Strengthening global health security by improving disease surveillance in remote rural areas of low-income and middle-income countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need to strengthen national surveillance systems to protect a globally connected world. In low-income and middle-income countries, zoonotic disease surveillance has advanced considerably in the past two decades. However, surveillance efforts often prioritise urban and adjacent rural communities. Communities in remote rural areas have had far less support despite having routine exposure to zoonotic diseases due to frequent contact with domestic and wild animals, and restricted access to health care. Limited disease surveillance in remote rural areas is a crucial gap in global health security. Although this point has been made in the past, practical solutions on how to implement surveillance efficiently in these resource-limited and logistically challenging settings have yet to be discussed. We highlight why investing in disease surveillance in remote rural areas of low-income and middle-income countries will benefit the global community and review current approaches. Using semi-arid regions in Kenya as a case study, we provide a practical approach by which surveillance in remote rural areas can be strengthened and integrated into existing systems. This Viewpoint represents a transition from simply highlighting the need for a more holistic approach to disease surveillance to a solid plan for how this outcome might be achieved.

Hospital-based evidence on cost-effectiveness of brucellosis diagnostic tests and treatment in Kenyan hospitals.

Hospitals in Kenya continue to use the Febrile Antigen Brucella Agglutination Test (FBAT) to diagnose brucellosis, despite reports showing its inadequacy. This study generated hospital-based evidence on the performance and cost-effectiveness of the FBAT, compared to the Rose Bengal Test (RBT).Twelve hospitals in western Kenya stored patient serum samples that were tested for brucellosis using the FBAT, and these were later re-tested using the RBT. Data on the running time and cost of the FBAT, and the treatment prescribed for brucellosis, were collected. The cost-effectiveness of the two tests, defined as the cost in US Dollars ($) per Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted, was determined, and a basic sensitivity analysis was run to identify the most influential parameters. Over a 6-month period, 180 patient serum samples that were tested with FBAT at the hospitals were later re-tested with RBT at the field laboratory. Of these 24 (13.3%) and 3 (1.7%) tested positive with FBAT and RBT, respectively. The agreement between the FBAT and RBT was slight (Kappa = 0.12). Treatment prescribed following FBAT positivity varied between hospitals, and only one hospital prescribed a standardized therapy regimen. The mean $/DALY averted when using the FBAT and RBT were $2,065 (95% CI $481-$6,736) and $304 (95% CI $126-$604), respectively. Brucellosis prevalence was the most influential parameter in the cost-effectiveness of both tests. Extrapolation to the national level suggested that an estimated $338,891 (95% CI $47,000-$1,149,000) per year is currently spent unnecessarily treating those falsely testing positive by FBAT. These findings highlight the potential for misdiagnosis using the FBAT. Furthermore, the RBT is cost-effective, and could be considered as the mainstay screening test for human brucellosis in this setting. Lastly, the treatment regimens must be harmonized to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics for treatment.