Steven Russell1, Kyle Ryff2, Carolyn Gould3, Stacey Martin3, Michael Johansson4. 1. Division of Global Health Protection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. 2. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States. 3. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. 4. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States; Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The 2015-2017 Zika virus (ZIKV) epidemic in the Americas has driven efforts to strengthen surveillance systems and to develop interventions, testing, and travel recommendations. In the continental U.S. and Hawaii, where limited transmission has been observed, detecting local transmission is a key public health objective. We assessed the effectiveness of three general surveillance strategies for this situation: testing all pregnant women twice during pregnancy, testing blood donations, and testing symptomatic people who seek medical care in an emergency department (ED). METHODS: We developed a simulation model for each surveillance strategy and simulated different transmission scenarios with varying population sizes and infection rates. We then calculated the probability of detecting transmission, the number of tests needed, and the number of false positive test results. RESULTS: The probability of detecting ZIKV transmission was highest for testing ED patients with Zika symptoms, followed by pregnant women and blood donors, in that order. The magnitude of the difference in probability of detection between strategies depended on the incidence of infection. Testing ED patients required fewer tests and resulted in fewer false positives than surveillance among pregnant women. The optimal strategy identified was to test ED patients with at least two Zika virus disease symptoms. This case definition resulted in a high probability of detection with relatively few tests and false positives. DISCUSSION: In the continental U.S. and Hawaii, where local ZIKV transmission is rare, optimizing the probability of detecting infections while minimizing resource usage is particularly important. Local surveillance strategies will be influenced by existing public health system infrastructure, but should also consider the effectiveness of different approaches. This analysis demonstrated differences across strategies and indicated that testing symptomatic ED patients is generally a more efficient strategy for detecting transmission than routine testing of pregnant women or blood donors.
INTRODUCTION: The 2015-2017 Zika virus (ZIKV) epidemic in the Americas has driven efforts to strengthen surveillance systems and to develop interventions, testing, and travel recommendations. In the continental U.S. and Hawaii, where limited transmission has been observed, detecting local transmission is a key public health objective. We assessed the effectiveness of three general surveillance strategies for this situation: testing all pregnant women twice during pregnancy, testing blood donations, and testing symptomatic people who seek medical care in an emergency department (ED). METHODS: We developed a simulation model for each surveillance strategy and simulated different transmission scenarios with varying population sizes and infection rates. We then calculated the probability of detecting transmission, the number of tests needed, and the number of false positive test results. RESULTS: The probability of detecting ZIKV transmission was highest for testing ED patients with Zika symptoms, followed by pregnant women and blood donors, in that order. The magnitude of the difference in probability of detection between strategies depended on the incidence of infection. Testing ED patients required fewer tests and resulted in fewer false positives than surveillance among pregnant women. The optimal strategy identified was to test ED patients with at least two Zika virus disease symptoms. This case definition resulted in a high probability of detection with relatively few tests and false positives. DISCUSSION: In the continental U.S. and Hawaii, where local ZIKV transmission is rare, optimizing the probability of detecting infections while minimizing resource usage is particularly important. Local surveillance strategies will be influenced by existing public health system infrastructure, but should also consider the effectiveness of different approaches. This analysis demonstrated differences across strategies and indicated that testing symptomatic ED patients is generally a more efficient strategy for detecting transmission than routine testing of pregnant women or blood donors.
Authors: Emilio Dirlikov; Kyle R Ryff; Jomil Torres-Aponte; Dana L Thomas; Janice Perez-Padilla; Jorge Munoz-Jordan; Elba V Caraballo; Myriam Garcia; Marangely Olivero Segarra; Graciela Malave; Regina M Simeone; Carrie K Shapiro-Mendoza; Lourdes Romero Reyes; Francisco Alvarado-Ramy; Angela F Harris; Aidsa Rivera; Chelsea G Major; Marrielle Mayshack; Luisa I Alvarado; Audrey Lenhart; Miguel Valencia-Prado; Steve Waterman; Tyler M Sharp; Brenda Rivera-Garcia Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Matthew J Kuehnert; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Robin R Moseley; Lisa L Pate; Susan A Galel; Phillip C Williamson; Michael P Busch; Jose O Alsina; Consuelo Climent-Peris; Peter W Marks; Jay S Epstein; Hira L Nakhasi; J Peyton Hobson; David A Leiby; Pradip N Akolkar; Lyle R Petersen; Brenda Rivera-Garcia Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Ingrid B Rabe; J Erin Staples; Julie Villanueva; Kimberly B Hummel; Jeffrey A Johnson; Laura Rose; Susan Hills; Annemarie Wasley; Marc Fischer; Ann M Powers Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Elizabeth A Hunsperger; Sutee Yoksan; Philippe Buchy; Vinh Chau Nguyen; Shamala D Sekaran; Delia A Enria; Jose L Pelegrino; Susana Vázquez; Harvey Artsob; Michael Drebot; Duane J Gubler; Scott B Halstead; María G Guzmán; Harold S Margolis; Carl-Michael Nathanson; Nidia R Rizzo Lic; Kovi E Bessoff; Srisakul Kliks; Rosanna W Peeling Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: William J Lew; Wen-Yang Tsai; Venkataraman Balaraman; Kore Kai Liow; Jasmine Tyson; Wei-Kung Wang Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2019-04
Authors: Zachary J Madewell; Ryan R Hemme; Laura Adams; Roberto Barrera; Stephen H Waterman; Michael A Johansson Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2019-12-26
Authors: Kaiyuan Sun; Qian Zhang; Ana Pastore-Piontti; Matteo Chinazzi; Dina Mistry; Natalie E Dean; Diana Patricia Rojas; Stefano Merler; Piero Poletti; Luca Rossi; M Elizabeth Halloran; Ira M Longini; Alessandro Vespignani Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Simon Pollett; Caitlin H Kuklis; David A Barvir; Richard G Jarman; Rachel M Romaine; Brett M Forshey; Gregory D Gromowski Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-01-21