Search

Background: Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives: Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods: We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results: The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by >20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was >50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs. Conclusions: Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights: The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic sensitivities of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 assays depend on specimen type and population-specific viral loads. Evaluation of these assays require "direct" specimens from paired-swab studies rather than more accessible residual specimens in viral transport media (VTM). Methods: Residual VTM and limit-of-detection studies were conducted on Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19, Quidel Sofia 2™ SARS Antigen FIA, and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assays, with cycle threshold (CT) adjustments to approximate direct-specimen testing based on gene-target doubling each PCR cycle. Logistic regression was used to model assay performance by specimen CT. These models were applied to CT distributions of symptomatic and asymptomatic populations presenting to emergency services to predict the percentage of specimens that would be detected by each assay. A 96-sample paired-swab study was conducted to confirm model results. Results: When using direct nasopharyngeal samples and fit with either VTM or limit-of-detection data, percent positivities for ID NOW (symptomatic 94.9%/97.4%; asymptomatic 88.4.0%/89.6%) and Simplexa (symptomatic 97.8%/97.2%; asymptomatic 91.1%/90.8%) were predicted to be similar. Likewise, percent positivities for ID NOW with direct nasal specimens (symptomatic 77.8%; asymptomatic 64.5%) and, fit with VTM data, Sofia 2 with direct nasopharyngeal specimens (symptomatic 76.6%, asymptomatic 60.3%) were similar. The paired-swab study comparing direct nasopharyngeal specimens on ID NOW and nasopharyngeal VTM specimens on Simplexa showed 99% concordance. Conclusions: Assay performance can be modeled as dependent on viral load, fit using laboratory bench study results, and adjusted to account for direct-specimen testing. When using nasopharyngeal specimens, direct testing on Abbott ID NOW and VTM testing on DiaSorin Simplexa have similar performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the epidemiology and ecology of yellow fever in endemic regions is critical for preventing future outbreaks. Ghana is a high-risk country for yellow fever. In this study we estimate the disease burden, ecological cycles, and areas at risk for yellow fever in Ghana based on historical outbreaks. We identify 2387 cases and 888 deaths (case fatality rate 37.7%) from yellow fever reported in Ghana from 1910 to 2022. During the approximately 30-year periods before and after implementation of routine childhood vaccination in 1992, the reported mean annual number of cases decreased by 80%. The geographic distribution of yellow fever cases has also changed over the past century. While there have been multiple large historical outbreaks of yellow fever in regions throughout Ghana, recent outbreaks have originated in northern regions. Comparing the locations where yellow fever outbreaks have emerged, we find patterns with seasons and different ecological transmission cycles. Using an ecological niche modeling framework, we predict areas in Ghana that are similar to where prior yellow fever outbreaks have originated based on temperature, precipitation, vegetation, and human population density. We find that these predictions differ depending on the ecological cycles of outbreaks. Ultimately, these findings and methods could be used to inform further subnational risk assessments for yellow fever in Ghana and other high-risk countries., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Judson 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.)