Opportunities and challenges for modelling epidemiological and evolutionary dynamics in a multihost, multiparasite system: Zoonotic hybrid schistosomiasis in West Africa

Multihost multiparasite systems are evolutionarily and ecologically dynamic, which presents substantial trans‐disciplinary challenges for elucidating their epidemiology and designing appropriate control. Evidence for hybridizations and introgressions between parasite species is gathering, in part in line with improvements in molecular diagnostics and genome sequencing. One major system where this is becoming apparent is within the Genus Schistosoma, where schistosomiasis represents a disease of considerable medical and veterinary importance, the greatest burden of which occurs in sub‐Saharan Africa. Interspecific hybridizations and introgressions bring an increased level of complexity over and above that already inherent within multihost, multiparasite systems, also representing an additional source of genetic variation that can drive evolution. This has the potential for profound implications for the control of parasitic diseases, including, but not exclusive to, widening host range, increased transmission potential and altered responses to drug therapy. Here, we present the challenging case example of haematobium group Schistosoma spp. hybrids in West Africa, a system involving multiple interacting parasites and multiple definitive hosts, in a region where zoonotic reservoirs of schistosomiasis were not previously considered to be of importance. We consider how existing mathematical model frameworks for schistosome transmission could be expanded and adapted to zoonotic hybrid systems, exploring how such model frameworks can utilize molecular and epidemiological data, as well as the complexities and challenges this presents. We also highlight the opportunities and value such mathematical models could bring to this and a range of similar multihost, multi and cross‐hybridizing parasites systems in our changing world

Interpreting ambiguous ‘trace’ results in Schistosoma mansoni CCA Tests: Estimating sensitivity and specificity of ambiguous results with no gold standard

Background The development of new diagnostics is an important tool in the fight against disease. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is used to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of tests in the absence of a gold standard. The main field diagnostic for Schistosoma mansoni infection, Kato-Katz (KK), is not very sensitive at low infection intensities. A point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) test has been shown to be more sensitive than KK. However, CCA can return an ambiguous ‘trace’ result between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’, and much debate has focused on interpretation of traces results. Methodology/Principle findings We show how LCA can be extended to include ambiguous trace results and analyse S. mansoni studies from both Côte d’Ivoire (CdI) and Uganda. We compare the diagnostic performance of KK and CCA and the observed results by each test to the estimated infection prevalence in the population. Prevalence by KK was higher in CdI (13.4%) than in Uganda (6.1%), but prevalence by CCA was similar between countries, both when trace was assumed to be negative (CCAtn: 11.7% in CdI and 9.7% in Uganda) and positive (CCAtp: 20.1% in CdI and 22.5% in Uganda). The estimated sensitivity of CCA was more consistent between countries than the estimated sensitivity of KK, and estimated infection prevalence did not significantly differ between CdI (20.5%) and Uganda (19.1%). The prevalence by CCA with trace as positive did not differ significantly from estimates of infection prevalence in either country, whereas both KK and CCA with trace as negative significantly underestimated infection prevalence in both countries. Conclusions Incorporation of ambiguous results into an LCA enables the effect of different treatment thresholds to be directly assessed and is applicable in many fields. Our results showed that CCA with trace as positive most accurately estimated infection prevalence

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

Publication and Reporting of Test Accuracy Studies Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Failure to publish and selective reporting are recognized problems in the biomedical literature, but their extent in the field of diagnostic testing is unknown. We aimed to identify nonpublication and discrepancies between registered records and publications among registered test accuracy studies. We identified studies evaluating a test's accuracy against a reference standard that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between January 2006 and December 2010. We included studies if their completion date was set before October 2011, allowing at least 18 months until publication. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science and contacted investigators for publications. We included 418 studies, of which 224 (54%) had been published by mid-2013. Among studies that had been completed at least 30 months before our analyses, 45% were published within 30 months after their completion. Publication rates were high in studies registered after study completion (76%) and low for studies with an unknown (rather than completed) study status (36%). After we excluded these 2 categories, study duration was the only characteristic significantly associated with publication, with lower rates in studies lasting up to 1 year (39%) compared to studies of 13-24 months (62%) or longer (67%) (P = 0.01). In the 153 published studies that had been registered before completion, 49 (32%) showed discrepancies between the registry and publication regarding inclusion criteria (n = 19), test/threshold (n = 9), and outcomes (n = 32). Failure to publish and selective reporting are prevalent in test accuracy studies. Their registration should be further promoted among researchers and journal editor

Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease : protocol for a systematic review

CITATION: Telford, L.H. et al. 2018. Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open, 8(2):e020140, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020140.The original publication is available at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/Introduction Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a preventable and treatable chronic condition which persists in many developing countries largely affecting impoverished populations. Handheld echocardiography presents an opportunity to address the need for more cost-effective methods of diagnosing RHD in developing countries, where the disease continues to carry high rates of morbidity and mortality. Preliminary studies have demonstrated moderate sensitivity as well as high specificity and diagnostic odds for detecting RHD in asymptomatic patients. We describe a protocol for a systematic review on the diagnostic performance of handheld echocardiography compared to standard echocardiography using the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria for diagnosing subclinical RHD. Methods and analysis Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost as well as reference lists and citations of relevant articles will be searched from 2012 to date using a predefined strategy incorporating a combination of Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords. The methodological validity and quality of studies deemed eligible for inclusion will be assessed against review specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria and information on metrics of diagnostic accuracy and demographics extracted. Forest plots of sensitivity and specificity as well as scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space will be used to investigate heterogeneity. If possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity using the Hierarchical Summary ROC method. In addition, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to investigate the effect of studies with a high risk of bias.Medtronic FoundationResearch Foundation of South Africa -- NRFSAPublishers versio

Variation in the observed effect of Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis on mortality: A systematic review and analysis of trial design considerations.

Most studies evaluating the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis (TB) concluded that it did not reduce overall mortality compared to usual care. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether key study design and execution features contributed to earlier identification of patients with TB and decreased pre-treatment loss to follow-up, thereby reducing the potential impact of Xpert MTB/RIF testing. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Scopus for literature published from 1 January 2009 to February 2019. We included all primary intervention studies that had evaluated the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on mortality compared to usual care in participants with presumptive pulmonary TB. We critically reviewed features of included studies across: Study setting and context, Study population, Participant recruitment and enrolment, Study procedures, and Study follow-up. We included seven randomised and one non-randomised study.  All included studies demonstrated relative reductions in overall mortality in the Xpert MTB/RIF arm ranging from 6% to 40%. However, mortality reduction was reported to be statistically significant in two studies. Study features that could explain the lack of observed effect on mortality included: the higher quality of care at study sites; inclusion of patients with a higher pre-test probability of TB leading to higher than expected empirical rates; performance of additional diagnostic testing not done in usual care leading to increased TB diagnosis or empiric treatment initiation; the recruitment of participants likely to return for follow-up; and involvement of study staff in ensuring adherence with care and follow-up. Most studies of Xpert MTB/RIF were designed and conducted in a manner that resulted in more patients being diagnosed and treated for TB, minimising the potential difference in mortality Xpert MTB/RIF testing could have achieved compared to usual care