Showing posts with label Ebola. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ebola. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Referral: Mackay On The Road To Zero Ebola Cases In West Africa

image

Credit Dr. Ian Mackay VDU Blog 

 

# 10,050

 


Nine months ago were were staring at a nearly apocalyptic worst case estimate of between 550,000 and 1.4 million Ebola cases in Liberia and Sierra Leone by the end of January 2015  - if interventions were not implemented - (see MMWR: Estimating The Future Number of Cases In The Ebola Epidemic).

 

Of course, interventions were implemented, and that harrowing estimate was never realized. 

 

Not that one can take a lot of comfort from a tally that conservatively shows nearly 27,000 cases and just over 11,000 deaths.  This single outbreak affected six times more people than all of the previously known outbreaks (1996-2014) combined.

 

But it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.  And indications are that – barring something unforeseeable – this West African Ebola outbreak may be nearing an end.

 

This round up and commentary from Dr. Ian Mackay, from which I’ve only excerpted a snippet.  Follow the link to read it in its entirety:

 

 

Liberia gave Ebola the boot...and a virus may soon be removed from the wild

image

The people of Liberia have earned our respect, some time for national celebrations and frankly any other rewards that may flow from denying the Makona variant of Ebola virus any hosts among their community.


The world considered this viral species to be one of the list-toppers when it came to ranking the causes of the most scary acute infectious diseases. Ebola virus has been the basis for all sorts of 'end-of 'the-world' mutating virus horror movies, books, and TV shows. It's not at all surprising that the public view of an Ebola virus infection had long been one of blood, fear and terror.

(Continue . . . )

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

WHO Statement On 1st Imported Ebola Case In Italy

image

Location of Sardinia

 

# 10,046

 

Yesterday it was reported that nurse who had been working in Sierra Leone up until a week ago had fallen ill Sunday on the island of Sardinia, and had subsequently been diagnosed with Ebola.  Today the World Health Organization has issued the following statement on this patient’s itinerary, and onset of symptoms.

 

Ebola virus disease – Italy

Disease outbreak news
13 May 2015

On 12 May 2015, WHO received notification of a laboratory-confirmed case of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Italy. This is the first EVD case to be detected on Italian soil.

Details of the patient are as follows

The patient is a healthcare worker who has returned from volunteering at an Ebola treatment centre in Sierra Leone. The patient flew from Freetown to Rome via Casablanca, Morocco on 7May. The arrival of the case had been communicated to the Ministry of Health, according to the health surveillance procedures in force since October 2014 for individuals coming back from Ebola affected countries in West Africa. At the arrival in Rome, the case displayed no symptoms of infectious Ebola.

On 10 May, 72 hours after his return to Italy, the patient developed symptoms. The patient self-isolated at home and was transported on 11 May to the infectious diseases ward of the Hospital of Sassari, Sardinia. Clinical samples have been tested by the national reference centre of the National Institute for Infectious Diseases (INMI) Lazzaro Spallanzani of Rome on 12 May, confirming EVD infection.

The patient was transferred from the Hospital of Sassari to the INMI of Rome with the specially equipped aircraft of the Italian Air Force, to assure high-containment precautions.

Since the onset of symptoms occurred 72 hours after the last flight, contact tracing of the passengers of the flights is not considered necessary.

Healthcare workers of the Hospital in Sassari, who examined the patient, were well equipped with personal protective equipment and are now under surveillance, as well as the close contacts of the case.

Future WHO updates on EVD in Italy will not be posted on the Disease Outbreak News. Further information will be available in WHO’s Ebola Situation Reports which provide regular updates on the WHO response:

Monday, May 11, 2015

Interim Independent Expert Report On WHO’s Ebola Response

 

image

 


# 10,034

 

In the wake of numerous criticisms over their initial response to the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, the World Health Organization’s Director-General commissioned A panel of independent experts to assess WHO's response in the Ebola outbreak in March, with the goal of presenting their first progress report at the 68th World Health Assembly being held this month.


Today, that committee released a 12-page interim report that found serious problems in the WHO’s early response to the Ebola crisis, and stated there was a  “strong, if not complete, consensus that WHO does not have a robust emergency operations capacity or culture.”

 

A few excerpts, but follow the link to read the entire report.

 

The Panel considers this a defining moment for the work of WHO. Together, the WHO leadership and the Member States need to take determined action to address the challenges at hand. “Business as usual” or “more of the same” is not an option. Although there may be responsibility on the part of individuals for the way in which the response to the Ebola outbreak has been handled, it is necessary to identify and correct the structural causes of any shortcomings. In doing so, it must be recognized that there is an increasingly complex nexus of health, humanitarian and security crises that requires the United Nations system to find new approaches that go beyond institutional silos.

<SNIP>

There were serious gaps in the early months of the outbreak in terms of engaging with the local communities. Traditional cultural practices, including funeral and burial customs, contributed to virus transmission, yet culturally sensitive messages and community engagement were not prioritized. Essentially, bleak public messaging emphasized that no treatment was available and reduced communities’ willingness to engage; medical anthropologists should have been better utilized to develop this messaging. It must also be realized that the fact that communities were already in a post conflict situation manifested itself in high levels of distrust in authority. Owing to an extent to a lack of involvement on the part of the broader humanitarian systems, the nongovernmental organization resources, such as community development workers and volunteers, many from the countries and communities themselves, were not mobilized in the early stages. Given WHO’s extensive experience with outbreaks, health promotion and social mobilization, it is surprising that it took until August or September 2014 to recognize that Ebola transmission would be brought under control only when surveillance, community mobilization and the delivery of appropriate health care to affected communities were all put in place simultaneously.

It is still unclear to the Panel why early warnings, approximately from May through to July 2014, did not result in an effective and adequate response. Although WHO drew attention to the “unprecedented outbreak” at a press conference in April 2014, this was not followed by international mobilization and a consistent communication strategy. The countries most affected, other WHO Member States, the WHO Secretariat, and the wider global community were all “behind the curve” of the rapid spread of the Ebola virus. Many of the nongovernmental organizations that were on the ground in the affected countries, running development or humanitarian programmes, were faced with having to respond to a situation for which they were not well prepared; they lacked normative guidance and no adequate coordination mechanisms existed. The Panel is continuing to explore reasons for this delay, including political, cultural, organizational and financial factors.

 

 

This report does acknowledge that this Ebola outbreak was unprecedented in both size and scope, that the WHO was simultaneously dealing with several other major disease `hotspots’  (MERS in Saudi Arabia, H7N9 in China, and the declaration of Polio as a PHEIC) during the spring of last year.


Among the report’s recommendations:

 

At present, WHO does not have the operational capacity or culture to deliver a full emergency public health response. A number of options have been suggested by different organizations and individuals: (i) a new agency should be established for health emergencies; (ii) the emergency part of the health response should be led by another United Nations agency; or (iii) investments should be made so that the operational capacity of WHO for emergency response is fully in place.


The panel recommends that the third option should be pursued with vigour. Establishing a new agency would take time to put in place and substantial new resources would be required to establish its basic administrative systems, and operational response capacity. A new agency would, in any case, have to rely on and coordinate with WHO for public health and technical resources, creating an unnecessary interface. Similarly, if another United Nations agency were expected to develop health operational capacity, it too would need to coordinate in depth with WHO, especially with respect to the International Health Regulations (2005). All this suggests that, as WHO already has the mandate to deliver on operational response, it would be a far more effective and efficient use of resources to make WHO fit for purpose. This will require the resources and political will of the Member States.

 


The final report is expected in July.  

Saturday, May 09, 2015

WHO Declares Ebola Outbreak In Liberia Over

image

Credit WHO – May 6th Ebola Activity Map


# 10,029

 

With no new reported cases of Ebola in Liberia in 42 days, the World Health Organization has officially declared that embattled nation free of the disease.  Neighboring Sierra Leone and Guinea – while also making gains – continue to battle the virus, and so the entire region remains vigilant for any new outbreak.

 

The victory in Liberia, while welcome, is also fragile. 

 

This statement was emailed out by the World Health Organization this morning.  Follow the link to read it in its entirety.

 

 

The Ebola outbreak in Liberia is over

Report

from World Health Organization

Published on 09 May 2015

Today, 9 May 2015, WHO declares Liberia free of Ebola virus transmission. Forty-two days have passed since the last laboratory-confirmed case was buried on 28 March. The outbreak of Ebola virus disease in Liberia is over.

Interruption of transmission is a monumental achievement for a country that reported the highest number of deaths in the largest, longest, and most complex outbreak since Ebola first emerged in 1976. At the peak of transmission, which occurred during August and September 2014, the country was reporting from 300 to 400 new cases every week.

During those two months, the capital city Monrovia was the setting for some of the most tragic scenes from West Africa’s outbreak: gates locked at overflowing treatment centres, patients dying on the hospital grounds, and bodies that were sometimes not collected for days.

Flights were cancelled. Fuel and food ran low. Schools, businesses, borders, markets, and most health facilities were closed. Fear and uncertainty about the future, for families, communities, and the country and its economy, dominated the national mood.

Though the capital city was hardest hit, every one of Liberia’s 15 counties eventually reported cases. At one point, virtually no treatment beds for Ebola patients were available anywhere in the country. With infectious cases and corpses remaining in homes and communities, almost guaranteeing further infections, some expressed concern that the virus might become endemic in Liberia, adding another – and especially severe – permanent threat to health.

 

(Continue . . . )

Friday, May 08, 2015

MMWR & WHO On Risks Of Sexual Transmission Of Ebola

Photo collage

Credit WHO


# 10,026

 

Last November Flublogia’s very own Dr. Ian Mackay, along with Dr. Katherine Arden, penned a piece for The Lancet  (see Mackay & Arden On Ebola In Semen Of Convalescent Men) on the risks of Ebola transmission via semen even months after apparent recovery from the disease.   

A couple of weeks after The Lancet article appeared, the World Health Organization published their own review (see WHO On Ebola In Semen Of Convalescent Men), where they stated there was a potential danger of infection, although there were no documented cases of of sexual transmission of the ebolavirus. 

They nonetheless recommended:

Because of the potential to transmit the virus sexually during this time, they should maintain good personal hygiene after masturbation, and either abstain from sex (including oral sex) for three months after onset of symptoms, or use condoms if abstinence is not possible.

 

Fast forward to March of this year, and we learned of a suspected case of sexual transmission of the Ebola virus from a male patient who had recovered in late August of last year.  

 

Yesterday’s MMWR carried a report synopsizing that case.

 

Possible Sexual Transmission of Ebola Virus — Liberia, 2015

Weekly

May 8, 2015 / 64(17);479-481

On May 1, 2015, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).

Athalia Christie, MIA1, Gloria J. Davies-Wayne, MPH2, Thierry Cordier-Lasalle, DESS2, David J. Blackley, DrPH1, A. Scott Laney, PhD1, Desmond E. Williams, MD, PhD1, Shivam A. Shinde, MBBS2, Moses Badio, MSc3, Terrence Lo, DrPH1, Suzanne E. Mate, PhD4, Jason T. Ladner, PhD4, Michael R. Wiley, PhD4, Jeffrey R. Kugelman, PhD4, Gustavo Palacios, PhD4, Michael R. Holbrook, PhD5, Krisztina B. Janosko, MS5, Emmie de Wit, PhD5, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD5, Vincent J. Munster, PhD5, James Pettitt, MS5, Randal J. Schoepp, PhD4, Leen Verhenne, MD6, Iro Evlampidou, MD6, Karsor K Kollie, MPH3, Sonpon B. Sieh3, Alex Gasasira, MBChB2, Fatorma Bolay, PhD7, Francis N. Kateh, MD3, Tolbert G. Nyenswah, MPH3, Kevin M. De Cock, MD1

On March 20, 2015, 30 days after the most recent confirmed Ebola Virus Disease (Ebola) patient in Liberia was isolated, Ebola was laboratory confirmed in a woman in Monrovia. The investigation identified only one epidemiologic link to Ebola: unprotected vaginal intercourse with a survivor.

Published reports from previous outbreaks have demonstrated Ebola survivors can continue to harbor virus in immunologically privileged sites for a period of time after convalescence. Ebola virus has been isolated from semen as long as 82 days after symptom onset and viral RNA has been detected in semen up to 101 days after symptom onset (1). One instance of possible sexual transmission of Ebola has been reported, although the accompanying evidence was inconclusive (2). In addition, possible sexual transmission of Marburg virus, a filovirus related to Ebola, was documented in 1968 (3). This report describes the investigation by the Government of Liberia and international response partners of the source of Liberia's latest Ebola case and discusses the public health implications of possible sexual transmission of Ebola virus.

Based on information gathered in this investigation, CDC now recommends that contact with semen from male Ebola survivors be avoided until more information regarding the duration and infectiousness of viral shedding in body fluids is known. If male survivors have sex (oral, vaginal, or anal), a condom should be used correctly and consistently every time (4).

(Continue . . . )

 

The CDC’s advice differs in that it is more open ended what than that proposed today the WHO, which calls for abstinence or protection until the male partner’s semen has tested negative twice.

 

Interim Advice on Sexual Transmission of Ebola Virus Disease

8 May 2015

Sexual transmission of the Ebola Virus, from males to females, is a strong possibility, but has not yet been proven. Less probable, but theoretically possible, is female to male transmission.

Studies have shown that Ebola virus can be isolated from semen up to 82 days after symptom onset and a recent case investigation identified genetic material (RNA) from the virus by nucleic acid amplification tests (such as RT-PCR) 199 days after symptom onset. This is well beyond the period of virus detectability in the blood of survivors and long after recovery from illness. The detection of virus genetic material many months after symptom onset is assumed to reflect the continuing, or at least very recent, presence of live and potentially transmissible Ebola virus.

In support of the view that Ebola virus can be transmitted via semen, a single instance of heterosexual transmission of the related Marburg filovirus, from a male survivor to a female partner, was reported during an outbreak in 1967.

Ebola virus RNA has also been detected by RT-PCR in vaginal fluid from one woman 33 days after symptom onset. Live virus has never been isolated from vaginal fluids. With such limited data, it is not known for how long virus typically persists in vaginal fluids, or whether it can be sexually transmitted from females to males.

More surveillance data and research are needed on the risks of sexual transmission, and particularly on the prevalence of viable and transmissible virus in semen over time. In the interim, and based on present evidence, WHO recommends that:

  • All Ebola survivors and their sexual partners should receive counselling to ensure safe sexual practices until their semen has twice tested negative. Survivors should be provided with condoms.
  • Male Ebola survivors should be offered semen testing at 3 months after onset of disease, and then, for those who test positive, every month thereafter until their semen tests negative for virus twice by RT-PCR, with an interval of one week between tests.
  • Ebola survivors and their sexual partners should either (a) abstain from all types of sex or (b) observe safe sex through correct and consistent condom use until their semen has twice tested negative. Having tested negative, survivors can safely resume normal sexual practices without fear of Ebola virus transmission.
  • If an Ebola survivor’s semen has not been tested, he should continue to practice safe sex for at least 6 months after the onset of symptoms; this interval may be adjusted as additional information becomes available on the prevalence of Ebola virus in the semen of survivors over time.
  • Until such time as their semen has twice tested negative for Ebola, survivors should practise good hand and personal hygiene by immediately and thoroughly washing with soap and water after any physical contact with semen, including after masturbation. During this period used condoms should be handled safely, and safely disposed of, so as to prevent contact with seminal fluids.
  • All survivors, their partners and families should be shown respect, dignity and compassion.

Friday, May 01, 2015

EID Journal: The Stability Of The Ebola Virus On Surfaces & In Fluids

image

October 15th  Outside Nina Pham’s Apartment

 

# 9998

 

One of the critical issues that emerged during the Ebola epidemic in Western Africa is how little we actually knew about the stability and persistence of the virus in the environment, and how that might vary across different climates and settings. 

 

Variations in temperature, humidity, duration and strength of UV exposure, the types of fluids (including their pH), and the types of surfaces were all potentially mitigating factors. 

 

Last August, a CDC Interim Guidance and FAQ (see Interim Guidance for Environmental Infection Control in Hospitals for Ebola Virus) had this to say about the research to date:

 

6. How long does the Ebola virus persist in indoor environments?

Only one laboratory study has been reported, which was done under environmental conditions that favor virus persistence. This study found that under these ideal conditions, Ebola virus could remain active for up to six days.1 In a follow-up study, Ebola virus was found, relative to other enveloped viruses, to be quite sensitive to inactivation by ultraviolet light and drying; yet subpopulations did persist in organic debris.2

In the only study to assess contamination of the patient care environment during an outbreak, conducted in an African hospital under "real-world conditions," Ebola virus was not detected by either nucleic acid amplification or culture in any of 33 samples collected from sites that were not visibly bloody. Virus was detected on a blood-stained glove and bloody intravenous insertion site by nucleic acid amplification, which may detect nonviable virus, but not by culture for live, infectious virus.3 Based upon these data and what is known regarding the environmental infection control of other enveloped RNA viruses, the expectation is that with consistent daily cleaning and disinfection practices in U.S. hospitals, the persistence of Ebola virus in the patient care environment would be short, with 24 hours3 considered a cautious upper limit.

 

That said, the CDC adopted some very strict guidance on dealing with potential environmental contamination from the Ebola virus, outlined in Interim Guidance for the U.S. Residence Decontamination for Ebola Virus Disease (Ebola) and Removal of Contaminated Waste  and CDC Interim Ebola Guidance: Mortuary Removal and Handling.

 

Last February, in EID Journal: Post Mortem Stability Of The Ebola Virus, we saw a study that found that viable Ebola virus could be isolated 7 days post-mortem in cynomolgus macaques, and that viral RNA continued to be detectable reliably for 3 weeks and sporadically for up to 10 weeks

 

The authors wrote, `. . .  viable virus can persist for >7 days on surfaces of bodies, confirming that transmission from deceased persons is possible for an extended period after death.’

 


Today the same team of NIH researchers are back with another EID Dispatch, this time looking at the persistence of the Ebola virus in the environment.


Two of their most striking findings were;

  1. That the Ebola virus lived longer on surfaces (stainless steel, plastic, or Tyvek) roughly twice as long in a climate controlled environment (temp 21°C, 40% RH) than it did in a  tropical environment (27°C, 80% relative humidity (RH)).
  2. The Ebola virus remains viable in water for as long as 3 days at 27°C  or 6 days at 21°C

 

I’ve only excerpted part of the study, follow the link below to read it in its entirety.

 

Volume 21, Number 7—July 2015
Dispatch

Ebola Virus Stability on Surfaces and in Fluids in Simulated Outbreak Environments

Robert Fischer1, Seth Judson1, Kerri Miazgowicz, Trenton Bushmaker, Joseph Prescott, and Vincent J. MunsterComments to Author

Author affiliations: National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, Montana, USA

 

Abstract

We evaluated the stability of Ebola virus on surfaces and in fluids under simulated environmental conditions for the climate of West Africa and for climate-controlled hospitals. This virus remains viable for a longer duration on surfaces in hospital conditions than in African conditions and in liquid than in dried blood.

<SNIP>

We report stability of EBOV with a current outbreak strain from Guinea (Makona-WPGC07) (9) on 3 clinically relevant surfaces: stainless steel, plastic, and Tyvek (Dupont, Wilmington, DE, USA). We also determined the stability of EBOV in water, spiked human blood, and blood from infected nonhuman primates (NHPs). These experiments were conducted in 2 environmental conditions, 21°C, 40% RH, and 27°C, 80% RH, to simulate a climate-controlled hospital and the environment in West Africa, respectively.

Conclusions

We found that EBOV can persist on surfaces common in an ETU, highlighting the need for adherence to thorough disinfection and doffing protocols when exiting the ETUs and careful handling of medical waste. In addition, EBOV maintains viability for a longer duration in liquid than in dried blood. EBOV in blood of experimentally infected NHPs persists for a similar duration as EBOV in spiked human blood. A recent study showed that blood in the body cavity of an NHP contained viable EBOV for up to 7 days after death (13). We detected viable EBOV in drying blood for up to 5 days at both environmental conditions in human and NHP blood. Therefore, dried and liquid blood from an infected person in their home or ETU should be treated as potentially infectious. The finding that EBOV remains viable in water for as long as 3 (27°C) or 6 (21°C) days at the experimental concentration warrants further investigation into the persistence of the virus in aqueous environments, such as in wastewater or sewage canals. Viable EBOV has been isolated from urine (14) but not from human stool (8). Therefore, the potential for dissemination of EBOV through wastewater remains unknown.

This study is subject to several limitations. First, because standard volumes for samples were used, different volumes or matrices could influence the stability of EBOV under the tested conditions. Second, blood samples from the NHPs might have different immunologic or biochemical conditions, which can potentially influence virus stability. Third, the experimental conditions in the laboratory are sterile, but in disease-endemic areas and ETUs, bacteria or chemicals could influence EBOV viability.

Overall, we found that different environmental conditions, fluids, and surfaces influence the persistence of EBOV. These findings demonstrate that such factors are crucial in understanding transmission and improving safety practices.

Monday, April 20, 2015

WHO Statement On Ebola Response & Needed Reforms

image

Credit CDC PHIL

 

# 9958

 

Overnight the World Health Organization published – and sent out to journalists – a statement on this past year’s Ebola response in Western Africa, the lessons learned, and the changes that must be made to ensure a better response the next time a major disease outbreak occurs.

 

 

WHO leadership statement on the Ebola response and WHO reforms

16 April 2015

The Ebola outbreak that started in December 2013 became a public health, humanitarian and socioeconomic crisis with a devastating impact on families, communities and affected countries. It also served as a reminder that the world, including WHO, is ill-prepared for a large and sustained disease outbreak.

We, the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, and Regional Directors of WHO, are making this commitment of collective leadership to Member States and their peoples in line with recommendations made by the Special Session of the Executive Board on Ebola held in January 2015. We have taken note of the constructive criticisms of WHO’s performance and the lessons learned to ensure that WHO plays its rightful place in disease outbreaks, humanitarian emergencies and in global health security.

What have we learned?

We have learned that new diseases and old diseases in new contexts must be treated with humility and an ability to respond quickly to surprises. Greater surge capacity contributes to a flexible response.

We have learned lessons of fragility. We have seen that health gains – fewer child deaths, malaria coming under control, more women surviving child birth – are all too easily reversed, when built on fragile health systems, which are quickly overwhelmed and collapse in the face of an outbreak of this nature.

We have learned the importance of capacity. We can mount a highly effective response to small and medium-sized outbreaks, but when faced with an emergency of this scale, our current capacities and systems – national and international – simply have not coped.

We have learned lessons of community and culture. A significant obstacle to an effective response has been the inadequate engagement with affected communities and families. This is not simply about getting the right messages across; we must learn to listen if we want to be heard. We have learned the importance of respect for culture in promoting safe and respectful funeral and burial practices. Empowering communities must be an action, not a cliché.

We have learned lessons of solidarity. In a disease outbreak, all are at risk. We have learned that the global surveillance and response system is only as strong as its weakest links, and in an increasingly globalized world, a disease threat in one country is a threat to us all. Shared vulnerability means shared responsibility and therefore requires sharing of resources, and sharing of information.

We have learned the challenges of coordination. We have learnt to recognise the strengths of others, and the need to work in partnership when we do not have the capacity ourselves.

We have been reminded that market-based systems do not deliver on commodities for neglected diseases – endemic nor epidemic. Incentives are needed to encourage the development of new medical products for diseases that disproportionately affect the poor. The scientific community, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulators have come together in a collaborative effort to vastly compress the time needed to develop and approve Ebola vaccines, medicines, and rapid diagnostic tests. In future, this ad hoc emergency effort needs to be replaced by more routine procedures that are part of preparedness.

Finally, we have learned the importance of communication – of communicating risks early, of communicating more clearly what is needed, and of involving communities and their leaders in the messaging.

What must we do?

We will engage with national authorities and request them to keep outbreak prevention, preparedness and response management at the top of national and global agendas.

We will develop the capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to disease outbreaks and humanitarian emergencies. This will require a directing and coordinating mechanism to bring together the world’s resources to mount a rapid and effective response. We commit to expanding our core staff working on diseases with outbreak potential and health emergencies so we will have skilled staff always available at the three levels of WHO. We will also create surge capacity of teams of trained and certified staff so that we have a reserve force in the event of an emergency.

We will create a Global Health Emergency Workforce – combining the expertise of public health scientists, the clinical skills of doctors, nurses and other health workers, the management skills of logisticians and project managers, and the skills of social scientists, communication experts and community workers. This Global Health Emergency Workforce will be made up of teams of trained and certified responders who can be available immediately. A key principle must be to build capacity in countries, with training and simulation exercises.

We will establish a Contingency Fund to enable WHO to respond more rapidly to disease outbreaks. We must ensure adequate resources – domestic and international - are available before the next outbreak.

We recognize that emergency situations demand a command and control approach and we commit to seamless collaboration between headquarters, regional offices, and country offices. Better WHO systems for rapid staff deployments, data collection and reporting, expansion of laboratory services, logistics, and coordination were developed as the outbreak evolved. These systems will be institutionalized.

The massive international response revealed the unique strengths of multiple partners, including UN agencies. We will build on these partnerships, concentrating on capacities that are most critically needed under the demanding conditions of emergencies.

We will strengthen the International Health Regulations – the international framework for preparedness, surveillance and response for disease outbreaks and other health threats. We commit to strengthening our capacity to assess, plan and implement preparedness and surveillance measures. We will scale up our support to countries to develop the minimum core capacities to implement the IHR. We will establish mechanisms for independent verification of national capacity to detect and respond to disease threats.

We will develop expertise in community engagement in outbreak preparedness and response. We will emphasise the importance of community systems strengthening and work with partners to develop multidisciplinary approaches to community engagement , informed by anthropology and other social sciences.

We will communicate better. We commit to provide timely information on disease outbreaks and other health emergencies as they occur. We will strengthen our capacity for outbreak and risk communications.

We call on world leaders to take the following steps

First, take disease threats seriously. We do not know when the next major outbreak will come or what will cause it. But history tells us it will come. This means investing domestically and internationally in prevention and in essential public health systems for preparedness, surveillance and response, which are fully integrated and aligned with efforts to strengthen health systems, and included in the scope of development assistance for health.

Second, remain vigilant. This Ebola outbreak is far from over, and we must sustain our support to the affected countries until the outbreak is over, in the face of increasing complacency and growing fatigue. We must continue to maintain a high level of surveillance. Ebola has demonstrated its capacity to spread – it may do so again.

Third, engage to re-establish the services, systems and infrastructure which have been devastated in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. This recovery must be country-led, community-based, and inclusive – engaging the many partners who have something to contribute; including bilateral and multilateral partners, national and international NGOs, the faith community, and the private sector.

Fourth, be transparent in reporting. Accurate and timely information is the basis for effective action. Speedy detection facilitates speedy response and prevents escalation.

Fifth, invest in research and development for the neglected diseases with outbreak potential – diagnostics, drugs, and vaccines. This will require innovative financing mechanisms, and public-private partnerships.

This is our commitment; together we will ensure that WHO is reformed and well positioned to play its rightful role in disease outbreaks, humanitarian emergencies and in global health security.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

CDC: Sierra Leone Ebola Vaccine Trial Begins

image

 

 

# 9938

 

Yesterday the NIH published a summary of a early-stage clinical trial of an investigational Ebola vaccine called VSV-ZEBOV, and reported that it appeared safe  and produced robust antibody responses in all 40 of the healthy adults who received it (see April 13, 2015 Ebola Vaccine Candidate Promising in Early Study).

 

This summary described the results:

Most volunteers who received the vaccine developed antibodies against the Zaire species of Ebola virus within 14 days of injection. All developed this sign of an immune system response by 28 days after vaccine injection. The immune response was substantially higher in those who received the higher vaccine dose.

The volunteers tolerated the vaccine well. The most common side effects were injection site pain and transient fever that appeared and resolved within 12 to 36 hours after vaccination. The volunteers were asked about new arthritis symptoms, since some volunteers in another study of this candidate vaccine reported arthritis symptoms starting in the second week after vaccination. No episodes were reported by any of the volunteers in the NIH-WRAIR study.

“The prompt, dose-dependent production of high levels of antibodies following a single injection and the overall favorable safety profile of this vaccine make VSV-ZEBOV a promising candidate that might be particularly useful in outbreak interventions,” Davey says.

 

Today the CDC has announced that a large scale trial of this experimental vaccine is to begin in Sierra Leone, where 6,000 healthcare workers will receive the experimental vaccine.

 

Ebola vaccine trial begins in Sierra Leone

6,000 health and other frontline workers will receive vaccine in five districts of the country 

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, April 14, 2015

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in partnership with the Sierra Leone College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences (COMAHS) and the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MoHS), is now enrolling and vaccinating volunteers for the Sierra Leone Trial to Introduce a Vaccine against Ebola (STRIVE). This study will assess the safety and efficacy of the rVSV-ZEBOV candidate Ebola vaccine among health and other frontline workers.

“A safe and effective vaccine would be a very important tool to stop Ebola in the future, and the frontline workers who are volunteering to participate are making a decision that could benefit health care professionals and communities wherever Ebola is a risk,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.  “We hope this vaccine will be proven effective but in the meantime we must continue doing everything necessary to stop this epidemic —find every case, isolate and treat, safely and respectfully bury the dead, and find every single contact.”

STRIVE will enroll about 6,000 health and other frontline workers. It will be conducted in Western Area Urban district, which includes Freetown, Western Area Rural district, and certain chiefdoms in Bombali, Port Loko, and Tonkolili districts. These study locations were selected because they have been heavily affected by the Ebola outbreak in the past few months.

“We are happy to be partnering with MoHS and CDC on this important study, which may help to prevent future cases of Ebola,” said Mohamed Samai, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D., acting Provost of COMAHS and the study’s principal investigator. “It brings me hope and pride that my country can take from this devastating epidemic something that may benefit people around the world.”

When participants enroll in the study, they will be assigned randomly to one of two timeframes for vaccination – either immediately or about six months later. All study participants will receive the vaccine and be followed closely for six months. The study will evaluate if and how well the vaccine worked by comparing rates of Ebola virus disease in those who are vaccinated to those who have not yet received the vaccine.

The rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine uses a vesicular stomatitis virus carrying a non-infectious Ebola virus gene. The vaccine cannot cause Ebola virus disease but can potentially stimulate an immune response to protect against the disease. The vaccine was developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory and licensed to NewLink Genetics. In 2014, NewLink Genetics entered into a licensing and collaboration agreement with Merck to research, develop, manufacture, and distribute the rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine. The vaccine has, and continues to be, studied in hundreds of people (as of March 26, 2015, more than 800 people) in Africa, Canada, Europe, and the United States. Results from early studies to date of the vaccine show an acceptable safety profile and indicate that the rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine produces an immune response. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority is supporting the advanced development and manufacturing of the vaccine and is assisting CDC in conducting the clinical trial in Sierra Leone.

“We don’t know whether this vaccine will be the Ebola prevention tool we’re all eager for, but we hope that what we learn from STRIVE will help us save lives during this and future Ebola outbreaks,” said Anne Schuchat, M.D., Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Because it is not yet clear how much protection, if any, the rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine may offer, health and other frontline workers who receive the vaccine should continue to take full preventive actions to protect themselves from Ebola, including proper training, focused protocols and procedures, and use of all recommended personal protective equipment.

Monday, April 06, 2015

Referral: Mackay On Lesser Ebola Transmission Risks

image

Credit CDC PHIL

 

# 9904

 


Making news last week was the story Liberia Recommends Ebola Survivors Practice Safe Sex Indefinitely, which came after an Ebola patient died the previous week with just one known risk factor: her boyfriend had been successfully treated for Ebola last September.


You may recall that last  August, Dr. Ian Mackay writing on his VDU Blog, posted Ebola virus in semen is the real deal...., which he followed up 10 days later with  Ebola: Blood, sweat and tears, where Ian described the (somewhat limited) research to date on the level of EBOV detection in other body fluids – like tears, sweat and saliva.

 

A couple of months later Ian and Dr. Katherine Arden followed up with a piece for The Lancet (see Mackay & Arden On Ebola In Semen Of Convalescent Men), where they wrote:

 

A clear need exists to ensure that men convalescing after Ebola virus disease are made very plainly aware that they will need to conduct themselves with care to minimise the infectious potential of their seminal fluid. This careful conduct should include the patient maintaining careful personal hygiene after masturbation, practicing safe sex, or abstaining from sexual contact altogether for a suitable period of time.

 

Yesterday Ian weighed in on another not-so-obvious route of potential convalescent Ebola transmission; urine.  I’ve only excerpted one paragraph, follow the link to read:

 

Ebola - the lesser transmission risks are still risks...

(EXCERPT)

Another possible, albeit also unproven, transmission route is urine. This fluid seems to me to be a far more likely source of trouble. One cannot abstain from urination. So why worry about urine as a risk for transmission of Ebola virus? An EVD case study last year showed very nicely that infectious Ebola virus could be cultured from urine for about 12 days longer than it could be from blood.[1] Viral RNA has also been found in urine for four weeks.[1,2]


(Continue . . . )

Friday, March 27, 2015

NIH: Ebola Virus More Stable Than Previous Study Suggested

image

Credit CDC PHIL

# 9873

 

Last August, while Ebola was still accelerating in West Africa, we saw a study warning that the Ebola Virus Is Rapidly Evolving.  Specifically, that 99 Ebola viruses taken from 78 people from Sierra Leone during the month of June, and found that the virus is showing a marked propensity to accumulate `interhost and intrahost genetic variation’ as it passages through the population.


This led to media reports such as Ebola virus mutating rapidly as it spreads from Nature News, and  Ebola Is Rapidly Mutating As It Spreads Across West Africa via NPR’s Goats & Soda Blog.


As I noted at the time,  while scientists have the ability to sequence and compare these variant viruses, they don’t necessarily know what these individual mutations (or their aggregate) means to the virus, or how it might change its behavior.

 

Still, this study raised the level of concern over how this virus was evolving, and what changes in its behavior that might eventually bring.

 

Yesterday the NIH announced a far more reassuring survey of the Ebola virus’s evolution, which found a far less aggressive rate of change in the virus than previously announced.  First the NIH announcement, followed by a link to the study, then I’ll be back with a bit more.

 

NIH study finds no evidence of accelerated Ebola virus evolution in West Africa

 

The Ebola virus circulating in humans in West Africa is undergoing relatively few mutations, none of which suggest that it is becoming more severe or transmissible, according to a National Institutes of Health study in Science. The study compares virus sequencing data from samples taken from patients in Guinea (March 2014), Sierra Leone (June 2014) and Mali (November 2014).

 

“The Ebola virus in the ongoing West African outbreak appears to be stable—that is, it does not appear to be mutating more rapidly than viruses in previous Ebola outbreaks, and that is reassuring,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of NIH. “We look forward to additional information to validate this finding, because understanding and tracking Ebola virus evolution are critical to ensuring that our scientific and public health response keeps pace.”

Obtaining virus samples for analysis was challenging for researchers during the outbreak. The NIAID study published today relies on data from the Guinea and Sierra Leone cases as well as samples from two case clusters in Mali obtained from the International Center for Excellence in Research (ICER) located in Bamako. NIAID and the Malian government have been partners in the ICER since 2002. The Mali case clusters originated from people who became infected in Guinea and traveled to Mali, where they were diagnosed.

Today’s study, from NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories, finds that there appear to be no genetic changes that would increase the virulence or change the transmissibility of the circulating Ebola virus, and that despite extensive human-to-human transmission during the outbreak, the virus is not mutating at a rate beyond what is expected. Further, they say, based on their data it is unlikely that the types of genetic changes thus far observed would impair diagnostic measures, or affect the efficacy of candidate vaccines or potential virus-specific treatments.

As of March 11, the World Health Organization listed more than 24,000 confirmed, suspected or probable cases of Ebola virus disease in West Africa, with about 10,000 deaths.

 

Mutation rate and genotype variation of Ebola virus from Mali case sequences

T. Hoenen1,*, D. Safronetz1,*, A. Groseth1,*,  K. R. Wollenberg2,*, O. A. Koita3,  B. Diarra3, I. S. Fall4, F. C. Haidara5, F. Diallo5, M. Sanogo3, Y. S. Sarro3, A. Kone3, A. C. G. Togo3, A. Traore5, M. Kodio5, A. Dosseh6, K. Rosenke1, E. de Wit1, F. Feldmann7, H. Ebihara1, V. J. Munster1, K. C. Zoon8, H. Feldmann1,†,‡, S. Sow5,†,‡

 

The occurrence of Ebola virus (EBOV) in West Africa during 2013–2015 is unprecedented. Early reports suggested that in this outbreak EBOV is mutating twice as fast as previously observed, which indicates the potential for changes in transmissibility and virulence and could render current molecular diagnostics and countermeasures ineffective. We have determined additional full-length sequences from two clusters of imported EBOV infections into Mali, and we show that the nucleotide substitution rate (9.6 × 10–4 substitutions per site per year) is consistent with rates observed in Central African outbreaks. In addition, overall variation among all genotypes observed remains low. Thus, our data indicate that EBOV is not undergoing rapid evolution in humans during the current outbreak. This finding has important implications for outbreak response and public health decisions and should alleviate several previously raised concerns.

 

 

Last night Lisa Schnirring of CIDRAP News reviewed these findings, and looked at reports of two new Ebola cases in Liberia, an update on the American being treated at the NIH, and news on one of the candidate vaccines in:

 

Gene study finds no worrisome changes in Ebola virus

Lisa Schnirring | Staff Writer | CIDRAP News

A genetic analysis published today of Ebola virus samples over the course of the outbreak found few changes and noted that the virus is apparently more stable than a study back in August had suggested.

(Continue . .. )

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Referral VDU Blog: Catching Ebola: mistakes, messages and madness

 

image

Credit CDC PHIL

 

 

# 9840

 

One of the early `voices of reason’  on the threat posed by the Ebola Virus outside of Africa, was Dr. Ian Mackay on his VDU Blog

While many in  the news media, social media, and the tabloids went nuts last August over improbable `Ebola doomsday scenarios’  (see A Look Down The Ebola Rabbit Hole) –   Ian produced a series of focused, and scientifically grounded looks at the `real risks’ from the virus, and debunked some of the rampant misinformation spreading on the net.


A few examples:

Fake/wrong Ebola virus disease images...

VDU Blog: Droplets vs Airborne - Demystifying Ebola Transmission

Ebola: Blood, sweat and tears...


And a review by Ian and Dr. Katherine Arden in The Lancet, published last November:

Lancet: Mackay & Arden On Ebola In Semen Of Convalescent Men

 

Today Ian and Kat Arden are back with a look back at the messaging (good and bad) during the height of the Ebola outbreak last fall, and a reality check on the threat Ebola poses to a modern society with decent public health resources.

 

Follow the link to read:

 

 

Catching Ebola: mistakes, messages and madness

Written by Dr. Ian M. Mackay and Dr. Katherine E. Arden

Despite obvious community and media fear, speculation and exclamation that Ebola virus would enter and spread widely within countries outside of the hotzone, such an event did not come to pass in 2014. The early public health messaging on Ebola virus and disease were, for the most part, spot on.


In 2014 and 2015, thousands of cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) ravaged Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia in 2014 (the "hotzone"). A smaller outbreak was defeated in Nigeria [8] and another distinct Ebola virus variant drove an outbreak of EVD in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[7] - they too controlled spread of the virus. Ebola virus traveled from the hotzone to other countries including Senegal, Nigeria, the United States of America (USA), Mali and most recently, the United Kingdom. It did this by hitching a ride in a usually unknowingly infected human host.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Ten Additional HCWs Being Evacuated From Sierra Leone After Potential Ebola Exposure

 image

 

 

# 9830

 

Yesterday, in CDC Statement: Investigating Additional Potential Ebola Exposures To American Citizens In West Africa, we learned than an American HCW who contracted Ebola in Sierra Leone was evacuated to the NIH hospital in Bethesda, and a second healthcare worker who was exposed (but not symptomatic) was being transported to Emory.

 

Last night it was revealed that at least 10 other Americans who were potentially exposed – but are not currently ill – are being transported back to this country for isolation, observation, and possible treatment.  

 

This move seems predicated upon an `abundance of caution’ rather than expectations that these individuals are infected.

 

All ten appear to be associated with the non-profit group Partners in Health, which has roughly 2,000 staff members in Africa. First a statement from Partners in Health, followed by an update from the CDC, and then lastly a report by NBC’s Maggie Fox.

 

Update on Ebola Response Clinicians Returning from Sierra Leone

Posted on March 14, 2015

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Marvin, Media Relations Manager
jmarvin@pih.org

BOSTON (Mar. 14, 2015)—On Wednesday, March 11, a clinician working with Partners In Health’s Ebola response in Sierra Leone tested positive for the Ebola virus disease. The clinician was evacuated from West Africa and is currently receiving treatment at the National Institutes of Health Special Clinical Studies Unit in Bethesda, Maryland.

Ten clinicians who came to the aid of their ailing colleague were subsequently identified as contacts of the evacuated clinician. These individuals remain asymptomatic for Ebola virus disease. Out of an abundance of caution, and in collaboration with the U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, these clinicians are being transported to the United States via non-commercial aircraft. They will remain in isolation near designated U.S. Ebola treatment facilities to ensure access to rapid testing and treatment in the unlikely instance that any become symptomatic. The clinicians have agreed to be monitored, and will voluntarily self-isolate during the remainder of the 21-day incubation period, in accordance with CDC guidelines.

Meanwhile, PIH is working with the CDC, the WHO, and the Ministry of Health and Sanitation of Sierra Leone to conduct a thorough assessment of safety and clinical protocols to ensure that we continue providing the best possible care for our patients, and safe workplaces for our staff.

PIH remains fully committed to the Ebola response in West Africa and, in the months and years to follow, working shoulder-to-shoulder with the governments of Sierra Leone and Liberia toward rebuilding the health systems in both countries.

Media Statement

For Immediate Release: Saturday, March 14, 2015
Contact:
CDC Media Relations
404-639-3286

CDC continues to investigate potential Ebola exposure among individuals in Sierra Leone, including several American citizens, following the identification of an American volunteer healthcare worker in Sierra Leone who tested positive for Ebola virus.  That healthcare worker returned to the U.S. by medevac and was admitted to the NIH Clinical Center on March 13th for care and treatment. 

As a result of CDC's ongoing investigation, CDC and the State Department are facilitating the return of additional American citizens who had potential exposure to the index patient or exposures similar to those that resulted in the infection of the index patient. Currently, none of these individuals have been identified as having Ebola virus disease.

Individuals will be transported to the U.S. by non-commercial air transport and will be near the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the National Institutes of Health, or Emory University Hospital.

Individuals will follow CDC’s recommended monitoring and movement guidelines, including direct active monitoring and, as appropriate, voluntary self isolation during the 21-day incubation period.  In the event an individual shows symptoms, they will be transported following protocol to an Ebola treatment center for evaluation and care.

Ten Americans Evacuated From Sierra Leone After Ebola Scare

By Maggie Fox

 

Ten Americans who helped treat a medical worker infected with the Ebola virus are being evacuated from Sierra Leone and will be quarantined near special isolation units, the charity they work for said Saturday.

Partners in Health, a nonprofit group with 2,000 staff in West Africa, said the Americans are being evacuated and quarantined out of an abundance of caution. Earlier Saturday the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said several people would be flown to the U.S. by private jet.

"Ten clinicians who came to the aid of their ailing colleague were subsequently identified as contacts of the evacuated clinician," Partners in Health said in a statement on its website.

None has any symptoms.

(Continue. . . )

Saturday, March 14, 2015

CDC Statement: Investigating Additional Potential Ebola Exposures To American Citizens In West Africa

image

 

 

# 9828

 

Yesterday, in NIH Statement On Arrival Of American HCW With Ebola Virus For Treatment, we looked at the evacuation of an American HCW  - infected with Ebola – from Sierra Leone to the NIH hospital in Bethesda, Md.


Late yesterday the CDC announced they are investigating this HCWs exposure, with an eye cast towards others who may have been exposed at the same time.

 

A second HCW, who was exposed (but has not tested positive for the virus) is being flown to Emory University Medical Center in Georgia.   First the CDC’s statement, after which I’ll return with a bit more:

 

 

CDC investigating potential exposures of American citizens to Ebola in West Africa

 

For Immediate Release: Friday, March 13, 2015
Contact: CDC Media Relations
404-639-3286

On March 13, an American volunteer healthcare worker in Sierra Leone who tested positive for Ebola virus returned to the U.S. by medevac and was admitted to the NIH Clinical Center for care and treatment.  As a result of this case, CDC is conducting an investigation of individuals in Sierra Leone, including several other American citizens, who may have had potential exposure to this index patient or exposures similar to those that resulted in the infection of the index patient.  At this time, none of these individuals have tested positive for Ebola. These individuals are volunteers in the Ebola response and are currently being monitored in Sierra Leone.  Out of an abundance of caution, CDC and the State Department are developing contingency plans for returning those Americans with potential exposure to the U.S. by non-commercial air transport. Those individuals will voluntarily self-isolate and be under direct active monitoring for the 21-day incubation period.

One of these American citizens had potential exposure to the individual being treated at NIH and is currently being transported via charter to the Atlanta area to be close to Emory University Hospital. The individual has not shown symptoms of Ebola and has not been diagnosed with Ebola. Upon arrival in Atlanta, the individual will voluntarily self-isolate and be under direct active monitoring for the 21-day incubation period

 

 

Although the Ebola outbreak in Liberia in West Africa has significantly improved, Sierra Leone and Guinea continue to report dozens of cases each week.   Liberia, amazingly has gone two weeks with reporting a new case, and overall, the number of new cases in the latest reporting week is down about 80% over the peak we were seeing last fall.


Some excerpts from The World Health Organization’s latest Ebola Situation Report (11 March 2015) follow:

SUMMARY

  • A total of 116 new confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were reported in the week to 8 March, compared with 132 the previous week. Liberia reported no new confirmed cases for the second consecutive week. New cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone occurred in a geographically contiguous arc around the coastal capital cities of Conakry and Freetown, with a total of 11 districts reporting cases. Although there has been no significant decline in overall case incidence since late January, the recent contraction in the geographical distribution of cases is a positive development, enabling response efforts to be focused on a smaller area.
  • Guinea reported 58 new confirmed cases in the week to 8 March, compared with 51 cases the previous week. Cases were clustered in an area around and including the capital Conakry (13 cases), with the nearby prefectures of Boffa (2 cases), Coyah (8 cases), Dubreka (5 cases), Forecariah (28 cases), and Kindia (2 cases) the only other prefectures to report cases.
  • Sierra Leone reported 58 new confirmed cases in the week to 8 March; the first time since June 2014 that weekly incidence has not exceeded that of Guinea. Cases were reported from 5 north and western districts clustered around the capital Freetown, which reported 27 new confirmed cases. The neighbouring districts of Bombali (6 cases), Kambia (7 cases), Port Loko (12 cases) and Western Rural (6 cases) also reported cases.
  • In the 4 days to 5 March there were 90 reported suspected cases in Liberia, none of whom tested positive for EVD, indicating that vigilance is being maintained. A total of 102 contacts were being followed up.
  • The number of confirmed EVD deaths occurring in the community has risen for the past 3 weeks in Guinea, suggesting that there are still significant challenges in terms of contact tracing and community engagement. Of a total of 40 EVD-positive deaths reported in the week to 8 March, 24 occurred in the community. By contrast, a far smaller proportion of EVD-positive deaths occurred in the community in Sierra Leone: 11 of 83. A total of 13 unsafe burials were reported from Guinea and 2 from Sierra Leone over the same period.
  • In the week to 1 March, 7 of 51 (14%) confirmed cases of EVD reported from Guinea arose among known contacts of previous cases, indicating that there are a large number of untraced contacts associated with known chains of transmission, and that unknown chains of transmission persist. In Sierra Leone, by contrast, 52 of 81 (64%) of confirmed EVD cases arose among known contacts over the same period. The average daily number of contacts traced in the week to 8 March was 1433 in Guinea, compared with 7934 in Sierra Leone.
  • The relatively low proportion of cases arising among known contacts, the relatively high proportion of EVD-positive deaths that occur in the community, and the continued occurrence of unsafe burials in Guinea are all indicative of continued difficulties engaging effectively with affected communities. A total of 7 Guinean prefectures reported at least one security incident in the week to 8 March.
  • During the week to 1 March, five cross-border meetings took place, including a coordination meeting in Kambia and Forecariah to facilitate communication, share best practices, and align strategies.
  • In the week to 8 March, 1 new health worker infection was reported in Guinea, bringing the total number of health worker infections reported across the three most-affected countries since the start of the outbreak to 840, with 491 deaths.

Friday, March 13, 2015

NIH Statement On Arrival Of American HCW With Ebola Virus For Treatment

NIH Clinical Center

The NIH Clinical Center.  

 

# 9820

 

Yesterday the news broke that for the second time, the NIH will admit and treat an American Healthcare worker infected with the Ebola virus, this time having been air-evac’d overnight from Sierra Leone to their facility in in Bethesda, Md..


Although not exactly routine, the past six months has shown that Ebola cases can be successfully – and safely – treated in modern hospitals.  


On October 24th, the NIH released Ms. Nina Pham, the Texas nurse who was admitted 8 days earlier infected with the virus.  This NIH facility also admitted and treated two other `high risk exposure’ cases who turned out not to be infected.

 

This statement from the NIH.

 

For Immediate Release: Friday, March 13, 2015

UPDATE: American healthcare worker with Ebola virus disease arrives safely at NIH Clinical Center

An American healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola virus while volunteering services in an Ebola treatment unit in Sierra Leone has arrived safely at the NIH Clinical Center for care and treatment. The individual was transferred from Sierra Leone via private charter medevac in isolation and admitted to the NIH Clinical Center at 4:44 a.m. ET. The patient’s condition is still being evaluated. No additional details about the patient are being shared at this time.

The patient has been admitted to the NIH Clinical Center’s Special Clinical Studies Unit (SCSU) that is specifically designed to provide high-level isolation capabilities and is staffed by infectious diseases and critical care specialists. The unit staff is trained in strict infection control practices optimized to prevent spread of potentially transmissible agents such as Ebola. NIH is taking every precaution to ensure the safety of our patients, NIH staff, and the public.

This will be the second patient with Ebola virus disease admitted to the NIH Clinical Center. An earlier patient was treated successfully and released free of disease. The NIH Clinical Center also previously admitted two individuals who experienced high-risk exposures to the Ebola virus while working on the Ebola response in West Africa, but who were ultimately found not to be infected.

(Continue . . .)

 

Friday, February 20, 2015

WHO Approves Rapid Ebola Test

 image

Credit Corgenix, USA

 

# 9730


The World Health Organization has announced their approval of the first rapid field test for Ebola, which reportedly returns a result in less than 15 minutes – and without the need for a full laboratory setup. Tests available until now (ELISA, PCR, virus isolation) require sophisticated laboratory equipment, trained technicians, and at least 12-24 hours to process.

The two main measures of the accuracy of a diagnostic test are sensitivity and specificity.

  • Sensitivity is defined as the ability of a test to correctly identify individuals who have a given disease or condition.
  • Specificity is defined as the ability of a test to exclude someone from having a disease or illness.

 

Although no lab test is 100% accurate, the trade off that we often see with rapid tests is a drop in sensitivity, the ability to identify the disease in an individual. The classic example being RIDTs (Rapid Influenza Detection Tests), which are only expected to correctly identify influenza about 70% of the time (see  A Side By Side Comparison Of Rapid Influenza Tests). 

 

This new test is purported to have a 92% sensitivity rate, which is pretty impressive. 

 

It’s specificity – the ability to exclude uninfected cases – is a bit less at 85%, but still a respectable number for a rapid test. The big advantage here is not only the speed of diagnosis, but the ability to conduct tests in the field, without electricity or a full laboratory setup.  


This from WHO:

 

 

First Antigen Rapid Test for Ebola through Emergency Assessment and Eligible for Procurement

19 February 2015

WHO has assessed and today listed the ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Corgenix, USA) as eligible for procurement to Ebola affected countries. The test was evaluated under WHO’s Emergency Assessment and Use, a procedure established to provide minimum quality, safety and performance assurance for diagnostic products in the context of the Ebola emergency.

Ebola is currently being tested in laboratories largely through the detection of the virus’s nucleic acid (genetic material), using commercial or in-house tests. Nucleic acid tests (NATs) are more accurate but are complex to use and require well-established laboratories and fully trained personnel. In addition, turn-around time can vary between 12 and 24 hours.

The ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test, which can provide results within 15 minutes, is based on detection of the Ebola protein rather than nucleic acid. When compared with the results of a NAT previously listed by WHO and currently being used in the field (RealStar® Filovirus Screen RT-PCR Kit 1.0, altona Diagnostics GmbH), ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test is able to correctly identify about 92% of Ebola infected patients and 85% of those not infected with the virus.

While less accurate, the antigen test is rapid, easy to perform and does not require electricity – it can therefore be used at lower health care facilities or in mobile units for patients in remote settings. Where possible, results from ReEBOV antigen Rapid Test Kit should be confirmed by testing a new blood sample using an approved Ebola NAT.