Friday, October 31, 2014

The Return Of The CDC’s `How Ebola Spreads’ Infographic

image

Droplet Spread – Credit CDC

 

# 9273

 


Earlier today I mentioned that an infographic showing that Ebola can potentially spread over short distances via droplets had been temporarily pulled by the CDC, just 5 days after first releasing it (see Guidance Gone, But Not Forgotten).   Since this removal was causing such a stir online and in the media, I expressed hopes it would be reinstated soon.

 

Well, I am very pleased to say that a slightly modified (and not in a bad way) version of the original poster has now been uploaded to the CDC’s website (PDF LINK).

 

The central messages remain the same.  Ebola isn’t an airborne virus – but it can potentially be spread over short distance via droplets propelled by coughs or sneezes.   Exactly why it was deemed necessary to pull the old version escapes me, but I am happy to see the information back online.


Kudos to the CDC for getting this done.

 

 

simage

WHO Ebola Response Situation Report – Oct 31st

image


# 9263

 

The numbers coming out of West Africa continue to bounce around, with the total number of cases actually down by nearly 200 over the report from October 29th, but the number of fatalities slightly higher.


This drop in cases was attributed to some suspected cases in Guinea being ruled out.

 

Given the limits of surveillance and reporting in these three countries, there’s not a great deal of faith that the numbers we are getting truly represent the size or scope of this epidemic.

 

EBOLA RESPONSE ROADMAP SITUATION REPORT

SUMMARY

total of 13 567 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been reported in six affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Spain, and the United States of America) and two previously affected countries (Nigeria, Senegal) up to the end of 29 October. There have been 4951 reported deaths. The cases reported are fewer than those reported in the Situation Report of 29 October, due mainly to suspected cases in Guinea being discarded.


Following the WHO Ebola Response Roadmap structure1, country reports fall into two categories: 1) those with widespread and intense transmission (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone); and 2) those with or that have had an initial case or cases, or with localized transmission (Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Spain, and the United States of America). An overview of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where a separate, unrelated outbreak of EVD is occurring, is also provided (see Annex 2).


1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION

A total of 13 540 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases of EVD and 4941 deaths have been reported up to the end of the 29 October 2014 by the ministries of health of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and 25 October by the Ministry of Health of Liberia (table 1). All districts in Liberia and Sierra Leone have now reported at least one case of EVD since the start of the outbreak (figure 1). Of the eight Guinean and Liberian districts that share a border with Cote d Ivoire, only one in Guinea is yet to report a confirmed or probable case of EVD.


A total of 523 health-care workers (HCWs) are known to have been infected with EVD up to the end of 29 October: 82 in Guinea; 299 in Liberia; 11 in Nigeria; 127 in Sierra Leone; one in Spain; and three in the United States of America (two were infected in the USA and one in Guinea). A total of 269 HCWs have died.

WHO is undertaking extensive investigations to determine the cause of infection in each case. Early indications are that a substantial proportion of infections occurred outside the context of Ebola treatment and care. Infection prevention and control quality assurance checks are now underway at every Ebola treatment unit in the three intense-transmission countries. At the same time, exhaustive efforts are ongoing to ensure an ample supply of optimal personal protective equipment to all Ebola treatment facilities, along with the provision of training and relevant guidelines to ensure that all HCWs are exposed to the minimum possible level of risk.

image

(Continue . . .)

WHO Updates Personal Protective Equipment Guidelines for Ebola response

image

 

 

# 9271

 

Earlier today in WHO Video: Updated Recommendations For PPEs For Current Ebola Outbreak, we looked at a 40 minute video press briefing by Dr. Edward Kelley, Director, Service Delivery and Safety, at the World Health Organization on updated  Ebola PPE recommendations.

 

The PDF file has now gone live on the WHO site, and can be downloaded from:

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/137410#

 

Accompanying this guidance document we get the following (emailed) press release from WHO.

 

WHO Updates Personal Protective Equipment Guidelines for Ebola response

31 October 2014 ¦ GENEVA   As part of the World Health Organization’s commitment to safety and protection of healthcare workers and patients from transmission of Ebola virus disease, WHO has conducted a formal review of personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines for healthcare workers and is updating its guidelines in context of the current outbreak.


These updated guidelines aim to clarify and standardize  safe and effective PPE options to protect health care workers and patients, as well as provide information for procurement of PPE stock in the current Ebola outbreak.


The guidelines are based on a review of evidence of PPE use during care of suspected and confirmed Ebola virus disease patients.  The Guidelines Development Group convened by WHO included participation of a wide range of experts from developed and developing countries, and international organizations including the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  Médecins Sans Frontières, the Infection Control Africa Network and others.


“These guidelines hold an important role in clarifying effective personal protective equipment options that protect the safety of healthcare workers and patients from Ebola virus disease transmission,” says Edward Kelley, WHO Director for Service Delivery and Safety.  “Paramount to the guidelines’ effectiveness is the inclusion of mandatory training on the putting on, taking off and decontaminating of PPE, followed by mentoring for all users before engaging in any clinical care.”


Guidelines were developed from an accelerated development process that meets WHO’s standards for scientific rigour and serves as a complement to the Interim Infection Prevention and Control Guidance for Care of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Filovirus Haemorrhagic Fever in Health-Care Settings, with Focus on Ebola, published by WHO in August 2014.


Experts agreed that it was most important to have PPE that protects the mucosae – mouth, nose and eyes – from contaminated droplets and fluids. Given that hands are known to transmit pathogens to other parts of the body, as well as to other individuals, hand hygiene and gloves are essential, both to protect the health worker and to prevent transmission to others. Face cover, protective foot wear, gowns or coveralls, and head cover were also considered essential to prevent transmission to healthcare workers.


“Although PPE is the most visible control used to prevent transmission, it is effective only if applied together with other controls including facilities for barrier nursing and work organization, water and sanitation, hand hygiene, and waste management,” says Marie-Paule Kieny, Assistant Director General of Health Systems and Innovation.  Benefits derived from PPE depend not only on choice of PPE, but also adherence to protocol on use of the equipment.


A fundamental principle guiding the selection of different types of PPE was the effort to strike a balance between the best possible protection against infection while allowing health workers to provide the best possible care to patients with maximum ease, dexterity, comfort and minimal heat-associated stress. In this situation where evidence is still being collected, to see what works best and on an effective sustainable basis, it was considered prudent to provide options for selecting PPE. In most cases, there was no evidence to show that any one of the options recommended is superior to other options available for healthcare worker safety.


Further work is needed to gather scientific experience and data from the field in systematic studies, in order to understand why some health workers are infected in the current outbreak and to increase effective clinical care.  WHO is committed to working with international partners on these issues to build this evidence base.

###

WHO Video: Updated Recommendations For PPEs For Current Ebola Outbreak

image

 

# 9270

 

Dr. Edward Kelley, Director, Service Delivery and Safety, at the World Health Organization held a 40 minute press conference in Geneva today to preview some upcoming changes to the WHO’s recommendations for HCWs Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) when dealing with Ebola.

With well over 500 healthcare workers already infected (albeit, not all while working with patients), finding practical ways to protect those working (often in resource limited places) with Ebola patients becomes a major priority.

 

While stressing that PPEs are only part of a layered IPC (Infection Protection Control) system, Dr. Kelley cited several areas of PPE safety. The new guidance (which should be posted later today on the WHO website) also stresses training in the donning and doffing of PPEs.

 

  1. Protection of the mucosa of the eyes, nose and mouth – with an emphasis on masks that do not lie flat against the face, which tend to get moist and deteriorate in high heat environments.
  2. Hand Hygiene including strongly recommending double gloving.
  3. New guidance on the use of gowns and coveralls
  4. Guidance on footwear
  5. Guidance on head covers

 

Many of these recommendations are clarifications, or incremental changes, but some are clearly more stringent – such as the recommendation for double gloving (nitrile),  the need for masks that are structured to lie away from the face, and recommendations (where appropriate) to provide cover for the head and neck.

 

I’ll update this blog post with the links to the new guidance documents when they become available.

Note: The PDF File is now online, click the image below:

image

 

You can watch the press conference by clicking this link, or the image below:

 

image

Guidance Gone, But Not Forgotten

image

 

Updated:  The new version of this poster has now been uploaded to the CDC site (see The Return Of The CDC’s `How Ebola Spreads’ Infographic).

# 9269

 

 

Generally speaking, I’m very supportive of the CDC in this blog. Like most Americans, I recognize that they have a tough job to do, and have consistently viewed them more favorably than any other Federal agency.

 

While I’ve occasionally been critical of their messaging, I’ve always tried to convey my concerns with respect – not scorn.  

Last Saturday, when the CDC released the following infographic (see CDC: Ebola May Be Spread By Droplets, But Is Not Airborne), I praised them for replacing the tired (and less than entirely believable) `You can’t get Ebola Through Air’  meme, for something far more reasonable.

image


The idea that large droplets from coughs or sneezes pose a potential Ebola infection risk isn’t a new admission, but it has been largely downplayed by the CDC over the past few months.  This new poster was, in my opinion, a major step forward in improving the messaging. 

 

Inevitably,some in the media used this infographic to beat the CDC up over their earlier messaging.  A not unexpected reaction, and one I believe would likely have blown over in a couple of days. 


Regrettably, late yesterday this infographic was abruptly removed from the CDC website. Overnight the Daily Mail, Huffington Post, and others have been having a field day, as now when you hit the link you get this message:

 

The What’s the difference between infections spread through air or by droplets? Fact sheet is being updated and is currently unavailable. Please visit cdc.gov/Ebola for up-to-date information on Ebola.

 

Frankly, if you were looking for the best way to re-energize the conspiracy theorists, nut cases, and agency haters out there – I can’t envision a more successful ploy.  Even those of us who aren’t completely certifiable are likely to see this action and go, `hmmmm’.

 

I can only hope someone will do a minor edit (free suggestion: change `pee & poop’ to `urine and feces’) and have it uploaded back onto your site in short order. 

 

Whether they have `poster’s regret’  over putting this infographic out or not (and they shouldn’t, it is the best one they’ve produced on Ebola transmission to date), pulling it off  their site after 5 days just makes the CDC look indecisive …  or worse.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

CDC Guidance: Considerations For Discharging Persons Under Investigation For Ebola

image

CDC Infographic: Is it flu, or Ebola?

 


# 9268

 

As has already been demonstrated, while a fair number of people may be initially suspected of having Ebola, few will actually end up being infected with the virus. The CDC has fielded calls on scores of `suspected’ Ebola cases from hospitals around the country – performed testing on dozens – and yet only small handful have tested positive for the virus. 

 

Today the CDC has issued guidance on the steps hospitals and clinicians should take when deciding whether to discharge someone who is (or was) a  PUI (Patient Under Investigation) for Ebola infection.

 

As you will see, Ebola cannot be ruled out by laboratory testing early in the symptomatic phase of the illness. It can take as long as 72 hours after symptoms appear for rt-PRC testing to pick up the virus. Which explains why some patients have been isolated – and retested – for 2 or 3 days before a final determination can be made. 

 

A negative test or no test conducted, and a change in symptoms inconsistent with Ebola infection, however, can be used – assuming the patient can be properly monitored after discharge.  


Considerations for Discharging Persons Under Investigation (PUI) for Ebola Virus Disease (Ebola)

The decision to discharge a patient being evaluated as a Person Under Investigation (PUI) for Ebola who has not had a negative RT-PCR test for Ebola (RT-PCR testing for Ebola virus infection has not yet been performed or RT-PCR test result on a blood specimen collected less than 72 hours after onset of symptoms is negative) should be based on clinical and laboratory criteria and on the ability to monitor the PUI after discharge, and made by the medical providers caring for the PUI, along with the local and state health departments.

Health care providers evaluating a PUI should consider these criteria when deciding to discharge a PUI:
  1. In the clinical judgment of the medical team, the PUI’s illness no longer appears consistent with Ebola.
  2. The PUI is afebrile off antipyretics for 24 hours, or there is an alternative explanation for fever.
  3. All symptoms that are compatible with Ebola (e.g., diarrhea or vomiting) have either resolved or can be accounted for by an alternative diagnosis.
  4. The PUI has no clinical laboratory results consistent with Ebola, or those that could be consistent with Ebola have been otherwise explained.
  5. The PUI is able to self-monitor (or to monitor a child, if the PUI is a child) and comply fully with active monitoring and controlled movement.
  6. There is a plan in place for the PUI to return for medical care if symptoms recur, which has been explained to the PUI, and the PUI understands what to do if symptoms recur.
  7. Local and state health departments have been engaged and concur.
  8. Active monitoring and controlled movement still apply for persons who have had Ebola virus exposures and are under follow-up as contacts for the full 21-day period following their last exposure.
Important information about RT-PCR testing for Ebola virus:
  • A negative RT-PCR test result for Ebola virus from a blood specimen collected less than 72 hours after onset of symptoms does not necessarily rule out Ebola virus infection.
    • If the patient is still symptomatic after 72 hours, the test should be repeated.
    • If the patient has recovered from the illness that brought them to medical attention, a repeat test is not required.
  • A negative RT-PCR test result for Ebola virus from a blood specimen collected more than 72 hours after symptom onset rules out Ebola virus infection.
  • Positive Ebola virus RT-PCR results are considered presumptive until confirmed by CDC.

Saudi MOH Announces 3 More MERS Cases

image

# 9267

 

Following yesterday’s announcement of 6 new MERS cases, today the Saudi MOH reports 3 new cases;  all of which are either suspected or confirmed to have been exposed in healthcare settings.  Additionally, 3 recent deaths are reported.

 

These three cases are reported from Tail, Riyadh and Al Jawf.  The Al Jawf case is reported to be a Healthcare worker.

 

image

image

All The Ebola News Not Fit To Print

image 

 

 

# 9266

 

Earlier this week a `fake’ news story made the rounds of Twitter and Facebook, suggesting that students at an Elementary school in Olanthe, Kansas had been infected with the Ebola virus.   When I was first alerted to the story, I did a quick search, found the offending article, and quickly determined it was fake.  


Unfortunately, the story did what it was intended to to – it went `viral’ – and I’m sure it brought a lot of attention  (and web hits) to the `entertainment site’ which published it as if it were a genuine news story. 


Within a matter of hours Snopes.com  had an entry debunking the story (see Ebola School), and local media and the Olathe Public School district were heavily engaged in damage control (see KC Star Olathe School District becomes target of false Ebola rumor). 

 

This trend in `fabricated news’ is a disturbing one, particularly when it deals with something as serious as Ebola, but is hardly new. It is the cyber version of the trashy tabloids sold for decades in checkout lanes around the world. But with the way content is delivered online – piecemeal via twitter and social media instead on cheap newsprint - much harder to identify as bogus.

 

Unlike The Onion, and other satirical sites, there’s little in the article to suggest that some serious leg pulling is going on. 

 

While arguably the most egregious example of Ebola reporting I’ve seen, I’m finding very little in the media that isn’t – one way or another – biased, misleading, exploitative, or obviously hyped up in order to drive web traffic and sell advertising. 

 

So much so that – except for the work of a handful of solid science reporters (think Branswell, Fox, Besser, Gale, and a short list of others) – I find very little reportage I can use in this blog without feeling as if I’m compounding a felony.

 

I have a firm rule:  If the headline, or lede, of an article contains the words `Terrifying’, `Deadly’, `Horrific’, or `Explodes’ or `Explosion’ (unless, of course, the story is about an actual explosion) I won’t bother with it, much less use it in this space. 

 

There is a lot of stuff out there pretending to be news, that is really just propaganda (for or against just about anything you can imagine), partisan rhetoric, or is little more than a lurid sideshow designed to extract your `one thin dime, 1/10th of a dollar’, by enticing you to follow some salacious click-bait. 

 


Sadly, even as the technology to quickly deliver content improves, the quality of that content is more suspect than ever.

 

Making Caveat Lector about Ebola, and just about anything else you see, the watchword of the day.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

WHO Ebola Roadmap Update #10 – October 29th

image

 

# 9265

 

The WHO announced the big jump in numbers during a press conference earlier today, but the actual PDF document has just gone live, giving us more detail.   Today’s report adds more than 3,500 cases to the total last reported on Saturday, but that number represents a `catch-up’ of cases over many weeks, not a sudden jump in cases.

 

While the total number of cases has increased, the number of deaths has actually gone down, as some previously identified `Ebola deaths’ have been reclassified.

 

One of the big question marks is what is happening in Liberia – an area that just a few weeks ago that was seeing an exponential growth in cases – but over the past two weeks has reported a substantial decline.  

 

Whether this reflects the reality on the ground, a temporary blip, or a genuine trend is too soon to tell.

 

Some excerpts from today’s report below, but follow the link to read the report in its entirety.

 

EBOLA RESPONSE ROADMAP SITUATION REPORT

SUMMARY

A total of 13 703 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been reported in six affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Spain, and the United States of America) and two previously affected countries (Nigeria and Senegal) up to the end of 27 October. There  have been 4 922 deaths.


The outbreaks of EVD in Senegal and Nigeria were declared over on 17 October and 19 October 2014, respectively. EVD transmission remains persistent and widespread in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. All administrative districts in Liberia and Sierra Leone have now reported at least one confirmed or probable case of EVD since the outbreak began.

Cases of EVD transmission remain lowest in Guinea, but case numbers are still very high in absolute terms.

Transmission remains intense in the capital cities of the three most affected countries. Cases and deaths continue to be under-reported in the outbreak.


Of the countries with localized transmission, Mali, Spain and the United States of America continue to monitor potential contacts. In Mali, a 2-year-old girl died of Ebola on 24 October, after travelling with her grandmother from Guinea. The case makes Mali the sixth West African nation to be affected in the current Ebola outbreak.


In Spain, the single patient with EVD tested negative for the disease for a second time on 21 October. Spain will be declared free of EVD 42 days after the date of the second negative test, unless a new case arises during that period. In the US, two health-care workers have tested negative for Ebola for the second time, and have been discharged from hospital. Another health-care worker remains in isolation and is receiving treatment.

image

<SNIP>

LIBERIA
Liberia has reported 6 535 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases, and remains the country worst affected by the outbreak (figure 2).


The most intense transmission continues to occur in the Montserrado area, where 30 new probable cases were reported in the last full week. This region takes in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. The weekly increase in  new cases in the area, however, appears to have halted since mid-September, with a reduction in numbers of confirmed and probable cases reported in the week ending 5 October. It is possible that this reflects a true reduction in incidence. However, further data are needed to resolve this question. Liberia continues to report few confirmed cases. Laboratory data on recent confirmed cases may provide scope for deeper analysis not currently provided by the incidence data. The capacity to capture a true picture of the situation in Liberia remains hamstrung by underreporting of cases.

Outside Monrovia, most newly reported cases have come from the districts of Bong, Margibi, and Bomi, which each reported 12 probable cases in the last full week. The district of Grand Gadeh, which was previously considered the only unaffected area in Liberia, now has 2 confirmed and 2 suspected cases. It is likely, however, that these cases did not occur in the past week, and the reporting of these cases has been delayed. Data for Liberia are missing for 19, 20, 21, 26 and 27 October.

<SNIP>

HEALTH-CARE WORKERS

A total of 521 health-care workers (HCWs) are known to have been infected with EVD up to the end of 27 October, 272 of whom have died (table 2). The large rise in the number of infections of HCWs in Liberia reflects changes in its method of reporting, and the inclusion of cases that had previously not been reported.

WHO is undertaking extensive investigations to determine the cause of infection in each case.

Early indications are that a substantial proportion of infections occurred outside the context of Ebola treatment and care. Infection prevention and control quality assurance checks are now underway at every Ebola treatment unit in the three intense-transmission countries. At the same time, exhaustive efforts are ongoing to ensure an ample supply of optimal personal protective equipment to all Ebola treatment facilities, along with the provision of training and relevant guidelines to ensure that all HCWs are exposed to the minimum possible level of risk.


 image

Saudi MOH Announces 6 New MERS Cases

image

 


# 9264

 

Yesterday the Saudi MOH telegraphed that they expected to see more MERS cases in the coming days (see Saudi MOH Expects More MERS Cases In Taif), and today we have the largest single-day tally jump since last May. 

 

Taif continues to lead, with three new cases today including 1 healthcare worker.  Riyadh, reports 2 new cases, including a healthcare worker as well.  The sixth case comes from Hafar Al-Batin, a region that has not reported much action since last spring.

image

Pentagon Announces 21 Day `Controlled Monitoring’ Of Personnel Returning From Ebola Affected Regions

image


# 9263

 

As the contentious debate over the quarantining travelers coming from Ebola affected regions continues to embroil public health authorities, politicians, and the public – the Pentagon today announced their intent to place all personnel returning from those same nations under `controlled monitoring’ .

 

While not well defined, `controlled monitoring’ has been described in various press reports as a `quarantine-like’ protocol.  

 

The word `quarantine’ however, is noticeably absent from today’s statement. Details, according to today’s Pentagon statement, are to be worked out over the next two weeks.

 

Although the administration – and many public health officials – have repeatedly stated that a 21-day quarantine was unnecessary (and possibly counter-productive)  for non symptomatic travelers – polling from both CBS News and ABC News (see WaPo article Poll: 80 percent want Ebola quarantines) shows that the majority of Americans remain unconvinced.



This press release from Defense.gov.

 

 

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release No: NR-547-14
October 29, 2014

Statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby on Controlled Monitoring for Personnel Returning from Operation United Assistance

This morning, Secretary Hagel signed an order that validated a recommendation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to place all U.S. military service members returning from Ebola response efforts in West Africa into a 21-day controlled monitoring regimen. This order will apply to all military services that are contributing personnel to the fight against Ebola at its source.


The secretary has also directed that the Joint Chiefs develop, for his review within 15 days, a detailed implementation plan for how this controlled monitoring will be applied across the force that takes into account the size and scope of the logistics required for this effort.


In addition, the secretary directed that the Joint Chiefs conduct a review of this new regimen within 45 days from now. This review will offer a recommendation on whether or not such controlled monitoring should continue based on what we learn and observe from the initial waves of personnel returning from Operation United Assistance.


The secretary believes these initial steps are prudent given the large number of military personnel transiting from their home base and West Africa and the unique logistical demands and impact this deployment has on the force. The secretary's highest priority is the safety and security of our men and women in uniform and their families.

 

EID Journal: Genome Sequence of Enterovirus D68 from St. Louis

image


# 9262

 

 

In late August we began to track an unusual late summer outbreak of Enterovirus D68, which was first reported in Illinois and Missouri, but which quickly spread across the nation (see Kansas City Outbreak Identified As HEV 68).   Although EV-D68 – one of the dozens of non-polio enteroviruses – had first been indentified 50 years ago, until the past few years it has only rarely been reported in North America.

 

In 2011 – in MMWR: Clusters Of HEV68 Respiratory Infections 2008-2010 – we looked at a half dozen  HV 68 associated clusters which occurred in Asia, Europe, and the United States during 2008--2010.

 

A few excerpts from that report:

 

HEV68 infection was associated with respiratory illness ranging from relatively mild illness that did not require hospitalization to severe illness requiring intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Three cases, two in the Philippines and one in Japan, were fatal. In these six clusters, HEV68 disproportionately occurred among children.


Previous outbreaks have all appeared to be limited to a few dozen people, although testing for the virus has always been extremely limited.  How pervasive this virus really is in the population is largely unknown. 

 

That said, the rapid nationwide spread of EV-D68 over the past three months is unusual, and a coincident rise in neurological illness and limb weakness (see CDC HAN: Acute Neurologic Illness with Focal Limb Weakness of Unknown Etiology in Children) has raised questions as to whether this virus has recently changed.  

 

A causal link between these paralysis cases and EV-D68 has not yet been established.

 

Yesterday, researchers from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis published a letter in the CDC’s EID journal, describing their genetic sequencing of the EV-D68 virus collected from patients in St. Louis.


There is not a lot of older sequence data to compare the current strain with – making it difficult to pinpoint any changes that may have contributed to its severity or rapid spread.  Having this new data will help track future changes and identify different strains currently in circulation.  According to a news release from the University:

 

“The CDC has published some additional genomes from Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky,” said first author Kristine M. Wylie, PhD, research instructor in pediatrics. “The Missouri genomes, including ours, are all very similar, but the Illinois and Kentucky genomes are different from the Missouri types, suggesting there are some distinct strains circulating in the U.S. right now.”

Wylie also pointed out the importance of continuing to characterize the genetic features of this virus and monitor the health of patients with the D68 strain.

“Until recently, this virus has been pretty rare,” she said. “It would be helpful to have more data about the virus and the patients so that we can start to associate the genetic features of the virus with the severity of the disease.”

 

Some excerpts from the EID Letter follow:

 

Volume 21, Number 1—January 2015
Letter

Genome Sequence of Enterovirus D68 from St. Louis, Missouri, USA

To the Editor: During the current (2014) enterovirus/rhinovirus season in the United States, enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) is circulating at an unprecedented level. As of October 6, 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had confirmed 594 cases of EV-D68 infection in 43 states and the District of Columbia (http://www.cdc.gov/non-polio-enterovirus/outbreaks/EV-D68-outbreaks.html); the actual number of cases was undoubtedly much higher. In mid-August, hospitals in Missouri and Illinois noticed an increased number of patients with severe respiratory illness (1). We observed this pattern at St. Louis Children’s Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.

Resources for studying this virus are limited. Before the current season, only 7 whole-genome sequences and 5 additional complete coding sequences of the virus were available. Therefore, determining whether there are genomic elements associated with rapid spread or severe and unusual disease was not possible.

To address these limitations, we determined the complete coding sequence of 1 strain from St. Louis by using high-throughput sequencing of nucleic acid from a clinical sample. To evaluate the sequence diversity in EV-D68 strains circulating in the St. Louis metropolitan area, we also generated partial-genome sequences from 8 more EV-D68–positive clinical samples from St. Louis. During the preparation of this article, CDC generated and submitted to GenBank 7 complete or nearly complete genome sequences from viruses obtained from the Midwest. We documented the diversity of the sequences of strains from St. Louis and compared them to publicly available sequences.

<SNIP>

Comparison of the virus protein 1 sequence with that of publicly available sequences indicated that the strain from St. Louis and the strain from Missouri (CDC) cluster with virus strains identified in Europe and Asia within the past several years (Figure, panel B). The St. Louis virus shared 97%–99% aa sequence identity with all other sequenced strains. We observed little variation in the strains from St. Louis because they shared 98%–99% nt sequence identity (Technical Appendix[PDF - 78 KB - 4 pages] Figure).

We provide a genome sequence from the 2014 outbreak of EV-D68 infection in St. Louis, Missouri. This sequence seems to be highly representative of the strains circulating in St. Louis during this time because the other genomes we partially sequenced are very similar. To our knowledge, no amino acids have been associated with virulence or increased infectivity of EV-D68; therefore, we cannot associate the changes we observed in these genomes to phenotypic traits. Because changes in the 5′ untranslated region have the potential to affect the rate of replication (810), it is possible that minor genome changes are responsible for the rapid spread and high severity of disease in 2014. Correlation between clinical features of patients in conjunction with additional genomic analysis might provide further insight into the pathogenetic determinants of this strain. Therefore the genome sequence of EV-D68 determined from the 2014 outbreak in St. Louis, Missouri, provides a resource for tracking and genomic comparison of this rapidly spreading virus.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Saudi MOH Expects More MERS Cases In Taif

image

 

# 9261

 

The recent resurgence of MERS in Saudi Arabia after a relatively quiet July and August has prompted several recent statements from the Health Ministry, including this one yesterday, urging the public, and healthcare facilities, to take steps to prevent exposure and onward transmission of the virus.

 

Last week, in Saudi MOH Statement On Recent MERS Cases In Taif, we saw a promise by the Ministry of Health to investigate, and bring to a halt, the nosocomial spread of the virus in Taif healthcare facilities.

 


Today, with internet rumors running rife on Twitter and in social media (see here), the Saudi MOH has issued a refreshingly candid statement, indicating that they are particularly concerned about the ongoing chain of transmission in Taif, and that additional cases could be expected in the coming days or weeks.

 

 

MOH: MERS-CoV REMAINS SIGNIFICANT HEALTH THREAT

28 October 2014

MERS-CoV remains a significant health threat in Saudi Arabia, where 38 confirmed cases of the disease have been reported since September 5th, according to the Ministry of Health.


The Command & Control Center, which is responsible for coordinating the response to MERS-CoV, is particularly concerned about breaking the chain of transmission in Taif, where a cluster was identified in September. At least 17 people have been infected with the virus in Taif since September 5th. The primary cases in Taif involved people who had unprotected contact with camels and then came into contact with others, including healthcare workers.


"The available evidence indicates that camels transmit MERS-CoV to humans, who then infect each other through direct contact with droplets that contain the virus," said Dr. Anees Sindi, deputy commander of the MOH Command & Control Center. "The situation in Taif is still under investigation and we expect to see more cases in the coming days and weeks."


The Ministry has developed strict protocols for treating MERS-CoV patients in collaboration with international partners at the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It has designated hospitals to serve as MERS-CoV Centers of Excellence. These facilities are designed to provide life-saving treatment to people who are infected with the disease while ensuring that healthcare workers are protected from exposure to the virus. Patients are transferred to these Centers of Excellence whenever possible.


"We are taking aggressive action to reduce the rate of infection in Taif," Dr. Sindi said. "This includes educating the public about the importance of avoiding close contact with camels and providing additional training for hospital workers on proper infection-control procedures."The Ministry's Command & Control Center also developed a comprehensive disease surveillance system that provides real-time information about new cases and the capacity of health facilities to provide intensive-care to MERS-CoV patients.


Proper hand washing and coughing etiquette, are basic but essential steps everyone should take to reduce the risk of infection. To prevent MERS-CoV infections, members of the public are also urged to avoid contact with camels and refrain from consuming raw camel milk or undercooked camel meat. Anyone who must come into close contact with camels should wear a disposable mask, gown and face mask to avoid being exposed to the virus.


There have been 780 confirmed symptomatic cases of MERS-CoV since June 2012. At least 435 have been cured and  333 people have died and 12 under treatment.


Call 937 or visit http://www.moh.gov.sa/en/CCC to learn more about MERS-CoV and how to prevent infection

MMWR Early Release: Ebola Update In West Africa – Oct 28th

image

 

# 9260

 

From the CDC’s MMWR, an update on the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.  Follow the link for the accompanying maps and charts.

 

Update: Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak — West Africa, October 2014

Early Release
October 28, 2014 / 63(Early Release);1-4

Incident Management System Ebola Epidemiology Team, CDC; Guinea Interministerial Committee for Response Against the Ebola Virus; CDC Guinea Response Team; Liberia Ministry of Health and Social Welfare; CDC Liberia Response Team; Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation; CDC Sierra Leone Response Team; Viral Special Pathogens Branch, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC

CDC is assisting ministries of health and working with other organizations to control and end the ongoing outbreak of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) in West Africa (1). The updated data in this report were compiled from situation reports from the Guinea Interministerial Committee for Response Against the Ebola Virus and the World Health Organization, the Liberia Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation. Total case counts include all suspected, probable, and confirmed cases as defined by each country. These data reflect reported cases, which make up an unknown proportion of all actual cases and reporting delays that vary from country to country.

According to the latest World Health Organization update as of October 22, 2014 (2), a total of 9,911 Ebola cases have been reported as of October 19 from three highly affected West African countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) (Figure 1). The highest reported case counts were from Liberia (4,665 cases), followed by Sierra Leone (3,706) and Guinea (1,540).

The geographic distribution of the number of Ebola cases reported during September 28–October 18 changed from the distribution of cases reported during August 31–September 23 (3), when counts were highest in the areas where Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea meet. Counts of Ebola cases reported during September 28–October 18 were highest in the area around Monrovia and in the district of Bong, Liberia; the Freetown area and the northwest districts of Sierra Leone; and the district of Macenta, Guinea (Figure 2).

The map of the cumulative incidence of Ebola, as of October 18, indicates that the highest incidence rate (>100 cases per 100,000 population) was reported by two districts in Guinea (Guéckédou and Macenta), five districts in Liberia (Bomi, Bong, Lofa, Margibi, and Montserrado), and four districts in Sierra Leone (Bombali, Kailahun, Kenema, and Port Loko) (Figure 3).

The latest updates on the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, including case counts, are available at http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/guinea/index.html. The most up-to-date clinical guidelines on the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa are available at http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/index.html 

(Continue.  . .)

Saudi MOH: 1 New MERS Case In Riyadh

image Sau

 

 

# 9259


The Saudi MOH reports a fresh MERS case in Riyadh over the past 24 hours, along with 2 recoveries and two deaths.   While significant number of the recent cases in Taif appear linked to hospital exposures, we have far less information regarding the cases recently reported out of Riyadh. 


Warnings, however, about contact with camels and camel products continue to flow from the Health Ministry.

 

image

 

Of passing note, there is a lot of twitter traffic – strongly denied by the Saudi Government – of large, undisclosed numbers of MERS cases in Taif.   Today, many Arabic language newspapers are carrying these denials. 

 

The following (machine translated) story comes from http://www.alwaqe.com.

 

"Health Taif" denies rumors of the 119 cases for "Corona"

04-01-1436 04:31

Reality denied official in the Directorate of Health Affairs in Taif rumors that have been circulating through the means of social communication and some websites source, and refer them to the registration of 119 cases of the virus, Corona, and claimed Nagulwha that the cases reached the large numbers, calling on the people of Taif to the lack of a review of the hospitals.

The source that the cases that have been recorded in the province are advertised location and the Ministry of Health on the following link http: / / Www.moh.gov.sa/ CCC / PressReleases / Pages / default.aspx and added: All the cases have been dealt with special isolation Department Corona virus Hospital King Faisal, a reference for patients to maintain Coruna, urging everyone not to get carried away behind the rumors that will enter the fear and panic among the reviewers. He also noted that the Ministry of Health issued a statement a day shows all cases that are infected with the virus in all parts of the Kingdom

Sandman & Lanard On Ebola & Failures Of Imagination

image
Credit CDC PHIL

 

 


# 9258

 

Yesterday author, blogger, and scary disease girl extraordinaire Maryn McKenna featured a long-read by risk communications experts Dr. Peter Sandman & Dr. Jody Lanard (see her wired blog The Grim Future if Ebola Goes Global) on the conversation that no one in authority seems willing to have right now: 

 

What happens if Ebola is not contained in West Africa?

 

First, a strong recommendation to read the analysis by Sandman & Lanard in its entirety if you haven’t already, after which I’ll have a bit more.

 

Ebola: Failures of Imagination

by Jody Lanard and Peter M. Sandman

The alleged U.S. over-reaction to the first three domestic Ebola cases in the United States – what Maryn McKenna calls Ebolanoia – is matched only by the world’s true under-reaction to the risks posed by Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. We are not referring to the current humanitarian catastrophe there, although the world has long been under-reacting to that.

We will speculate about reasons for this under-reaction in a minute. At first we thought it was mostly a risk communication problem we call “fear of fear,” but now we think it is much more complicated.

(Continue . . . )

 
Highly recommended.

 

Admittedly, I too have found it hard to paint a bleak picture of where this Ebola epidemic could lead – partially, I think as a subconscious pushback against the over-the-top fear mongering that is all too rampant online, and partially due to my deep-seated ex-paramedic mindset of `No matter how bad things get, don’t get rattled, just carry on.’

 

And to be very clear, while my crystal ball is cracked and fogged up badly, my `bleak picture’ isn’t one of massive Ebola epidemics sweeping across the nation, or mass graves in the developed world.  

 

While there are respiratory pathogens out there capable of such carnage, I don’t believe Ebola (in its present incarnation, anyway) to be one of them.

NOTE: The `weasel wording’ in the previous sentence is 100%  intentional, as I think it is important to push back against the absolute assurances constantly being uttered by nervous officials.  

Previously, in An Appropriate Level Of Concern Over Ebola In The US,  I wrote:

 

That is not to say we won’t see impacts from this epidemic.  We already have – in Dallas – and I quite expect we will again.  We could certainly see limited spread here, and even small clusters of cases.  And while it won’t be pretty, and the response may not be perfect,  I have enough faith in our public health infrastructure to believe they would be able to control it.

Now, if Ebola ever finds a way to spread through the mega-cities of Africa, India, Pakistan, or some other high-population, low resource region of the world – the economic, societal, and political destabilization that could occur might change both the nature, and degree, of this epidemic’s threat to the developed world. 

 

A veiled vision, cloaked in ambiguity, that only tentatively hints at what failure to contain the virus in Africa could mean to the rest of the world.  Hindered, no doubt, by my own personal `failure of imagination’, and by the difficulties of accurately projecting the impact of a slow-motion strain wreck. 

 

An epidemic that spreads inexorably – not over weeks or months – but potentially over years.

 

Spreading more like HIV, TB, or Hepatitis than what we might expect from an emerging pandemic virus. Unlike those scourges, however, Ebola kills very quickly – in a matter of days – which increases its immediate impact.

 

How that might play out on the global stage six months or a year from now is very tough to envision, but in a world already roiled in crises, its impact can’t be ignored.


Over the years we’ve looked at the real possibility of seeing a Black Swan Event – a  world-changing incident that few, if anyone, had predicted. The phrase was coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2004 book Fooled By Randomness, and expanded upon in his 2007 book The Black Swan.

 

Black swan events can arise in a lot of different ways, and various national security documents over the years have analyzed, and warned about, many possible scenarios. 

 

  • A Pandemic
  • A Cyber Attack
  • A Financial Crisis
  • A Geomagnetic Storm
  • Social Unrest/Revolution

 

It is no coincidence that a severe pandemic ranks at the top of almost every list of highly disruptive national security threats (see 2011 OECD Report: Future Global ShocksUK: Civil Threat Risk Assessment, Influenza Pandemic As A National Security Threat).   


Is Ebola a black swan event?   I honestly don’t know. But it could be if it isn’t contained.

 

And right now, despite the upbeat messaging that `we know how to stop Ebola’, there are too many unknowns to be overly confident in the outcome.  Some may say that `failure is not an option’, but the truth is, history is replete with failures.  

 

We just tend to call them something else in the history books.

 

When my wife and I moved aboard our cruising sailboat in 1986, we immediately purchased a combination inflatable dingy/life raft.  We didn’t plan on sinking, but we also knew the ocean might have other plans for us. So with the kind of fatalism only longtime liveaboard sailors can muster, we christened it  `Plan B’.  

 

I’m happy to report it was never used for anything more desperate than rowing ashore to pick up another case of beer.   But it was there, equipped and ready, for any emergency.

 


While I hope we don’t ever need it, we need to be thinking about what our collective Plan B will be, if Ebola isn’t contained in West Africa. And that means thinking about, publicly talking about, and planning for the kind of disruptions that might occur if the virus makes its way to the mega-cities of Africa,  India, China, or South America.

 

Eight years ago the governments of the world urged agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals to take a good hard look at their daily operations, and plan on how they would cope during a severe influenza pandemic. Since the relatively mild pandemic of 2009, the idea of pandemic planning has largely fallen to neglect.

 

Now might be a very good time to dust off your old pandemic plans, update them as necessary, and encourage others to do so.

 

Because, if Ebola doesn’t turn out to be the next great global public health crisis, there are plenty of other contenders waiting in the wings that could.

Monday, October 27, 2014

CDC Updates Traveler’s Movement & Monitoring Guidance For Ebola

image

Credit CDC

 

Update:  Transcript | Audio now available for the CDC’s Monday Afternoon press conference.

 


# 9257

 

If there is anything good that can be said to be coming out of the Ebola epidemic, it is that it is forcing us to take a hard look at our emergency response and pandemic preparedness plans – and to work out the kinks – before we find ourselves blindsided by a more rapidly moving and highly virulent pandemic.

 

CDC interim guidance on Ebola continues to evolve as more is learned about dealing with the virus in modern healthcare settings and in a highly mobile developed nation, and it is not unreasonable to assume that over time that guidance may change further.

 

Last week the CDC announced a program of Active Post-Arrival Monitoring for Travelers from Impacted Countries, which provided arrivals from Ebola affected countries with a CARE (Check & Report Ebola) Kit and instructions on taking their temperature, and maintaining contact with local health department officials.


While introducing a higher degree of monitoring,  it relied upon the traveler to self-check and to report symptoms on a daily basis during the 21 day incubation period, and imposed no real restrictions on movement or travel. 

 

Two days later New York City detected their first imported Ebola case – and the newspapers had a field day analyzing that person’s movements around the city prior to calling in that he was ill.  As a result, the Governors of New York and New Jersey announced their own, more restrictive quarantine protocols, which have sparked heated debate.

 

Today, CDC Director Thomas Frieden held a press conference to announce new, tighter CDC guidelines – that while less restrictive than some of the state plans rolled out over the weekend – he believes are appropriate and not overly onerous. 

 

Whether individual states will adopt them – or continue to go their own way – is something we will have to wait to see. 

 

Today’s guidance also includes guidance on monitoring and movement control protocols for people who may have been exposed (i.e. Healthcare workers, family members, etc.) to an Ebola case in this country.  For the purposes of triage, potentially exposed people are divided into 4 risk groups:

  • High Risk
  • Some Risk
  • Low Risk (but not zero)
  • No Risk

 

Full details on how each risk group would be treated can be viewed at the link below:

 

Monitoring Symptoms and Controlling Movement to Stop Spread of Ebola

For Immediate Release: Monday, October 27, 2014
Contact:
Media Relations, Office of Communication
(404) 639-3286
Fact Sheet

Purpose

This fact sheet explains CDC’s updated guidance to protect America from Ebola. This updated guidance focuses on strengthening how we monitor people who may have been exposed to Ebola and how medical professionals will oversee their care and, when warranted to protect the public health or our communities, limit their movement or activities. Through these changes, CDC and state and local health departments seek to support people who may have been exposed to Ebola, while also continuing to stop Ebola at its source in West Africa through the valor of our health care workers who serve. These changes will help ensure their symptoms are monitored and a system is in place to quickly recognize when they need to be routed to care. These actions will better protect potentially exposed individuals and the American public as a whole.

Key changes to the movement and monitoring guidance

  • New risk levels are given for people who may have been exposed to Ebola, as well as for those not at risk for the disease.
  • The guidance recommends stricter actions  for escalating level of risk based on the type of exposure.
  • State and local public health authorities are advised to use active monitoring or direct active monitoring rather than having people monitor themselves.
  • Specific guidance is given about monitoring health care workers who cared for patients with Ebola in a country with widespread transmission, and people who visited an Ebola Treatment Unit in one of those countries.
  • Specific guidance is also given about monitoring health care workers who provided care of patients with Ebola in the United States

New risk levels

The new guidance defines four risk levels based on degree of exposure:

High risk—direct contact of infected body fluids through:

  • needle stick, or splashes to eyes, nose, or mouth
  • getting body fluids directly on skin
  • handling body fluids, such as in a laboratory, without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) or following recommended safety precautions
  • touching a dead body without correctly wearing PPE in a country with widespread Ebola transmission
  • living with and caring for a person showing symptoms of Ebola

Some risk—

  • close contact with a person showing symptoms of Ebola such as in a household, health care facility, or the community (no PPE worn). Close contact means being within 3 feet of the person with Ebola for a long time without wearing PPE.
  • in countries with widespread Ebola transmission: direct contact with a person showing symptoms of Ebola while wearing PPE

Low risk (but not zero)—

  • having been in a country with widespread Ebola transmission within the previous 21 days and having no known exposure
  • being in the same room for a brief period of time (without direct contact) with a person showing symptoms of Ebola
  • having brief skin contact with a person showing symptoms of Ebola when the person was believed to be not very contagious
  • in countries without widespread Ebola transmission: direct contact with a person showing symptoms of Ebola while wearing PPE
  • travel on an airplane with a person showing symptoms of Ebola

No risk—

  • contact with a person who is NOT showing symptoms AFTER that person was in contact with a person with Ebola
  • contact with a person with Ebola BEFORE the person was showing symptoms
  • having traveled to a country with Ebola outbreak MORE than 21 days ago
  • having been in to a country where there is no widespread Ebola transmission (e.g., the United States), and having no other exposures to Ebola

Public health officials will use these risk levels along with assessing symptoms to decide how best to monitor for symptoms and what other restrictions may be needed. The table on the following page provides further information about CDC’s recommended action for each risk level.

(Continue  . . . )

Saudi MOH Announces 2 MERS Cases (Riyadh & Jeddah)

image

 

# 9256

 

It has been several months we last saw a MERS case reported from Jeddah – the site of last spring’s biggest outbreak – although Turkey’s recently imported case (see WHO MERS Update – Turkey) first developed symptoms in late September while visiting that city.  


According to a statement released by WHO:

Contacts of the case during his symptomatic phase (25 September - 6 October 2014) when he was still in Jeddah are being examined, including contacts in health care facilities in KSA.


Whether today’s case – that of a 90 y.o. female from Jeddah – has anything to do with that case is unknown. Without onset dates, figuring out the timing is pretty much impossible. 

Meanwhile Riyadh reports another case – without any known animal or hospital exposure.  

 

image

BMC: H10N8 Antibodies In Animal Workers – Guangdong Province, China

Photo: ©FAO/Tariq Tinazay

Credit FAO

 

# 9255

 

Avian H10 viruses haven’t garnered a lot of attention until relatively recently, as they rarely produce symptoms in poultry, and human infections have been both rare, and mild.  All of that changed last winter when China reported three fatal H10N8 infections (see Jiangxi Province Reports 3rd H10N8 Case) in quick succession.


LPAI (Low Path Avian Influenza) H10N8 had been previously reported in a duck sampled back in 2012 from Guangdong province, but was otherwise not well described. 


Human infections with a close cousin – H10N7 – had previously been reported in two children in Egypt in 2004 (see Avian Influenza Virus A (H10N7) Circulating among Humans in Egypt) and among abattoir workers in Australia in 2012 (see EID Journal: Human Infection With H10N7 Avian Influenza).  

 

In both cases illness was described as mild, and of short duration.

 

A side note, we also looked at a recent outbreak of H10N7 in European seals (see Avian H10N7 Linked To Dead European Seals), with warnings to the public to avoid contact.


Since testing for novel flu viruses among humans is only very rarely done, we don’t have a good handle on how often these `oddball’ avian flu viruses actually jump to humans. 

 

While probably fairly rare – and largely restricted to those who have a lot of contact with wild or domesticated birds – it is is likely more common than we might otherwise think. For more on prior research on seroprevalence of other rare avian influenzas see A Little Background On H11 Avian Influenzas.

 

In any event, the 2012 detection of H10N8 in a Guangdong duck, followed last year by the infection and deaths of three people from this emerging virus, inspired a group of Chinese scientists go to back and test hundreds of archived blood samples taken prior to the first known human case, to look for signs of previous H10N8 infection.

 

Although the seroprevalence for this virus appears very low, out of 827 sera tested  they found 21 mildly reactive , with three showing titers of  at least 1:40.  One, with an MN antibody titer of 1:80, was strongly suggestive of prior infection.  With this baseline, future seroprevalence studies of animal workers might provide an indirect early warning system, should this virus continue to spread stealthily in the poultry population.


The study appears in BMC Medicine. (Note there appears to be a temporary problem with the link)

 

Antibodies against H10N8 Avian Influenza Virus among Animal Workers in Guangdong Province before November 30, 2013, the First Recognized Human H10N8 Case


BMC Medicine 2014, 12:205 doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0205-3


Wenbao Qi, Shuo Su , Chencheng Xiao, Pei Zhou, Huanan Li, Changwen Ke , Gregory C Gray, Guihong Zhang , Ming Liao 

Abstract


Background
Considered an epicenter of pandemic influenza virus generation, southern China has recently seen an increasing number of human H7N9 infections. However, it is not the only threat. On 30 November 2013, a human H10N8 infection case was first described in China. The origin and genetic diversity of this novel virus is similar to that of H7N9 virus. As H10N8 avian influenza virus (AIV) was first identified from a duck in Guangdong Province during 2012 and there is also evidence of H10N8 infected dogs in this region, we sought to examine archived sera from animal workers to see if there was evidence of subclinical human infections before the first human H10N8 cases.


Methods

We studied archived serum samples (cross-sectional study, convenience sample) collected between May and September 2013 from 710 animal workers and 107 non-animal exposed volunteers living in five cities of Guangdong Province. Study participants’ sera were tested by horse red blood cells (RBCs) hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays according to World Health Organization guidelines. The A/Jiangxi-Donghu/346-1/2013(H10N8) virus was used. Sera which have an HI assay ≥1:20 were further tested with the MN assay. Questionnaire data were examined for risk factor associations with positive serological assays. Risk factor analyses failed to identify specific factors associated with probable H10N8 infections.


Results

Among the 827 sera, only 21 animal workers had an HI titer ≥1:20 (18 had an HI titer of 1:20 and 3 had an HI titer of 1:40). None of these 21 subjects reported experiencing any influenza symptoms during the three months before enrollment. Among the three subjects with HI titers of 1:40, two had MN antibody titers of 1:40, and one had a MN antibody titer of 1:80 (probable H10N8 infections).


Conclusions

Study data suggest that animal workers may have been infected with the H10N8 virus before the first recognized H10N8 human infection cases. It seems prudent to continue surveillance or H10N8 viruses among animal workers.