The risk associated with the accidental laboratory escape of potential pandemic pathogens is under the magnifying lens of research and policy making communities [
1,
2]. The recent debate on the genetic manipulation of highly virulent influenza viruses [
3,
4] has made clear the necessity for quantitative risk/benefit assessment before starting research projects involving biosafety level (BSL) 3 and 4 agents. According to data collected in 2010 and 2011, the number of BSL 4 laboratories worldwide is 38 [
5], mostly concentrated in the US (10) and Europe (14). The official number of BSL 3 facilities worldwide is unknown, since most laboratories where research on infectious diseases is carried out and many hospital laboratories operate at safety level 3. Their number, however, is of the order of several thousands: there were 1,362 in the US alone in 2008 [
6]. According to data collected in 2010, the number of US workers with approved access to biological select agent and toxin (BSAT) was 10,639 [
7]. From 2004 to 2010, 639 release reports were reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 11 of them reporting laboratory-acquired infections that, however, did not result in fatalities or secondary transmission [
7]. A list of recently reported laboratory-acquired infections is available (see [
8]). A rigorous risk assessment is a scientific challenge
per se [
9‐
11]. Although the estimates of the probability of accidental escape are relatively low (0.3% risk of release per lab per year [
11]), the increased number of laboratories working on BSL 3 and 4 agents gives rise to estimates projecting an appreciable combined escape risk of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP) in a 10-year window [
11]. In addition, for PPP, the relatively small risk of release has to be weighted against the size of the population that could be affected by such an event, the risk of severe or fatal cases and the likelihood of containment before the event could escalate to global proportions. Furthermore, the quantitative analysis of the post-release scenario is complicated by the different social and environmental settings that apply to the more than 1,500 BSL 3 and 4 laboratories around the world [
9].
Here, we perform a quantitative analysis of (accidental) post-release scenarios from a BSL facility, focusing on the likelihood of containment of the accidental release event. Although BSL 4 agents, such as Ebola virus and Marburg virus, are considered the most dangerous to handle because of the often fatal outcome of the disease, they are unlikely to generate global risk because of their inefficient mechanism of person-to-person transmission and other features of the natural history of the induced diseases [
12,
13]. It is therefore understood that the major threat of a pandemic escalation is provided by modified influenza viruses [
10], and for this reason we focused our work on the accidental release of novel influenza strain in a densely populated area of Europe. We used a highly detailed agent-based model that specifically considers laboratory workers and their household in order to test the detailed implementation of non-pharmaceutical containment measures in the very early stage of the release/outbreak scenario. The model allowed analysis of the progression of the epidemic at the level of single individual. We could therefore assess the likelihood of containment as a function of a wide range of interventions, and provide a discussion of different geographical settings (for example, rural vs urban seeding) by analyzing the effects of population density and structure. Differently from methods employed to estimate the probability of containing naturally emerging pathogens at the source, here we assumed that epidemiological surveillance is presumably enhanced in areas where BSL laboratories are located, thus increasing the likelihood of quickly detecting symptomatic cases. Moreover, we assumed that this makes it possible to put in place intervention measures (for example, social distancing measures and contact tracing) at the very beginning of the epidemic. A number of factors determine the controllability of an outbreak, including the uncertainty in the efficacy of the containment policies recorded in the literature. For this reason we performed a very extensive sensitivity analysis on the efficacy of implemented policies and the disease natural history. In terms of specific interventions implemented, our analysis is inspired by the experience of an accidental release of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in August 2003 from a laboratory in Singapore [
14]: a total of 8 household contacts, 2 community contacts, 32 hospital contacts, and 42 work contacts were identified, of whom 25 were placed under home quarantine. Both laboratories where the patient had worked were closed as a precautionary measure. Specifically as regards contact tracing, its efficacy for tuberculosis (TB) is ascertained (large-scale studies tracing contacts of TB patients in the US and Canada found high incidence rates of active TB (200 to 2,200 cases per 100,000 individuals) against 5 to 10 per 100,000 in the general population [
15‐
17]). In contrast, contact tracing was performed in the case (described above) of accidental release of SARS and in another case of SARS [
18] (1,000 persons traced), but no secondary infections were detected. The two most critical quantities affecting the temporal pattern of spread of influenza viruses, and containment probabilities as well, are the generation time (the distribution of the time interval between infection of a primary case and infection of a secondary case caused by the primary case), and the basic reproduction number R
0. We analyzed different scenarios by assuming transmissibility comparable to that observed in past influenza pandemics, for example, the 2009 H1N1 virus (namely R
0 or effective transmissibility in the range 1.2 to 1.6 [
19‐
24]) or 1918 Spanish influenza (R
0 = 1.8 or higher [
25]), and generation time distributions consistent with current estimates for influenza (in the range 2.5 to 4 days [
23,
26‐
29]). Beyond these factors, intervention efficacy depends on probability of developing clinical symptoms and length of the incubation period, as they affect, respectively, the probability of detecting cases and the probability of stopping the transmission chain through rapid identification of secondary cases. All these factors make influenza different from other potential pandemic pathogens. For instance, SARS is characterized by a very long incubation period (1 to 2 days for influenza, up to 10 days for SARS [
30]) and by a low proportion of infections generated by asymptomatic infections (up to 50% for influenza, negligible for SARS [
30]). The R
0 of SARS was estimated to be slightly larger than that of influenza, namely in the range 2 to 3 [
30]. Smallpox, similar to SARS, is another potentially pandemic pathogen characterized by a low proportion of infections generated by asymptomatic infections [
30], though characterized by a larger R
0 (in the range of 5 to 10 [
30]). In contrast, Marburg hemorrhagic fever is characterized by a low R
0 (about 1.5 [
12]) and short incubation period (about 2 days, with an overall generation time of 8 to 10 days [
12]).