Abstract
Background Cholera surveillance relies on clinical diagnosis of acute watery diarrhea. Suspected cholera case definitions have high sensitivity but low specificity, challenging our ability to characterize cholera burden and epidemiology. Our objective was to estimate the proportion of clinically suspected cholera that are true Vibrio cholerae infections and identify factors that explain variation in positivity.
Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies from 2000-2023 that tested ≥10 suspected cholera cases for V. cholerae O1/O139 using culture, PCR and/or a rapid diagnostic test. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar on October 16, 2021 and updated the search on April 19, 2023. We estimated diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity using a latent class meta-analysis. We estimated V. cholerae positivity using a random-effects meta-analysis, adjusting for test performance.
Findings We included 119 studies from 30 countries. V. cholerae positivity was lower in studies with representative sampling and lower minimum ages in suspected case definitions. After adjusting for test performance, on average 52% (95% Credible Interval: 24%, 80%) of suspected cases represented true V. cholerae infections. After adjusting for test performance and study methodology, odds of a suspected case having a true infection were 5.71 (Odds ratio 95% Credible Interval: 1.53, 15.43) times higher when surveillance was initiated in response to an outbreak than in non-outbreak settings. Variation across studies was high and a limitation of our approach and the resolution of the data was that we were unable to explain all the heterogeneity with study-level attributes, including diagnostic test used, setting, and case definitions.
Conclusions In this study, we found that burden estimates based on suspected cases alone may overestimate the incidence of medically attended cholera by twofold. However, accounting for cases missed by traditional clinical surveillance is key to unbiased cholera burden estimates. Given the substantial variability in positivity between settings, extrapolations from suspected to confirmed cases, which is necessary to estimate cholera incidence rates without exhaustive testing, should be based on local data.
Funding for this study was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
Why was this study done?
Cholera surveillance typically relies on the clinical diagnosis of acute watery diarrhea (i.e., “suspected cholera”), but this definition has a low specificity for cholera.
Our goal was to estimate the proportion of suspected cholera cases that are true Vibrio cholerae infections and identify factors that contribute to variation in observed positivity.
What did the researchers do and find?
We conducted a systematic review of studies from 2000-2023 that tested suspected cholera cases for V. cholerae infection using one of three different laboratory tests.
We included 119 studies from 30 countries and found that, on average, half of suspected cholera cases represented true V. cholerae infections, after accounting for laboratory test accuracy.
We also found high variability between studies and that the odds of a suspected case being a true infection were higher during outbreaks compared to non-outbreak settings.
What do these findings mean?
Our findings suggest that burden estimates based solely on suspected cases may overestimate the incidence of medically attended cholera by twofold.
A limitation of our approach was that we couldn’t account for cases missed by clinical surveillance, which is crucial for unbiased overall cholera burden estimates and an important area for future work.
The high variability across studies suggests also that local testing data should be used to inform assumptions about positivity when exhaustive testing is not feasible.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [grant number OPP1171700] and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease [grant number AI135115-01A1].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board and Temple University Institutional Review Board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We updated the literature search on April 19, 2023, which resulted in an additional 787 studies to screen, of which 7 were included and extracted. In updating the data and reexamining the model diagnostics, we found that we were likely over-constraining the model and, due to the high levels of variation in the data, some of the models were not well converged. Therefore, we adapted the model to better allow for these variable data in a manner that is reflected by the credible intervals. These updates have strengthened the manuscript but have not changed the overall conclusions of our study. In this revision, we emphasize this heterogeneity in cholera positivity more strongly.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and available online at https://github.com/HopkinsIDD/cholera_positivity.
