| Literature DB >> 30730979 |
Julia Ledien1, Kimsan Souv1,2, Rithea Leang2, Rekol Huy2, Anthony Cousien1,3, Muslim Peas1, Yves Froehlich1, Raphaël Duboz1,4, Sivuth Ong5, Veasna Duong5, Philippe Buchy6, Philippe Dussart5, Arnaud Tarantola1,7.
Abstract
Dengue is a national priority disease in Cambodia. The Cambodian National Dengue Surveillance System is based on passive surveillance of dengue-like inpatients reported by public hospitals and on a sentinel, pediatric hospital-based active surveillance system. This system works well to assess trends but the sensitivity of the early warning and time-lag to usefully inform hospitals can be improved. During The ECOnomic development, ECOsystem MOdifications, and emerging infectious diseases Risk Evaluation (ECOMORE) project's knowledge translation platforms, Cambodian hospital staff requested an early warning tool to prepare for major outbreaks. Our objective was therefore to find adapted tools to improve the early warning system and preparedness. Dengue data was provided by the National Dengue Control Program (NDCP) and are routinely obtained through passive surveillance. The data were analyzed at the provincial level for eight Cambodian provinces during 2008-2015. The R surveillance package was used for the analysis. We evaluated the effectiveness of Bayesian algorithms to detect outbreaks using count data series, comparing the current count to an expected distribution obtained from observations of past years. The analyses bore on 78,759 patients with dengue-like syndromes. The algorithm maximizing sensitivity and specificity for the detection of major dengue outbreaks was selected in each province. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 73% and 97%, respectively, for the detection of significant outbreaks during 2008-2015. Depending on the province, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 50% to 100% and 75% to 100%, respectively. The final algorithm meets clinicians' and decisionmakers' needs, is cost-free and is easy to implement at the provincial level.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30730979 PMCID: PMC6366704 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Dengue-like syndromes reported to CNM and confirmed by laboratory methods at IPC between 2012–2015 from the sentinel sites(Battambang, Kampot, Kampong Speu, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Cham, Kratie, Phnom Penh and Takeo referral hospitals) aggregated by week.
Parameters, sensitivity and specificity of the optimal Bayesian dengue sensor algorithm for the eight ECOMORE sentinel sites, 2012–2015, Cambodia.
| Province | Outbreak weekly threshold (n) | b | w | w0 | Se | Sp | Dist |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kampong Cham | 120 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 86.21 | 89.04 | 0.18 |
| Phnom Penh | 80 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 84.38 | 93.09 | 0.17 |
| Kratie | 10 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 76.19 | 96.51 | 0.24 |
| Takeo | 60 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 100 | 90.42 | 0.10 |
| Kampong Speu | 60 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 95.65 | 90.84 | 0.10 |
| Kampong Chhnang | 40 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 75.00 | 93.17 | 0.26 |
| Battambang | 20 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 94.55 | 93.81 | 0.08 |
| Kampot | 20 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 86.21 | 93.15 | 0.15 |
* number of previous years to include
** = for the previous year, the number of weeks to include around the week we are predicting
° = for current year the number of previous weeks to include
• Se = Sensitivity True Positives/(False Negatives + True Positives)
¤ Sp = Specificity True Negatives/ (True Negatives + False Positives)
◊ Dist = Euclidean distance between Se and 1-Sp.
Fig 2Dengue surveillance graphic of Phnom Penh province using the surveillance R-package Bayesian method with their parameters (b, w, w0), Cambodia, 2004–2015.
Characteristics of the ECOMORE-CNM dengue outbreak sensor by province studied for eight years (2008–2015), Cambodia.
| Province | TP | FP | TN | FN● (n) | PPV’ (%) | NPV” (%) | Se□ (%) | Sp◊ (%) | AvTΔ(n) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battambang | 3 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 100 | 80 | 75 | 100 | 3 |
| Kampot | 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 100 | 83 | 67 | 100 | 9 |
| Kampong Chhnang | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 75 | 80 | 100 | 6.5 |
| Kampong Cham | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 5 |
| Kampong Speu | 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 100 | 83 | 67 | 100 | 7.5 |
| Katie | 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 100 | 83 | 67 | 100 | 3.5 |
| Phnom Penh | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 100 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 4.5 |
| Takeo | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 2.5 |
| Overall | 22 | 1 | 35 | 6 | 96 | 85 | 72.6 | 96.9 | 5.2 (sd = 5.0) |
* TP: True Positive, number of years during which the alarm was flagged and the outbreak occurred
** FP: False Positive, number of years during which the alarm was flagged but the outbreak did not occur
○ TN: True Negative: number of years during which the alarm was not flagged and the outbreak did not occur
FN●: False Negative, number of years were the alarm was not flagged but the outbreak occurred
PPV’: Positive Predictive Value, TP/(TP+FP)
NPV”: Negative Predictive Value, TN/(TN+FN)
Se□: Sensitivity, TP/(TP+FN)
Sp◊: Specificity, TN/(TN+FP)
AvTΔ: average time in week elapsed between alert and outbreak