Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;102:422-428. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.077. Epub 2020 Oct 29.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Transmission Assessment Surveys (TAS) to determine when an evaluation unit (EU) (a designated population survey area) has achieved elimination of transmission of the vector-borne macroparasitic disease Lymphatic Filariasis (LF). These determinations are based on combining data from multiple survey units within an EU; it is unclear how underlying cluster-level variation influences the outcome of the TAS at EU level. We simulate LF infection distribution in an EU and compare three methods for assessing whether LF elimination has occurred based on currently recommended decision thresholds and sampling methods.
We simulate an EU divided into clusters of varying size and disease prevalence. We produce 1000 samples according to LF TAS examples and WHO guidelines and compare three decision-making approaches: lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS) (recommended by WHO), one-sided interval estimate (CI), and n order statistic (MAX). Summary statistics demonstrating the "pass" rate for the EU under different disease transmission conditions are generated using a versatile SAS® macro.
As the prevalence of LF decreases, the LQAS and CI approaches produce increased likelihood of a pass outcome for an EU while some cluster units may still have a high likelihood of transmission. The MAX provides an alternative that increases the likelihood of determining a pass only once the whole area has a low likelihood of transmission. LQAS and CI approaches designed to estimate the LF prevalence in the EU miss hotspots that will continue to transmit infection while the MAX approach focuses on identifying clusters with high risk of transmission.
The current TAS methodology has a flaw that may result in false predictions of LF transmission interruption throughout an EU. Modifying the TAS methodology to address results from extreme clusters rather than being based on mean prevalence over an EU will result in greater success for global elimination of LF.
世界卫生组织(WHO)建议开展传播评估调查(TAS),以确定评估单元(EU)(指定的人群调查区域)是否已实现传播媒介传播的寄生虫病淋巴丝虫病(LF)的消除。这些确定是基于结合 EU 内多个调查单位的数据;尚不清楚潜在的聚类级别的变化如何影响 TAS 在 EU 级别上的结果。我们模拟 LF 感染在 EU 中的分布,并比较了三种方法,以根据当前推荐的决策阈值和抽样方法评估 LF 消除是否已发生。
我们模拟一个 EU,该 EU 分为不同大小和疾病流行率的聚类。我们根据 LF TAS 示例和 WHO 指南生成 1000 个样本,并比较了三种决策方法:批质量保证抽样(LQAS)(WHO 推荐),单侧区间估计(CI)和 n 阶统计量(MAX)。使用多功能 SAS®宏生成不同疾病传播条件下 EU 下“通过”率的汇总统计信息。
随着 LF 流行率的降低,LQAS 和 CI 方法使 EU 获得通过结果的可能性增加,而某些聚类单位仍可能具有较高的传播可能性。MAX 提供了一种替代方法,仅当整个区域的传播可能性较低时,才会增加确定通过的可能性。旨在估计 EU 中 LF 流行率的 LQAS 和 CI 方法会错过将继续传播感染的热点,而 MAX 方法则侧重于识别具有高传播风险的聚类。
当前的 TAS 方法存在缺陷,可能导致对整个 EU 中 LF 传播中断的错误预测。修改 TAS 方法以解决极端聚类的结果而不是基于 EU 上的平均流行率,将有助于全球消除 LF。