REPORTING PROGRESS ON THE USE OF THE WHO 2009 DENGUE CASE CLASSIFICATION: A REVIEW.

This review reports on the progress in the use of the WHO 2009 dengue case classification--dengue and severe dengue--following up on a previous review (Horstick et al, 2012). The previous review detailed Steps 1 - 5 in developing the 2009 WHO case classification. As a further step, a systematic review of published studies comparing the two classifications has been published with 12 studies and a further 10 expert opinion papers that recommend the use of the 2009 WHO dengue case classification for clinical management, epidemiology, and clinical research. Furthermore, a formal expert consensus was reached in La Habana, Cuba in 2013 with dengue experts from the Americas, sharing experiences that applied the 2009 WHO dengue case classification. The expert panel recommended to 1) update ICD10, 2) include the 2009 WHO case classification in country epidemiological reports globally, and 3) implement studies improving sensitivity/specificity of the dengue case definition.

INTERIM ANALYSIS OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF HIGH-LEVEL EVIDENCE FOR DENGUE VECTOR CONTROL.

This interim analysis reviews the available systematic literature for dengue vector control on three levels: 1) single and combined vector control methods, with existing work on peridomestic space spraying and on Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis; further work is available soon on the use of Temephos, Copepods and larvivorous fish; 2) or for a specific purpose, like outbreak control, and 3) on a strategic level, as for example decentralization vs centralization, with a systematic review on vector control organization. Clear best practice guidelines for methodology of entomological studies are needed. There is a need to include measuring dengue transmission data. The following recommendations emerge: Although vector control can be effective, implementation remains an issue; Single interventions are probably not useful; Combinations of interventions have mixed results; Careful implementation of vector control measures may be most important; Outbreak interventions are often applied with questionable effectiveness.

Sharing experiences: towards an evidence based model of dengue surveillance and outbreak response in Latin America and Asia.

BACKGROUND: The increasing frequency and intensity of dengue outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic countries requires a rational, evidence based response. To this end, we aimed to collate the experiences of a number of affected countries, identify strengths and limitations in dengue surveillance, outbreak preparedness, detection and response and contribute towards the development of a model contingency plan adaptable to country needs. METHODS: The study was undertaken in five Latin American (Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru) and five in Asian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Vietnam). A mixed-methods approach was used which included document analysis, key informant interviews, focus-group discussions, secondary data analysis and consensus building by an international dengue expert meeting organised by the World Health Organization, Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (WHO-TDR). RESULTS: Country information on dengue is based on compulsory notification and reporting ("passive surveillance"), with laboratory confirmation (in all participating Latin American countries and some Asian countries) or by using a clinical syndromic definition. Seven countries additionally had sentinel sites with active dengue reporting, some also had virological surveillance. Six had agreed a formal definition of a dengue outbreak separate to seasonal variation in case numbers. Countries collected data on a range of warning signs that may identify outbreaks early, but none had developed a systematic approach to identifying and responding to the early stages of an outbreak. Outbreak response plans varied in quality, particularly regarding the early response. The surge capacity of hospitals with recent dengue outbreaks varied; those that could mobilise additional staff, beds, laboratory support and resources coped best in comparison to those improvising a coping strategy during the outbreak. Hospital outbreak management plans were present in 9/22 participating hospitals in Latin-America and 8/20 participating hospitals in Asia. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation between countries was observed with regard to surveillance, outbreak detection, and response. Through discussion at the expert meeting, suggestions were made for the development of a more standardised approach in the form of a model contingency plan, with agreed outbreak definitions and country-specific risk assessment schemes to initiate early response activities according to the outbreak phase. This would also allow greater cross-country sharing of ideas.

WHO dengue case classification 2009 and its usefulness in practice: an expert consensus in the Americas.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the new World Health Organization (WHO) dengue case classification - dengue/severe dengue (D/SD) - was introduced, replacing the 1997 WHO dengue case classification: dengue fever/dengue haemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome (DF/DHF/DSS). METHODS: A 2-day expert consensus meeting in La Habana/Cuba aimed to (1) share the experiences from Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) member states when applying D/SD, (2) present national and local data using D/SD, and (3) agree with the presented evidence on a list of recommendations for or against the use of D/SD for PAHO, and also globally. RESULTS: Eight key questions were discussed, concluding: (1) D/SD is useful describing disease progression because it considers the dynamic nature of the disease, (2) D/SD helps defining dengue cases correctly for clinical studies, because it defines more precisely disease severity and allows evaluating dynamically the progression of cases, (3) D/SD describes correctly all clinical forms of severe dengue. Further standards need to be developed regionally, especially related to severe organ involvement, (4) D/SD allows for pathophysiological research identifying - in a sequential manner - the clinical manifestations of dengue related to pathophysiological events, (5) the warning signs help identifying early cases at risk of shock (children and adults), pathophysiology of the warning signs deserves further studies, (6) D/SD helps treating individual dengue cases and also the reorganization of health-care services for outbreak management, (7) D/SD helps diagnosing dengue, in presumptive diagnosis and follow-up of the disease, because of its high sensitivity and high negative predictive value (NPV), and (8) there is currently no update of the International Disease Classification10 (ICD10) to include the new classification of dengue (D/SD); therefore, there are not enough experiences of epidemiological reporting. Once D/SD has been implemented in epidemiological surveillance, D/SD allows to (1) identify severity of dengue cases in real time, for any decision-making on actions, (2) measure and compare morbidity and mortality in countries, and also globally, and (3) trigger contingency plans early, not only based on the number of reported cases but also on the reported severity of cases. CONCLUSION: The expert panel recommends to (1) update ICD10, (2) include D/SD in country epidemiological reports, and (3) implement studies improving sensitivity/specificity of the dengue case definition.

Comparing the usefulness of the 1997 and 2009 WHO dengue case classification: a systematic literature review.

The 1997 and 2009 WHO dengue case classifications were compared in a systematic review with 12 eligible studies (4 prospective). Ten expert opinion articles were used for discussion. For the 2009 WHO classification studies show: when determining severe dengue sensitivity ranges between 59-98% (88%/98%: prospective studies), specificity between 41-99% (99%: prospective study) - comparing the 1997 WHO classification: sensitivity 24.8-89.9% (24.8%/74%: prospective studies), specificity: 25%/100% (100%: prospective study). The application of the 2009 WHO classification is easy, however for (non-severe) dengue there may be a risk of monitoring increased case numbers. Warning signs validation studies are needed. For epidemiological/pathogenesis research use of the 2009 WHO classification, opinion papers show that ease of application, increased sensitivity (severe dengue) and international comparability are advantageous; 3 severe dengue criteria (severe plasma leakage, severe bleeding, severe organ manifestation) are useful research endpoints. The 2009 WHO classification has clear advantages for clinical use, use in epidemiology is promising and research use may at least not be a disadvantage.