| Literature DB >> 22840314 |
Jennifer L Kwan1, Bborie K Park, Tim E Carpenter, Van Ngo, Rachel Civen, William K Reisen.
Abstract
In Los Angeles, California, USA, 2 epidemics of West Nile virus (WNV) disease have occurred since WNV was recognized in 2003. To assess which measure of risk was most predictive of human cases, we compared 3 measures: the California Mosquito-Borne Virus Surveillance and Response Plan Assessment, the vector index, and the Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system. A case-crossover study was performed by using symptom onset dates from 384 persons with WNV infection to determine their relative environmental exposure to high-risk conditions as measured by each method. Receiver-operating characteristic plots determined thresholds for each model, and the area under the curve was used to compare methods. We found that the best risk assessment model for human WNV cases included surveillance data from avian, mosquito, and climate sources.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22840314 PMCID: PMC3414020 DOI: 10.3201/eid1808.111558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Comparison of risk estimates to human case occurrence for WNF and WWND, Los Angeles, California, USA. A) CMVRA estimates by using Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus mosquitoes collected by gravid traps. Dashed lines refer to the risk assessment thresholds of emergency planning at 2.6 and epidemic at 4.1. B) Vector index calculated with Cx. p. quinquefasciatus collected by gravid traps. Lines show risk levels discussed in text. C) Weekly counts of positive DYCAST grid cells compared with human case counts. WNF, West Nile fever; WWND, West Nile neuroinvasive disease; CMVRA, California Mosquito-Borne Virus Risk Assessment; DYCAST, Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system.
First dates for risk assessment thresholds and onset of human West Nile disease, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2004–2010*
| Model | Threshold | Year | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold met | First case | |||
| CMVRA | 2.6, emergency planning | 2004 | Apr 30 | Jun 21 |
| 2005 | Jun 30 | Jul 5 | ||
| 2006 | Jul 31 | Jul 10 | ||
| 2007 | Jul 15 | Jul 20 | ||
| 2008 | Jun 15 | Jun 24 | ||
| 2009 | Jul 15 | Aug 18 | ||
| 2010 | Jun 30 | Sep 14 | ||
| 4.1, epidemic | 2004 | Aug 15 | Jun 21 | |
| 2005 | Jul 31 | Jul 5 | ||
| 2006 | Aug 31 | Jul 10 | ||
| 2007 | Sep 15 | Jul 20 | ||
| 2008 | Jul 31 | Jun 24 | ||
| 2009 | Not observed | Aug 18 | ||
| 2010 | Not observed | Sep 14 | ||
| Vector index | >0.018, 65th percentile | 2004 | Apr 15 | Jun 21 |
| 2005 | Jun 15 | Jul 5 | ||
| 2006 | May 15 | Jul 10 | ||
| 2007 | May 15 | Jul 20 | ||
| 2008 | May 30 | Jun 24 | ||
| 2009 | Jul 15 | Aug 18 | ||
| 2010 | Jul 15 | Sep 14 | ||
| >0.069, 80th percentile | 2004 | Apr 15 | Jun 21 | |
| 2005 | Jun 30 | Jul 5 | ||
| 2006 | Aug 15 | Jul 10 | ||
| 2007 | Jul 31 | Jul 20 | ||
| 2008 | Jul 15 | Jun 24 | ||
| 2009 | Aug 15 | Aug 18 | ||
| 2010 | Jul 31 | Sep 14 | ||
| DYCAST | Daily | 2004 | May 4 | Jun 21 |
| 2005 | Jun 12 | Jul 5 | ||
| 2006 | Oct 4 | Jul 10 | ||
| 2007 | Aug 13 | Jul 20 | ||
| 2008 | Jun 4 | Jun 24 | ||
| 2009 | Jun 20 | Aug 18 | ||
| 2010 | Apr 5 | Sep 14 | ||
| Weekly, wk. no. | 2004 | 18 | 26 | |
| 2005 | 24 | 28 | ||
| 2006 | 40 | 28 | ||
| 2007 | 33 | 29 | ||
| 2008 | 23 | 26 | ||
| 2009 | 24 | 34 | ||
| 2010 | 19 | 37 | ||
*CMVRA, California Mosquito-Borne Risk Assessment; DYCAST, Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system.
Comparison of CMVRA, vector index, and DYCAST for predicting risk for West Nile disease by the calculation threshold applied, validation method, and associated risk, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2004–2010*
| Model | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | LRP | LRN | Mantel-Haenszel RR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMVRA | ||||||
| 2.6 | 0.976 | 0.815 | 0.588 | 5.261 | 0.03 | 403.453 (70.506–2,308.659) |
| 4.1 | 0.317 | 1 | 1 | UND | 0.683 | 38.255 (29.425–49.736) |
| Vector index (percentile) | ||||||
| 0.018 (65) | 0.974 | 0.758 | 0.507 | 4.029 | 0.034 | 25.251 (18.120–35.033) |
| 0.041 (75) | 0.846 | 0.902 | 0.688 | 8.631 | 0.171 | 25.383 (18.350–35.112) |
| 0.095 (85) | 0.564 | 0.954 | 0.759 | 12.33 | 0.457 | 24.284 (17.503–33.692) |
| 0.276 (95) | 0.246 | 0.993 | 0.909 | 36.231 | 0.748 | 23.253 (16.878–32.036) |
| DYCAST | ||||||
| Daily | 0.268 | 0.165 | <0.001 | 0.321 | 4.443 | 10.112 (7.367–13.880) |
| Biweekly | 0.361 | 0.045 | 0.006 | 0.378 | 14.242 | 9.756 (7.764–12.258) |
*CMVRA, California Mosquito-Borne Virus Risk Assessment; DYCAST, Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system; PPV, positive predictive value; LRP, likelihood ratio positive; LRN, likelihood ratio negative; RR, relative risk; UND, undefined due to the high specificity.
Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of CMVRA calculated at the emergency planning threshold of 2.6, the vector index calculated at the 80th percentile, and DYCAST risk estimates aggregated weekly for detecting risk for West Nile disease, Los Angeles, California, USA*
| Model | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | Sen | Spe | |||||||
| CMVRA | 1 | 0.667 | 0.857 | 0.647 | 1 | 0.556 | 1 | 0.778 | 0.9 | 0.571 | 1 | 0.857 | 1 | 0.913 | ||||||
| Vector index | 0.778 | 0.867 | 0.714 | 0.941 | 0.667 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 1 | 0.714 | 1 | 0.652 | ||||||
| DYCAST | 0.517 | 0.268 | 0.034 | 0.143 | 0 | 0 | 0.063 | 0 | 0 | 0.013 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
*CMVRA, California Mosquito-borne Virus Risk Assessment; DYCAST, Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system; sen, sensitivity; spe, specificity.
Figure 2Receiver operator characteristic curves for California Mosquito-Borne Virus Risk Assessment (A), vector index (B), and Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system (C), with labeled cutoff points for 2004–2008 data, Los Angeles, California, USA.