title: Comparison of the efficiency and cost of West Nile virus surveillance methods in California.
abstract: Surveillance systems for West Nile virus (WNV) combine several methods to determine the location and timing of viral amplification. The value of each surveillance method must be measured against its efficiency and costs to optimize integrated vector management and suppress WNV transmission to the human population. Here we extend previous comparisons of WNV surveillance methods by equitably comparing the most common methods after standardization on the basis of spatial sampling density and costs, and by estimating optimal levels of sampling effort for mosquito traps and sentinel chicken flocks. In general, testing for evidence of viral RNA in mosquitoes and public-reported dead birds resulted in detection of WNV approximately 2-5 weeks earlier than serological monitoring of sentinel chickens at equal spatial sampling density. For a fixed cost, testing of dead birds reported by the public was found to be the most cost effective of the methods, yielding the highest number of positive results per $1000. Increased spatial density of mosquito trapping was associated with more precise estimates of WNV infection prevalence in mosquitoes. Our findings also suggested that the most common chicken flock size of 10 birds could be reduced to six to seven without substantial reductions in timeliness or sensitivity. We conclude that a surveillance system that uses the testing of dead birds reported by the public complemented by strategically timed mosquito and chicken sampling as agency resources allow would detect viral activity efficiently in terms of effort and costs, so long as susceptible bird species that experience a high mortality rate from infection with WNV, such as corvids, are present in the area.
authors.affiliation: 1 Center for Vectorborne Diseases, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California , Davis, California.
authors.forename: Jessica M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Healy
authors.forename: William K
authors.initials: WK
authors.lastname: Reisen
authors.forename: Vicki L
authors.initials: VL
authors.lastname: Kramer
authors.forename: Marc
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Fischer
authors.forename: Nicole P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Lindsey
authors.forename: Roger S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Nasci
authors.forename: Paula A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Macedo
authors.forename: Gregory
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Takahashi
authors.forename: La
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Khang
authors.forename: Christopher M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Barker
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002140:California / Q000453:epidemiology; D002645:Chickens / Q000821:virology*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D009033:Culicidae / Q000821:virology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007303:Insect Vectors / Q000821:virology*; D011201:Poultry Diseases / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000821:virology; D015995:Prevalence; D012367:RNA, Viral / Q000032:analysis; D018571:Sentinel Surveillance; D014901:West Nile Fever / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000821:virology; D014902:West Nile virus / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*
chemical_list: D012367:RNA, Viral
keywords: Birds; California; Cost effectiveness; Surveillance methods; West Nile virus