Cargando…

State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018

In 2015 and 2016, outbreaks of the Zika virus began occurring in the Americas and the Caribbean. Following the introduction of this new threat, the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued testing guidance for the nation’s state public health laboratories. We collected...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trotochaud, Marc, Kirk Sell, Tara, Ravi, Sanjana J., Andrada, Carolina I., Nuzzo, Jennifer B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101097
_version_ 1783529094567165952
author Trotochaud, Marc
Kirk Sell, Tara
Ravi, Sanjana J.
Andrada, Carolina I.
Nuzzo, Jennifer B.
author_facet Trotochaud, Marc
Kirk Sell, Tara
Ravi, Sanjana J.
Andrada, Carolina I.
Nuzzo, Jennifer B.
author_sort Trotochaud, Marc
collection PubMed
description In 2015 and 2016, outbreaks of the Zika virus began occurring in the Americas and the Caribbean. Following the introduction of this new threat, the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued testing guidance for the nation’s state public health laboratories. We collected and analyzed testing guidance for all fifty states and the District of Columbia for both 2017 and 2018. In both years, state testing guidance was consistent for men and non-pregnant women, but there was notable variation in guidance for pregnant women. In addition, there were changes between the two years as testing algorithms shifted toward guidance that recommended testing in more limited circumstances. States adopted large, or complete, portions of CDC testing guidance, but were not required to conform completely, 33% of states had identical guidance in 2017 and 49% in 2018. Some of these trends, such as specifying that testing be contingent on travel, or sexual contact with an individual who has recently traveled, to an area where the Zika virus was circulating, presents a potential deficiency in the United States surveillance capacity. Understanding variations in state testing guidance enables public health professionals to better understand ongoing surveillance. This analysis provides insight into the testing practices for the various states across the country. Better understanding of how states approach Zika testing, and how that testing changes over time, will increase the public health community’s ability to interpret future Zika case counts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7199004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71990042020-05-07 State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018 Trotochaud, Marc Kirk Sell, Tara Ravi, Sanjana J. Andrada, Carolina I. Nuzzo, Jennifer B. Prev Med Rep Short Communication In 2015 and 2016, outbreaks of the Zika virus began occurring in the Americas and the Caribbean. Following the introduction of this new threat, the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued testing guidance for the nation’s state public health laboratories. We collected and analyzed testing guidance for all fifty states and the District of Columbia for both 2017 and 2018. In both years, state testing guidance was consistent for men and non-pregnant women, but there was notable variation in guidance for pregnant women. In addition, there were changes between the two years as testing algorithms shifted toward guidance that recommended testing in more limited circumstances. States adopted large, or complete, portions of CDC testing guidance, but were not required to conform completely, 33% of states had identical guidance in 2017 and 49% in 2018. Some of these trends, such as specifying that testing be contingent on travel, or sexual contact with an individual who has recently traveled, to an area where the Zika virus was circulating, presents a potential deficiency in the United States surveillance capacity. Understanding variations in state testing guidance enables public health professionals to better understand ongoing surveillance. This analysis provides insight into the testing practices for the various states across the country. Better understanding of how states approach Zika testing, and how that testing changes over time, will increase the public health community’s ability to interpret future Zika case counts. 2020-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7199004/ /pubmed/32382493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101097 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Short Communication
Trotochaud, Marc
Kirk Sell, Tara
Ravi, Sanjana J.
Andrada, Carolina I.
Nuzzo, Jennifer B.
State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title_full State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title_fullStr State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title_full_unstemmed State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title_short State by state implementation of Zika virus testing guidance in the United States in 2017 and 2018
title_sort state by state implementation of zika virus testing guidance in the united states in 2017 and 2018
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101097
work_keys_str_mv AT trotochaudmarc statebystateimplementationofzikavirustestingguidanceintheunitedstatesin2017and2018
AT kirkselltara statebystateimplementationofzikavirustestingguidanceintheunitedstatesin2017and2018
AT ravisanjanaj statebystateimplementationofzikavirustestingguidanceintheunitedstatesin2017and2018
AT andradacarolinai statebystateimplementationofzikavirustestingguidanceintheunitedstatesin2017and2018
AT nuzzojenniferb statebystateimplementationofzikavirustestingguidanceintheunitedstatesin2017and2018