Abstract
Background Aedes (Stegomyia)-borne diseases are an expanding global threat, but gaps in surveillance make comprehensive and comparable risk assessments challenging. Geostatistical models combine data from multiple locations and use links with environmental and socioeconomic factors to make predictive risk maps. Here we systematically review past approaches to map risk for different Aedes-borne arboviruses from local to global scales, identifying differences and similarities in the data types, covariates, and modelling approaches used.
Methods We searched on-line databases for predictive risk mapping studies for dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever with no geographical or date restrictions. We included studies that needed to parameterise or fit their model to real-world epidemiological data and make predictions to new spatial locations of some measure of population-level risk of viral transmission (e.g. incidence, occurrence, suitability, etc).
Results We found a growing number of arbovirus risk mapping studies across all endemic regions and arboviral diseases, with a total of 183 papers published 2002-2022 with the largest increases shortly following major epidemics. Three dominant use cases emerged: i) global maps to identify limits of transmission, estimate burden and assess impacts of future global change, ii) regional models used to predict the spread of major epidemics between countries and iii) national and sub-national models that use local datasets to better understand transmission dynamics to improve outbreak detection and response. Temperature and rainfall were the most popular choice of covariates (included in 50% and 40% of studies respectively) but variables such as human mobility are increasingly being included. Surprisingly, few studies (22%, 33/148) robustly tested combinations of covariates from different domains (e.g. climatic, sociodemographic, ecological, etc) and only 48% of studies assessed predictive performance via out-of-sample validation procedures.
Conclusions Here we show that approaches to map risk for different arboviruses have diversified in response to changing use cases, epidemiology and data availability. We outline specific recommendations for future studies regarding aims and data choice, covariate selection, model formulation and evaluation.
Author Summary Aedes-borne arboviruses such as dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever pose a growing global threat. It is crucial to map their risk to target interventions and control their spread. A review of 183 studies found that risk mapping methods have evolved over time to respond to changing epidemiology and data availability. Initially, mapping risk involved using data from multiple areas and satellite imagery to develop models predicting transmission risk on a global or continental scale. Following Zika and chikungunya epidemics, mechanistic models based on national-level incidence data have been utilised to track the spread of epidemics across countries. The use of case-based surveillance systems has enabled more precise and detailed predictions at sub-national levels. Of the studies reviewed, half included temperature and rainfall as covariates, and human mobility was increasingly accounted for in arbovirus risk mapping. However, only 33 of the 148 studies robustly selected the variables included in their predictions, and only half of the studies assessed their accuracy against new data. The review suggests that future risk mapping studies should consider the purpose of the map, data quality, and methodological innovations to improve accuracy of risk maps to ensure they are useful for informing control of Aedes-borne arboviruses.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the World Health Organization Global Arbovirus Initiative, partially funded through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. CDC. OJB was supported by a UK Medical Research Council Career Development Award (MR/V031112/1) which also supports AL. AL was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2022R1A6A3A03061207). JMC was supported by Princeton University Climate and Disease program with funding from High Meadows Environmental Institute Grand Challenges and Environmental Studies Strategic Fund and the Joseph & Susan Gatto Foundation. EAM was supported by the National Science Foundation (DEB-2011147 with Fogarty International Center), the National Institutes of Health (R35GM133439, R01AI168097, R01AI102918), the Stanford Center for Innovation in Global Health, and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. SJR was supported by NSF CIBR: VectorByte: A Global Informatics Platform for studying the Ecology of Vector-Borne Diseases (NSF DBI 2016265). SJR was additionally supported by funding to Verena (viralemergence.org), including NSF BII 2021909 and NSF BII 2213854. KG and CMC acknowledge funding from the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (reference MR/R015600/1), jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), under the MRC/FCDO Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union. HC was supported by grant MOE/NUS: A-0006111-00-00. JCS received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreements No 101057554 for project IDAlert and No 101060568 for project BEPREP. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This research was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 220211). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics statement is not applicable here because this study retrieves and synthesizes data from already published studies.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
