Clinical Presentation, Risk Factors, and Comparison of Laboratory Diagnostics for Seasonal Influenza Virus Among Cambodians From 2007 to 2020.

Background: Despite its global significance, challenges associated with understanding the epidemiology and accurately detecting, measuring, and characterizing the true burden of seasonal influenza remain in many resource-poor settings. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in Cambodia at 28 health facilities between 2007 and 2020 utilizing passive surveillance data of patients presenting with acute undifferentiated febrile illness (AUFI) to describe the prevalence of influenza A and B and characterize associated risk factors and symptoms using a questionnaire. A comparison of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) results was also conducted. Results: Of 30 586 total participants, 5634 (18.4%) tested positive for either influenza A or B, with 3557 (11.6%) positive for influenza A and 2288 (7.5%) positive for influenza B during the study. Influenza A and B were strongly associated with the rainy season (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; P < .001) and being from an urban area (OR, 1.45; P < .001). Analysis of individual symptoms identified cough (OR, 2.8; P < .001), chills (OR, 1.4; P < .001), and sore throat (OR, 1.4; P < .001) as having the strongest positive associations with influenza among patients with AUFI. Analysis comparing RIDTs and rRT-PCR calculated the overall sensitivity of rapid tests to be 0.492 (95% CI, 0.479-0.505) and specificity to be 0.993 (95% CI, 0.992-0.994) for both influenza type A and B. Conclusions: Findings from this 14-year study include describing the epidemiology of seasonal influenza over a prolonged time period and identifying key risk factors and clinical symptoms associated with infection; we also demonstrate the poor sensitivity of RIDTs in Cambodia.

Assessment of inactivation procedures for SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), presents a challenge to laboratorians and healthcare workers around the world. Handling of biological samples from individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus requires strict biosafety measures. Within the laboratory, non-propagative work with samples containing the virus requires, at minimum, Biosafety Level-2 (BSL-2) techniques and facilities. Therefore, handling of SARS-CoV-2 samples remains a major concern in areas and conditions where biosafety for specimen handling is difficult to maintain, such as in rural laboratories or austere field testing sites. Inactivation through physical or chemical means can reduce the risk of handling live virus and increase testing ability especially in low-resource settings due to easier and faster sample processing. Herein we assess several chemical and physical inactivation techniques employed against SARS-CoV-2 isolates from Cambodia. This data demonstrates that all chemical (AVL, inactivating sample buffer and formaldehyde) and heat-treatment (56 and 98 °C) methods tested completely inactivated viral loads of up to 5 log10.

An Observational Study of Sepsis in Takeo Province Cambodia: An in-depth examination of pathogens causing severe infections.

The world's most consequential pathogens occur in regions with the fewest diagnostic resources, leaving the true burden of these diseases largely under-represented. During a prospective observational study of sepsis in Takeo Province Cambodia, we enrolled 200 patients over an 18-month period. By coupling traditional diagnostic methods such as culture, serology, and PCR to Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and advanced statistical analyses, we successfully identified a pathogenic cause in 46.5% of our cohort. In all, we detected 25 infectious agents in 93 patients, including severe threat pathogens such as Burkholderia pseudomallei and viral pathogens such as Dengue virus. Approximately half of our cohort remained undiagnosed; however, an independent panel of clinical adjudicators determined that 81% of those patients had infectious causes of their hospitalization, further underscoring the difficulty of diagnosing severe infections in resource-limited settings. We garnered greater insight as to the clinical features of severe infection in Cambodia through analysis of a robust set of clinical data.