Table 1 Previously published models linking weather or other covariates to Valley fever incidence or Coccidioides exposure.

From: Understanding the exposure risk of aerosolized Coccidioides in a Valley fever endemic metropolis

Area of interest

Years

Model type

Response variable

Weather predictors considered

Other variables considered

Significant weather predictors

Significant other variables

Author conclusions

Citation

Maricopa, AZ

Aug 2015, Oct 2016, Fall 2017, Jan 2018–June 2019

Univariate binomial mixed effects model

Daily Coccidioides presence absence data

Wind speed, temperature, visibility, precipitation

Soil moisture, PM10

Wind speed

None

Coccidioides aerosolization increases in response to high gusts, high temps and low soil moisture

This study

California (14 counties)

2000–2020

Multiple (ensemble)

Clinical cases

Temperature, precipitation

Soil texture, elevation, % impervious surface

Lagged precipitation, lagged temperature

Dependent on model

Drought can decrease Valley fever cases in the short term but increase cases in the years following the drought conditions

19

Maricopa, Pima, Pinal Counties, AZ

2013–2018

General additive model (time series)

Clinical cases

Wind speed, mean max temperature, and total monthly precipitation with 2-month lag on all variables

PM10 with 2-month lag

Mean max temp, lagged precipitation, wind speed, precipitation

Lagged PM10

Lagged PM10 within the winter months had the largest impact on Valley fever cases

20

Maricopa County, AZ & Kern County, CA

2006–2020

Superposed epoch analysis

Clinical cases

None

Dust storm data

None

None

No indication of an increase in Valley fever cases following dust storm activity

21

San Joaquin Valley, CA and southcentral, AZ

2000–2015

Linear and nonlinear regression

Clinical cases

Air temperature, precipitation

Soil moisture, dust concentration, NDVI, cropland area

Not applicable

Not applicable

Air temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, dust concentration, NDVI, and cropland area could be significant covariates for a predictive model

22

Maricopa, Pima Counties, AZ

2001–2011

Correlation Analyses

Clinical cases

Precipitation

PM10, PM2.5, dust number, dust frequency

Not applicable

Not applicable

Dust frequency was correlated but does not explain all variability in Valley fever cases

23

Maricopa, Pima Counties, AZ

1995–2006

Correlational analyses, regression

Clinical cases

None

NDVI

None

NDVI

Inverse relationship between NDVI and Valley fever cases

24

Kern County, CA

1995–2003

Generalized auto regressive moving average model

Clinical cases (weekly)

Temperature, precipitation, wind speed

None

None

None

Relationship between weather parameters and Valley fever case fluctuations are weak

25

Kern County, CA

1980–2002

Univariate and

Clinical cases (monthly)

Temperature, precipitation, wind speed

None

Temperature, precipitation, wind speed

None

Relationship between weather parameters and Valley fever case fluctuations are weak

26

Pima County, AZ

1992–2003

Linear regression

Clinical cases

Precipitation

PM10

Precipitation (lagged)

PM10 (current)

Important role of precipitation with a 1.5–2-year lag prior to exposure

27

Maricopa County, AZ

1998–2001

Poisson regression analysis

Clinical cases

Precipitation, wind speed, temperature

Building permits, Palmer Z index, Palmer drought severity index, PM10

Precipitation, wind, temperature

Building permits, Palmer Z index, Palmer drought severity index, PM10

Poisson regression identified several weather, dust, and drought covariates as significant to Valley fever incidence

28

Pima County, AZ

1948–1998

Linear regression and composite analysis

Clinical cases

Precipitation (total, average. Max), dew point, average wind speed

Palmer drought severity index (PDSI)

Temperature and precipitation with different lags depending on month

None

Identified significant relationships with temperature and precipitation at different lag times corresponding to the ecology of Coccidioides

29