SummaryBackgroundCholera remains a persistent health problem in sub-Saharan Africa and worldwide. Cholera can be controlled through appropriate water and sanitation, or by oral cholera vaccination, which provides transient (∼3 years) protection, although vaccine supplies remain scarce. We aimed to map cholera burden in sub-Saharan Africa and assess how geographical targeting could lead to more efficient interventions.MethodsWe combined information on cholera incidence in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding Djibouti and Eritrea) from 2010 to 2016 from datasets from WHO, Médecins Sans Frontières, ProMED, ReliefWeb, ministries of health, and the scientific literature. We divided the study region into 20 km × 20 km grid cells and modelled annual cholera incidence in each grid cell assuming a Poisson process adjusted for covariates and spatially correlated random effects. We combined these findings with data on population distribution to estimate the number of people living in areas of high cholera incidence (>1 case per 1000 people per year). We further estimated the reduction in cholera incidence that could be achieved by targeting cholera prevention and control interventions at areas of high cholera incidence.FindingsWe included 279 datasets covering 2283 locations in our analyses. In sub-Saharan Africa (excluding Djibouti and Eritrea), a mean of 141 918 cholera cases (95% credible interval [CrI] 141 538–146 505) were reported per year. 4·0% (95% CrI 1·7–16·8) of districts, home to 87·2 million people (95% CrI 60·3 million to 118·9 million), have high cholera incidence. By focusing on the highest incidence districts first, effective targeted interventions could eliminate 50% of the region's cholera by covering 35·3 million people (95% CrI 26·3 million to 62·0 million), which is less than 4% of the total population.InterpretationAlthough cholera occurs throughout sub-Saharan Africa, its highest incidence is concentrated in a small proportion of the continent. Prioritising high-risk areas could substantially increase the efficiency of cholera control programmes.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and other climate patterns can have profound impacts on the occurrence of infectious diseases ranging from dengue to cholera. In Africa, El Niño conditions are associated with increased rainfall in East Africa and decreased rainfall in southern Africa, West Africa, and parts of the Sahel. Because of the key role of water supplies in cholera transmission, a relationship between El Niño events and cholera incidence is highly plausible, and previous research has shown a link between ENSO patterns and cholera in Bangladesh. However, there is little systematic evidence for this link in Africa. Using high-resolution mapping techniques, we find that the annual geographic distribution of cholera in Africa from 2000 to 2014 changes dramatically, with the burden shifting to continental East Africa—and away from Madagascar and portions of southern, Central, and West Africa—where almost 50,000 additional cases occur during El Niño years. Cholera incidence during El Niño years was higher in regions of East Africa with increased rainfall, but incidence was also higher in some areas with decreased rainfall, suggesting a complex relationship between rainfall and cholera incidence. Here, we show clear evidence for a shift in the distribution of cholera incidence throughout Africa in El Niño years, likely mediated by El Niño’s impact on local climatic factors. Knowledge of this relationship between cholera and climate patterns coupled with ENSO forecasting could be used to notify countries in Africa when they are likely to see a major shift in their cholera risk.

The importance of spatial clusters, or “hotspots,” in infectious disease epidemiology has been increasingly recognized, and targeting hotspots is often seen as an important component of disease-control strategies. However, the precise meaning of “hotspot” varies widely in current research and policy documents. Hotspots have been variously described as areas of elevated incidence or prevalence, higher transmission efficiency or risk, or higher probability of disease emergence. This ambiguity has led to confusion and may result in mistaken inferences regarding the best way to target interventions. We surveyed the literature on epidemiologic hotspots, examining the multitude of ways in which the term is used; and highlight the difference in the geographic scale of hotspots and the properties they are supposed to have. In response to the diversity in the term's usage, we advocate the use of more precise terms, such as “burden hotspot,” “transmission hotspot,” and “emergence hotspot,” as well as explicit specification of the spatiotemporal scale of interest. Increased precision in terminology is needed to ensure clear and effective policies for disease control.

No abstract

Laboratory tests for lupus anticoagulants (LA) are commonly performed to evaluate thrombosis or suspected phospholipid antibody syndromes. To determine current LA testing practices, and if they conform to published recommendations, two questionnaires were distributed to clinical laboratory members of the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) and the ECAT Foundation (ECAT). The first and second questionnaires were completed by 113 and 96 laboratories, respectively. Commonly performed LA tests included the dilute Russell's viper venom time, LA sensitive activated partial thromboplastin time and hexagonal phospholipid test. Although some laboratories did single LA tests if requested, the majority complied with published recommendations: to use platelet poor plasma for LA tests; to use two or more screening tests, representing different assay principles, and one assay having a low phospholipid concentration to exclude LA; to confirm LA phospholipid dependency by the method giving an abnormal LA screen; to document the inhibitor activity on pooled normal plasma; and not to use phospholipid antibodies to confirm LA. A minority (<35%) followed the recommendations to exclude factor deficiencies and factor inhibitors as the cause of an abnormal LA test. After participating, 32% of laboratories had changed practices and 20% indicated that they would be changing practices. While most laboratories generally follow published guidelines for LA testing, few follow recommendations to evaluate for other coagulation abnormalities. Questionnaires may be helpful quality initiatives to improve compliance with laboratory testing guidelines and recommendations.