 File. Material. includes additional details on model formulation, including the differential equations, mathematical expressions for the force of infection and proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections that receive antibiotics, and the symptom-treatment specific transmission parameters.

Additional results from sensitivity analysis are also included. [57,46–48,64,65]. Table A: Summary of the transmission parameters (and available sources) used in model. Fig A: Plot of the population-level impact of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines with 90%-99% asymptomatic infections. Fig B: Plot of the population-level impact of expanded antibiotic treatment guidelines with 17%-33% asymptomatic infections. Fig C: Plot of the final outbreak size by the proportion of care-seeking non-severely symptomatic infections treated with appropriate antibiotics for small proportion asymptomatic (17%-33%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013980.s001

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kate Alberti for helpful discussions regarding framing the research project.

References

1. World Health Organization. Cholera Fact Sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera
2. Kanungo S, Azman AS, Ramamurthy T, Deen J, Dutta S. Cholera. The Lancet. 2022;399:1429–40.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Azman AS, Lauer SA, Bhuiyan TR, Luquero FJ, Leung DT, Hegde ST, et al. Vibrio cholerae O1 transmission in Bangladesh: insights from a nationally representative serosurvey. Lancet Microbe. 2020;1(8):e336–43. pmid:33345203
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Mosley WH, Benenson AS, Barui R. A serological survey for cholera antibodies in rural East Pakistan. Bull World Health Organ. 1968;38:335.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Weil AA, Begum Y, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, Leung DT, LaRocque RC, et al. Bacterial shedding in household contacts of cholera patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(4):738–42. pmid:25114012
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. About cholera. Cholera. https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/about/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/general/index.html
7. Ali M, Nelson AR, Lopez AL, Sack DA. Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(6):e0003832. pmid:26043000
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Cholera – Global situation. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON426
9. World Health Organization. Multi-country outbreak of cholera, external situation report #32 – 26 November 2025. 2025.
10. Cholera is endangering children globally. https://www.unicef.org/stories/cholera-is-endangering-children-globally
11. Hoque M, Deok M, Kim R, Ahmmed F, Islam T, Im J. Sustained protection conferred by natural cholera against recurrent cholera in an endemic setting. Lancet Microbe. 2023.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Ali M, Emch M, Park JK, Yunus M, Clemens J. Natural cholera infection-derived immunity in an endemic setting. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(6):912–8. pmid:21849288
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Deen JL, von Seidlein L, Sur D, Agtini M, Lucas MES, Lopez AL, et al. The high burden of cholera in children: comparison of incidence from endemic areas in Asia and Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2(2):e173. pmid:18299707
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Final report of the independent panel of experts on the cholera outbreak in Haiti. ReliefWeb. https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/final-report-independent-panel-experts-cholera-outbreak-haiti
15. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. Cholera Outbreak Response Field Manual. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. https://www.gtfcc.org/resources/gtfcc-cholera-outbreak-response-field-manual/
16. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. Interim Technical Note Use of Antibiotics for the Treatment and Control of Cholera. 2022. https://www.gtfcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/gtfcc-technical-note-on-use-of-antibiotics-for-the-treatment-of-cholera-1.pdf
17. Leibovici-Weissman Y, Neuberger A, Bitterman R, Sinclair D, Salam MA, Paul M. Antimicrobial drugs for treating cholera. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(6):CD008625. pmid:24944120
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Janelle SJ, Kainer MA, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial use in US acute care hospitals, May-September 2011. JAMA. 2014;312(14):1438–46. pmid:25291579
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Mo Y, Oonsivilai M, Lim C, Niehus R, Cooper BS. Implications of reducing antibiotic treatment duration for antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings: A modelling study and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2023;20(6):e1004013. pmid:37319169
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Alexandrova L, Haque F, Rodriguez P, Marrazzo AC, Grembi JA, Ramachandran V, et al. Identification of Widespread Antibiotic Exposure in Patients With Cholera Correlates With Clinically Relevant Microbiota Changes. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(10):1655–66. pmid:31192364
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Islam MT, Hegde ST, Khan AI, Bhuiyan MTR, Khan ZH, Ahmmed F, et al. National Hospital-Based Sentinel Surveillance for Cholera in Bangladesh: Epidemiological Results from 2014 to 2021. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2023;109(3):575–83. pmid:37580033
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Mannan A, Chakma K, Dewan G, Saha A, Chy NUHA, Mehedi HMH, et al. Prevalence and determinants of antibiotics self-medication among indigenous people of Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2024;14(3):e071504. pmid:38448060
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. LaPrete CR, Ahmed SM, Toth DJA, Reimer JR, Vaughn VM, Adler FR, et al. A Theoretical Framework to Quantify the Tradeoff Between Individual and Population Benefits of Expanded Antibiotic Use. Bull Math Biol. 2025;87(6):68. pmid:40304831
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Wang W, Nie Y, Li W, Lin T, Shang MS, Su S. Epidemic spreading on higher-order networks. Phys Rep. 2024;1056:1–70.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Sun GQ, He R, Hou LF, Luo X, Gao S, Chang L, et al. Optimal control of spatial diseases spreading in networked reaction–diffusion systems. Phys Rep. 2025;1111:1–64.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Anteneh LM, Lokonon BE, Kakaï RG. Modelling techniques in cholera epidemiology: A systematic and critical review. Math Biosci. 2024;373:109210. pmid:38777029
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Wang J. Mathematical Models for Cholera Dynamics-A Review. Microorganisms. 2022;10(12):2358. pmid:36557611
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Miller Neilan RL, Schaefer E, Gaff H, Fister KR, Lenhart S. Modeling optimal intervention strategies for cholera. Bull Math Biol. 2010;72(8):2004–18. pmid:20204710
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Posny D, Wang J, Mukandavire Z, Modnak C. Analyzing transmission dynamics of cholera with public health interventions. Math Biosci. 2015;264:38–53. pmid:25829146
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Wang W, Lou Y, Wang X. Modeling cholera transmission dynamics with antibiotic resistance and mutation: A case study in Zimbabwe. Math Biosci. 2025;390:109545. pmid:41043584
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Smirnova A, Sterrett N, Mujica OJ, Munayco C, Suárez L, Viboud C, et al. Spatial dynamics and the basic reproduction number of the 1991-1997 Cholera epidemic in Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(7):e0008045. pmid:32663235
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Chao DL, Halloran ME, Longini IM Jr. Vaccination strategies for epidemic cholera in Haiti with implications for the developing world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(17):7081–5. pmid:21482756
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Che EN, Kang Y, Yakubu A-A. Risk structured model of cholera infections in Cameroon. Math Biosci. 2020;320:108303. pmid:31857092
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Mukandavire Z, Liao S, Wang J, Gaff H, Smith DL, Morris JG Jr. Estimating the reproductive numbers for the 2008-2009 cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(21):8767–72. pmid:21518855
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Peak CM, Reilly AL, Azman AS, Buckee CO. Prolonging herd immunity to cholera via vaccination: Accounting for human mobility and waning vaccine effects. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(2):e0006257. pmid:29489815
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Yang CY, Wang J. A cholera transmission model incorporating the impact of medical resources. Math Biosci Eng. 2019;16(5):5226–46. pmid:31499710
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Mukandavire Z, Manangazira P, Nyabadza F, Cuadros DF, Musuka G, Morris JG Jr. Stemming cholera tides in Zimbabwe through mass vaccination. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;96:222–7. pmid:32371191
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Mukandavire Z, Smith DL, Morris JG Jr. Cholera in Haiti: reproductive numbers and vaccination coverage estimates. Sci Rep. 2013;3:997. pmid:23308338
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Tuite AR, Tien J, Eisenberg M, Earn DJD, Ma J, Fisman DN. Cholera epidemic in Haiti, 2010: using a transmission model to explain spatial spread of disease and identify optimal control interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):593–601. pmid:21383314
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Azman AS, Rudolph KE, Cummings DAT, Lessler J. The incubation period of cholera: a systematic review. J Infect. 2013;66(5):432–8. pmid:23201968
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Weil AA, Khan AI, Chowdhury F, Larocque RC, Faruque ASG, Ryan ET, et al. Clinical outcomes in household contacts of patients with cholera in Bangladesh. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(10):1473–9. pmid:19842974
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Hartley DM, Morris JG Jr, Smith DL. Hyperinfectivity: a critical element in the ability of V. cholerae to cause epidemics?. PLoS Med. 2006;3(1):e7. pmid:16318414
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Pan American Health Organization. Response to Haiti’s Earthquake in 2010. Pan American Health Organization. https://www.paho.org/en/response-haitis-earthquake-2010
44. Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Blokesch M, et al. Prediction of the spatial evolution and effects of control measures for the unfolding Haiti cholera outbreak. Geophys Res Lett. 2011;38(6):n/a-n/a.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Meszaros VA, Miller-Dickson MD, Baffour-Awuah F Junior, Almagro-Moreno S, Ogbunugafor CB. Direct transmission via households informs models of disease and intervention dynamics in cholera. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0229837. pmid:32163436
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Greenough WB 3rd, Gordon RS Jr, Rosenberg IS, Davies BI, Benenson AS. Tetracycline in the treatment of cholera. Lancet. 1964;1(7329):355–7. pmid:14090856
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Lindenbaum J, Greenough WB, Islam MR. Antibiotic therapy of cholera in children. Bull World Health Organ. 1967;37(4):529–38. pmid:5301733
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Wallace CK, Anderson PN, Brown TC, Khanra SR, Lewis GW, Pierce NF, et al. Optimal antibiotic therapy in cholera. Bull World Health Organ. 1968;39(2):239–45. pmid:4881071
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Lee EC, Kelly MR Jr, Ochocki BM, Akinwumi SM, Hamre KES, Tien JH, et al. Model distinguishability and inference robustness in mechanisms of cholera transmission and loss of immunity. J Theor Biol. 2017;420:68–81. pmid:28130096
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Dangbé E, Irépran D, Perasso A, Békollé D. Mathematical modelling and numerical simulations of the influence of hygiene and seasons on the spread of cholera. Math Biosci. 2018;296:60–70. pmid:29246773
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. World Health Organization. Cholera Fact Sheet. 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera
52. Chao DL, Longini IM Jr, Morris JG Jr. Modeling cholera outbreaks. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2014;379:195–209. pmid:23412687
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Fung IC-H. Cholera transmission dynamic models for public health practitioners. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2014;11(1):1. pmid:24520853
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2021.
55. Drake JM, Rohani P. Sensitivity analysis of deterministic models through Latin hypercube sampling: A model for transmission of HIV among homosexual men. A model for the transmission of HIV among homosexual men. 2023;1:1.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Wu J, Dhingra R, Gambhir M, Remais JV. Sensitivity analysis of infectious disease models: methods, advances and their application. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(86):20121018. pmid:23864497
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. LaPrete CR, Ahmed SM, Toth DJA, Reimer JR, Vaughn VM, Adler FR, et al. A theoretical framework to quantify the tradeoff between individual and population benefits of expanded antibiotic use. openRxiv. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.28.24312731
58. Biswas M, Roy MN, Manik MIN, Hossain MS, Tapu SMTA, Moniruzzaman M, et al. Self medicated antibiotics in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional health survey conducted in the Rajshahi City. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:847. pmid:25124712
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Jamil S, Shariff S, Kantawala B, Satapathy P, Nazli Khatib M, Gaidhane S, et al. Self-medication in Bangladesh: significance of drug control and distribution by pharmacists. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2024;7(2).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Bwire G, Waniaye JB, Otim JS, Matseketse D, Kagirita A, Orach CG. Cholera risk in cities in Uganda: understanding cases and contacts centered strategy (3CS) for rapid cholera outbreak control. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;39:193. pmid:34603574
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Ouamba JP, Mbarga NF, Ciglenecki I, Ratnayake R, Tchiasso D, Finger F, et al. Implementation of targeted cholera response activities, Cameroon. Bull World Health Organ. 2023;101(3):170–8. pmid:36865607
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Ratnayake R, Peyraud N, Ciglenecki I, Gignoux E, Lightowler M, Azman AS, et al. Effectiveness of case-area targeted interventions including vaccination on the control of epidemic cholera: protocol for a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e061206. pmid:35793924
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Kraemer MUG, Tsui JL-H, Chang SY, Lytras S, Khurana MP, Vanderslott S, et al. Artificial intelligence for modelling infectious disease epidemics. Nature. 2025;638(8051):623–35. pmid:39972226
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Hegde ST, Khan AI, Perez-Saez J, Khan II, Hulse JD, Islam MT, et al. Clinical surveillance systems obscure the true cholera infection burden in an endemic region. Nat Med. 2024;30(3):888–95. pmid:38378884
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Finger F, Lemaitre J, Juin S, Jackson B, Funk S, Lessler J, et al. Inferring the proportion of undetected cholera infections from serological and clinical surveillance in an immunologically naive population. medRxiv. 2023;:2023.11.01.23297461. pmid:37961651
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. World Health Organization. Cholera Fact Sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera

[ref2] 2. Kanungo S, Azman AS, Ramamurthy T, Deen J, Dutta S. Cholera. The Lancet. 2022;399:1429–40.
View Article
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Azman AS, Lauer SA, Bhuiyan TR, Luquero FJ, Leung DT, Hegde ST, et al. Vibrio cholerae O1 transmission in Bangladesh: insights from a nationally representative serosurvey. Lancet Microbe. 2020;1(8):e336–43. pmid:33345203
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Mosley WH, Benenson AS, Barui R. A serological survey for cholera antibodies in rural East Pakistan. Bull World Health Organ. 1968;38:335.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Weil AA, Begum Y, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, Leung DT, LaRocque RC, et al. Bacterial shedding in household contacts of cholera patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(4):738–42. pmid:25114012
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. About cholera. Cholera. https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/about/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/general/index.html

[ref7] 7. Ali M, Nelson AR, Lopez AL, Sack DA. Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(6):e0003832. pmid:26043000
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Cholera – Global situation. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON426

[ref9] 9. World Health Organization. Multi-country outbreak of cholera, external situation report #32 – 26 November 2025. 2025.

[ref10] 10. Cholera is endangering children globally. https://www.unicef.org/stories/cholera-is-endangering-children-globally

[ref11] 11. Hoque M, Deok M, Kim R, Ahmmed F, Islam T, Im J. Sustained protection conferred by natural cholera against recurrent cholera in an endemic setting. Lancet Microbe. 2023.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Ali M, Emch M, Park JK, Yunus M, Clemens J. Natural cholera infection-derived immunity in an endemic setting. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(6):912–8. pmid:21849288
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Deen JL, von Seidlein L, Sur D, Agtini M, Lucas MES, Lopez AL, et al. The high burden of cholera in children: comparison of incidence from endemic areas in Asia and Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2(2):e173. pmid:18299707
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Final report of the independent panel of experts on the cholera outbreak in Haiti. ReliefWeb. https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/final-report-independent-panel-experts-cholera-outbreak-haiti

[ref15] 15. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. Cholera Outbreak Response Field Manual. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. https://www.gtfcc.org/resources/gtfcc-cholera-outbreak-response-field-manual/

[ref16] 16. Global Task Force on Cholera Control. Interim Technical Note Use of Antibiotics for the Treatment and Control of Cholera. 2022. https://www.gtfcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/gtfcc-technical-note-on-use-of-antibiotics-for-the-treatment-of-cholera-1.pdf

[ref17] 17. Leibovici-Weissman Y, Neuberger A, Bitterman R, Sinclair D, Salam MA, Paul M. Antimicrobial drugs for treating cholera. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(6):CD008625. pmid:24944120
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Janelle SJ, Kainer MA, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial use in US acute care hospitals, May-September 2011. JAMA. 2014;312(14):1438–46. pmid:25291579
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Mo Y, Oonsivilai M, Lim C, Niehus R, Cooper BS. Implications of reducing antibiotic treatment duration for antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings: A modelling study and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2023;20(6):e1004013. pmid:37319169
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Alexandrova L, Haque F, Rodriguez P, Marrazzo AC, Grembi JA, Ramachandran V, et al. Identification of Widespread Antibiotic Exposure in Patients With Cholera Correlates With Clinically Relevant Microbiota Changes. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(10):1655–66. pmid:31192364
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Islam MT, Hegde ST, Khan AI, Bhuiyan MTR, Khan ZH, Ahmmed F, et al. National Hospital-Based Sentinel Surveillance for Cholera in Bangladesh: Epidemiological Results from 2014 to 2021. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2023;109(3):575–83. pmid:37580033
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Mannan A, Chakma K, Dewan G, Saha A, Chy NUHA, Mehedi HMH, et al. Prevalence and determinants of antibiotics self-medication among indigenous people of Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2024;14(3):e071504. pmid:38448060
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. LaPrete CR, Ahmed SM, Toth DJA, Reimer JR, Vaughn VM, Adler FR, et al. A Theoretical Framework to Quantify the Tradeoff Between Individual and Population Benefits of Expanded Antibiotic Use. Bull Math Biol. 2025;87(6):68. pmid:40304831
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Wang W, Nie Y, Li W, Lin T, Shang MS, Su S. Epidemic spreading on higher-order networks. Phys Rep. 2024;1056:1–70.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Sun GQ, He R, Hou LF, Luo X, Gao S, Chang L, et al. Optimal control of spatial diseases spreading in networked reaction–diffusion systems. Phys Rep. 2025;1111:1–64.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Anteneh LM, Lokonon BE, Kakaï RG. Modelling techniques in cholera epidemiology: A systematic and critical review. Math Biosci. 2024;373:109210. pmid:38777029
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Wang J. Mathematical Models for Cholera Dynamics-A Review. Microorganisms. 2022;10(12):2358. pmid:36557611
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Miller Neilan RL, Schaefer E, Gaff H, Fister KR, Lenhart S. Modeling optimal intervention strategies for cholera. Bull Math Biol. 2010;72(8):2004–18. pmid:20204710
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Posny D, Wang J, Mukandavire Z, Modnak C. Analyzing transmission dynamics of cholera with public health interventions. Math Biosci. 2015;264:38–53. pmid:25829146
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Wang W, Lou Y, Wang X. Modeling cholera transmission dynamics with antibiotic resistance and mutation: A case study in Zimbabwe. Math Biosci. 2025;390:109545. pmid:41043584
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Smirnova A, Sterrett N, Mujica OJ, Munayco C, Suárez L, Viboud C, et al. Spatial dynamics and the basic reproduction number of the 1991-1997 Cholera epidemic in Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(7):e0008045. pmid:32663235
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Chao DL, Halloran ME, Longini IM Jr. Vaccination strategies for epidemic cholera in Haiti with implications for the developing world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(17):7081–5. pmid:21482756
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Che EN, Kang Y, Yakubu A-A. Risk structured model of cholera infections in Cameroon. Math Biosci. 2020;320:108303. pmid:31857092
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Mukandavire Z, Liao S, Wang J, Gaff H, Smith DL, Morris JG Jr. Estimating the reproductive numbers for the 2008-2009 cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(21):8767–72. pmid:21518855
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Peak CM, Reilly AL, Azman AS, Buckee CO. Prolonging herd immunity to cholera via vaccination: Accounting for human mobility and waning vaccine effects. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(2):e0006257. pmid:29489815
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Yang CY, Wang J. A cholera transmission model incorporating the impact of medical resources. Math Biosci Eng. 2019;16(5):5226–46. pmid:31499710
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Mukandavire Z, Manangazira P, Nyabadza F, Cuadros DF, Musuka G, Morris JG Jr. Stemming cholera tides in Zimbabwe through mass vaccination. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;96:222–7. pmid:32371191
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Mukandavire Z, Smith DL, Morris JG Jr. Cholera in Haiti: reproductive numbers and vaccination coverage estimates. Sci Rep. 2013;3:997. pmid:23308338
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Tuite AR, Tien J, Eisenberg M, Earn DJD, Ma J, Fisman DN. Cholera epidemic in Haiti, 2010: using a transmission model to explain spatial spread of disease and identify optimal control interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):593–601. pmid:21383314
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Azman AS, Rudolph KE, Cummings DAT, Lessler J. The incubation period of cholera: a systematic review. J Infect. 2013;66(5):432–8. pmid:23201968
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Weil AA, Khan AI, Chowdhury F, Larocque RC, Faruque ASG, Ryan ET, et al. Clinical outcomes in household contacts of patients with cholera in Bangladesh. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(10):1473–9. pmid:19842974
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Hartley DM, Morris JG Jr, Smith DL. Hyperinfectivity: a critical element in the ability of V. cholerae to cause epidemics?. PLoS Med. 2006;3(1):e7. pmid:16318414
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Pan American Health Organization. Response to Haiti’s Earthquake in 2010. Pan American Health Organization. https://www.paho.org/en/response-haitis-earthquake-2010

[ref44] 44. Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Blokesch M, et al. Prediction of the spatial evolution and effects of control measures for the unfolding Haiti cholera outbreak. Geophys Res Lett. 2011;38(6):n/a-n/a.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Meszaros VA, Miller-Dickson MD, Baffour-Awuah F Junior, Almagro-Moreno S, Ogbunugafor CB. Direct transmission via households informs models of disease and intervention dynamics in cholera. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0229837. pmid:32163436
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Greenough WB 3rd, Gordon RS Jr, Rosenberg IS, Davies BI, Benenson AS. Tetracycline in the treatment of cholera. Lancet. 1964;1(7329):355–7. pmid:14090856
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Lindenbaum J, Greenough WB, Islam MR. Antibiotic therapy of cholera in children. Bull World Health Organ. 1967;37(4):529–38. pmid:5301733
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Wallace CK, Anderson PN, Brown TC, Khanra SR, Lewis GW, Pierce NF, et al. Optimal antibiotic therapy in cholera. Bull World Health Organ. 1968;39(2):239–45. pmid:4881071
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Lee EC, Kelly MR Jr, Ochocki BM, Akinwumi SM, Hamre KES, Tien JH, et al. Model distinguishability and inference robustness in mechanisms of cholera transmission and loss of immunity. J Theor Biol. 2017;420:68–81. pmid:28130096
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Dangbé E, Irépran D, Perasso A, Békollé D. Mathematical modelling and numerical simulations of the influence of hygiene and seasons on the spread of cholera. Math Biosci. 2018;296:60–70. pmid:29246773
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. World Health Organization. Cholera Fact Sheet. 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera

[ref52] 52. Chao DL, Longini IM Jr, Morris JG Jr. Modeling cholera outbreaks. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2014;379:195–209. pmid:23412687
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Fung IC-H. Cholera transmission dynamic models for public health practitioners. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2014;11(1):1. pmid:24520853
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2021.

[ref55] 55. Drake JM, Rohani P. Sensitivity analysis of deterministic models through Latin hypercube sampling: A model for transmission of HIV among homosexual men. A model for the transmission of HIV among homosexual men. 2023;1:1.
View Article
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Wu J, Dhingra R, Gambhir M, Remais JV. Sensitivity analysis of infectious disease models: methods, advances and their application. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(86):20121018. pmid:23864497
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. LaPrete CR, Ahmed SM, Toth DJA, Reimer JR, Vaughn VM, Adler FR, et al. A theoretical framework to quantify the tradeoff between individual and population benefits of expanded antibiotic use. openRxiv. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.28.24312731

[ref58] 58. Biswas M, Roy MN, Manik MIN, Hossain MS, Tapu SMTA, Moniruzzaman M, et al. Self medicated antibiotics in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional health survey conducted in the Rajshahi City. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:847. pmid:25124712
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[187] View Article

[188] PubMed/NCBI

[189] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Jamil S, Shariff S, Kantawala B, Satapathy P, Nazli Khatib M, Gaidhane S, et al. Self-medication in Bangladesh: significance of drug control and distribution by pharmacists. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2024;7(2).
View Article
Google Scholar

[191] View Article

[192] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Bwire G, Waniaye JB, Otim JS, Matseketse D, Kagirita A, Orach CG. Cholera risk in cities in Uganda: understanding cases and contacts centered strategy (3CS) for rapid cholera outbreak control. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;39:193. pmid:34603574
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[194] View Article

[195] PubMed/NCBI

[196] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Ouamba JP, Mbarga NF, Ciglenecki I, Ratnayake R, Tchiasso D, Finger F, et al. Implementation of targeted cholera response activities, Cameroon. Bull World Health Organ. 2023;101(3):170–8. pmid:36865607
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[198] View Article

[199] PubMed/NCBI

[200] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Ratnayake R, Peyraud N, Ciglenecki I, Gignoux E, Lightowler M, Azman AS, et al. Effectiveness of case-area targeted interventions including vaccination on the control of epidemic cholera: protocol for a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e061206. pmid:35793924
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[202] View Article

[203] PubMed/NCBI

[204] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Kraemer MUG, Tsui JL-H, Chang SY, Lytras S, Khurana MP, Vanderslott S, et al. Artificial intelligence for modelling infectious disease epidemics. Nature. 2025;638(8051):623–35. pmid:39972226
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[206] View Article

[207] PubMed/NCBI

[208] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Hegde ST, Khan AI, Perez-Saez J, Khan II, Hulse JD, Islam MT, et al. Clinical surveillance systems obscure the true cholera infection burden in an endemic region. Nat Med. 2024;30(3):888–95. pmid:38378884
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[210] View Article

[211] PubMed/NCBI

[212] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Finger F, Lemaitre J, Juin S, Jackson B, Funk S, Lessler J, et al. Inferring the proportion of undetected cholera infections from serological and clinical surveillance in an immunologically naive population. medRxiv. 2023;:2023.11.01.23297461. pmid:37961651
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[214] View Article

[215] PubMed/NCBI

[216] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

Methods

Model

Scenarios

Simulations

Epidemiologic outcomes

Results

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

References