BackgroundIn view of the long term discussion on the appropriateness of the dengue classification into dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS), the World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined in its new global dengue guidelines a revised classification into levels of severity: dengue fever with an intermediary group of "dengue fever with warning sings", and severe dengue. The objective of this paper was to compare the two classification systems regarding applicability in clinical practice and surveillance, as well as user-friendliness and acceptance by health staff.MethodsA mix of quantitative (prospective and retrospective review of medical charts by expert reviewers, formal staff interviews), semi-quantitative (open questions in staff interviews) and qualitative methods (focus group discussions) were used in 18 countries. Quality control of data collected was undertaken by external monitors.ResultsThe applicability of the DF/DHF/DSS classification was limited, even when strict DHF criteria were not applied (13.7% of dengue cases could not be classified using the DF/DHF/DSS classification by experienced reviewers, compared to only 1.6% with the revised classification). The fact that some severe dengue cases could not be classified in the DF/DHF/DSS system was of particular concern. Both acceptance and perceived user-friendliness of the revised system were high, particularly in relation to triage and case management. The applicability of the revised classification to retrospective data sets (of importance for dengue surveillance) was also favourable. However, the need for training, dissemination and further research on the warning signs was highlighted.ConclusionsThe revised dengue classification has a high potential for facilitating dengue case management and surveillance.

BackgroundEarly diagnosis of dengue can assist patient triage and management and prevent unnecessary treatments and interventions. Commercially available assays that detect the dengue virus protein NS1 in the plasma/serum of patients offers the possibility of early and rapid diagnosis.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe sensitivity and specificity of the Pan-E Dengue Early ELISA and the Platelia™ Dengue NS1 Ag assays were compared against a reference diagnosis in 1385 patients in 6 countries in Asia and the Americas. Platelia was more sensitive (66%) than Pan-E (52%) in confirmed dengue cases. Sensitivity varied by geographic region, with both assays generally being more sensitive in patients from SE Asia than the Americas. Both kits were more sensitive for specimens collected within the first few days of illness onset relative to later time points. Pan-E and Platelia were both 100% specific in febrile patients without evidence of acute dengue. In patients with other confirmed diagnoses and healthy blood donors, Platelia was more specific (100%) than Pan-E (90%). For Platelia, when either the NS1 test or the IgM test on the acute sample was positive, the sensitivity versus the reference result was 82% in samples collected in the first four days of fever. NS1 sensitivity was not associated to disease severity (DF or DHF) in the Platelia test, whereas a trend for higher sensitivity in DHF cases was seen in the Pan-E test (however combined with lower overall sensitivity).Conclusions/SignificanceCollectively, this multi-country study suggests that the best performing NS1 assay (Platelia) had moderate sensitivity (median 64%, range 34–76%) and high specificity (100%) for the diagnosis of dengue. The poor sensitivity of the evaluated assays in some geographical regions suggests further assessments are needed. The combination of NS1 and IgM detection in samples collected in the first few days of fever increased the overall dengue diagnostic sensitivity.

BackgroundMalaria incidence has been reported to decrease substantially in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, including the Zanzibar Archipelago in East Africa. A cohort study with an intensive follow-up on Pemba Island just before the onset of the highly successful malaria control intervention was conducted. The reported estimates of parasite prevalence and incidence can serve as a robust baseline to evaluate the effect size of the successful interventions and the potential contribution of quality controls and other factors associated with research studies in the decreased estimate of transmission.MethodsIn a rural clinic, two successive cohorts of 537 children total aged 2-23 months were followed for six months each with an intensive visitation schedule of bi-weekly follow-up. Robust estimates of incidence and prevalence according to four different malaria definitions were obtained.ResultsMalaria incidence and prevalence placed Pemba Island in a hyperendemic rather than holoendemic setting for the years 2003-2005. Overall parasite prevalence was estimated to be 39% - with monthly estimates varying between 30% and 50%. Incidence of malaria varied between 2.3 and 3.8 malaria episodes per year based on a diagnosis of fever and various microscopy-based parasite thresholds and between 4.8 and 5.7 based on a diagnosis of fever and 100 parasites/microliter analogous to detection by rapid diagnostic tests. Both parasite densities and malaria incidence increased with age and rainy season. Malaria incidence also varied substantially between the individual villages within the study area.ConclusionsPemba Island was previously considered holo-endemic for Malaria. The data suggest that the transmission situation on Pemba Island was significantly lower in 2003-2005 suggesting a hyper-endemic or meso-endemic transmission environment. The figures were obtained just before the onset of the highly successful malaria control intervention by impregnated bed nets and IRS on the Zanzibar Archipelago and provide robust estimates of the malaria transmission situation prior to the control programme. Together with other published data, the results suggest that malaria transmission had started to decrease before the onset of the control programme. The local heterogeneity in malaria incidence highlights the importance of a micro-epidemiological approach in the context of malaria control and elimination.