Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Infect Dis. 2024 March 30; Volume 24 (Issue 1); 543.; DOI:10.1186/s12879-024-09439-1
Migamba S, Ardiet DL, Migisha R, Nansikombi HT, Agaba B, et al.
BMC Infect Dis. 2024 March 30; Volume 24 (Issue 1); 543.; DOI:10.1186/s12879-024-09439-1
BACKGROUND
In 2022, a Sudan virus disease (SVD) outbreak occurred in Uganda, resulting in 142 confirmed cases, most in Mubende and Kassanda districts. We determined risk factors for Sudan virus (SUDV) infection among household members (HHM) of cases.
METHODS
We conducted a case-control and retrospective cohort study in January 2023. Cases were RT-PCR-confirmed SUDV infection in residents of Mubende or Kassanda districts during the outbreak. Case-households housed a symptomatic, primary case-patient for ≥24 hours and had ≥1 secondary case-patient with onset <2 weeks after their last exposure to the primary case-patient. Control households housed a case-patient and other HHM but no secondary cases. A risk factor questionnaire was administered to the primary case-patient or another adult who lived at home while the primary case-patient was ill. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among case-household members and categorized their interactions with primary case-patients during their illnesses as none, minimal, indirect, and direct contact. We conducted logistic regression to explore associations between exposures and case-household status, and Poisson regression to identify risk factors for SUDV infection among HHM.
RESULTS
Case- and control-households had similar median sizes. Among 19 case-households and 51 control households, primary case-patient death (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]=7.6, 95% CI 1.4-41) and ≥2 household bedrooms (ORadj=0.19, 95% CI 0.056-0.71) were associated with case-household status. In the cohort of 76 case-HHM, 44 (58%) were tested for SUDV <2 weeks from their last contact with the primary case-patient; 29 (38%) were positive. Being aged ≥18 years (adjusted risk ratio [aRRadj]=1.9, 95%CI: 1.01-3.7) and having direct or indirect contact with the primary case-patient (aRRadj=3.2, 95%CI: 1.1-9.7) compared to minimal or no contact increased risk of SVD. Access to a handwashing facility decreased risk (aRRadj=0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.88).
CONCLUSION
Direct contact, particularly providing nursing care for and sharing sleeping space with SVD patients, increased infection risk among HHM. Risk assessments during contact tracing may provide evidence to justify closer monitoring of some HHM. Health messaging should highlight the risk of sharing sleeping spaces and providing nursing care for persons with Ebola disease symptoms and emphasize hand hygiene to aid early case identification and reduce transmission.
In 2022, a Sudan virus disease (SVD) outbreak occurred in Uganda, resulting in 142 confirmed cases, most in Mubende and Kassanda districts. We determined risk factors for Sudan virus (SUDV) infection among household members (HHM) of cases.
METHODS
We conducted a case-control and retrospective cohort study in January 2023. Cases were RT-PCR-confirmed SUDV infection in residents of Mubende or Kassanda districts during the outbreak. Case-households housed a symptomatic, primary case-patient for ≥24 hours and had ≥1 secondary case-patient with onset <2 weeks after their last exposure to the primary case-patient. Control households housed a case-patient and other HHM but no secondary cases. A risk factor questionnaire was administered to the primary case-patient or another adult who lived at home while the primary case-patient was ill. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among case-household members and categorized their interactions with primary case-patients during their illnesses as none, minimal, indirect, and direct contact. We conducted logistic regression to explore associations between exposures and case-household status, and Poisson regression to identify risk factors for SUDV infection among HHM.
RESULTS
Case- and control-households had similar median sizes. Among 19 case-households and 51 control households, primary case-patient death (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]=7.6, 95% CI 1.4-41) and ≥2 household bedrooms (ORadj=0.19, 95% CI 0.056-0.71) were associated with case-household status. In the cohort of 76 case-HHM, 44 (58%) were tested for SUDV <2 weeks from their last contact with the primary case-patient; 29 (38%) were positive. Being aged ≥18 years (adjusted risk ratio [aRRadj]=1.9, 95%CI: 1.01-3.7) and having direct or indirect contact with the primary case-patient (aRRadj=3.2, 95%CI: 1.1-9.7) compared to minimal or no contact increased risk of SVD. Access to a handwashing facility decreased risk (aRRadj=0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.88).
CONCLUSION
Direct contact, particularly providing nursing care for and sharing sleeping space with SVD patients, increased infection risk among HHM. Risk assessments during contact tracing may provide evidence to justify closer monitoring of some HHM. Health messaging should highlight the risk of sharing sleeping spaces and providing nursing care for persons with Ebola disease symptoms and emphasize hand hygiene to aid early case identification and reduce transmission.
Conference Material > Video
Ardiet DL
Epicentre Scientific Day Paris 2023. 2023 June 8
English
Français
Journal Article > ResearchAbstract Only
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 November 9; Online ahead of print; S1473-3099(22)00584-9.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00584-9
Nsio JM, Ardiet DL, Coulborn RM, Grellety E, Albela M, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 November 9; Online ahead of print; S1473-3099(22)00584-9.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00584-9
BACKGROUND
In its earliest phases, Ebola virus disease's rapid-onset, high fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms are largely indistinguishable from other infectious illnesses. We aimed to characterise the clinical indicators associated with Ebola virus disease to improve outbreak response.
METHODS
In this retrospective analysis, we assessed routinely collected data from individuals with possible Ebola virus disease attending 30 Ebola health facilities in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between Aug 1, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019. We used logistic regression analysis to model the probability of Ebola infection across 34 clinical variables and four types of possible Ebola virus disease exposures: contact with an individual known to have Ebola virus disease, attendance at any funeral, health facility consultation, or consultation with an informal health practitioner.
FINDINGS
Data for 24 666 individuals were included. If a patient presented to care in the early symptomatic phase (ie, days 0–2), Ebola virus disease positivity was most associated with previous exposure to an individual with Ebola virus disease (odds ratio [OR] 11·9, 95% CI 9·1–15·8), funeral attendance (2·1, 1·6–2·7), or health facility consultations (2·1, 1·6–2·8), rather than clinical parameters. If presentation occurred on day 3 or later (after symptom onset), bleeding at an injection site (OR 33·9, 95% CI 12·7–101·3), bleeding gums (7·5, 3·7–15·4), conjunctivitis (2·4, 1·7–3·4), asthenia (1·9, 1·5–2·3), sore throat (1·8, 1·3–2·4), dysphagia (1·8, 1·4–2·3), and diarrhoea (1·6, 1·3–1·9) were additional strong predictors of Ebola virus disease. Some Ebola virus disease-specific signs were less prevalent among vaccinated individuals who were positive for Ebola virus disease when compared with the unvaccinated, such as dysphagia (–47%, p=0·0024), haematemesis (–90%, p=0·0131), and bleeding gums (–100%, p=0·0035).
INTERPRETATION
Establishing the exact time an individual first had symptoms is essential to assessing their infection risk. An individual's exposure history remains of paramount importance, especially in the early phase. Ebola virus disease vaccination reduces symptom severity and should also be considered when assessing the likelihood of infection. These findings about symptomatology should be translated into practice during triage and should inform testing and quarantine procedures.
In its earliest phases, Ebola virus disease's rapid-onset, high fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms are largely indistinguishable from other infectious illnesses. We aimed to characterise the clinical indicators associated with Ebola virus disease to improve outbreak response.
METHODS
In this retrospective analysis, we assessed routinely collected data from individuals with possible Ebola virus disease attending 30 Ebola health facilities in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between Aug 1, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019. We used logistic regression analysis to model the probability of Ebola infection across 34 clinical variables and four types of possible Ebola virus disease exposures: contact with an individual known to have Ebola virus disease, attendance at any funeral, health facility consultation, or consultation with an informal health practitioner.
FINDINGS
Data for 24 666 individuals were included. If a patient presented to care in the early symptomatic phase (ie, days 0–2), Ebola virus disease positivity was most associated with previous exposure to an individual with Ebola virus disease (odds ratio [OR] 11·9, 95% CI 9·1–15·8), funeral attendance (2·1, 1·6–2·7), or health facility consultations (2·1, 1·6–2·8), rather than clinical parameters. If presentation occurred on day 3 or later (after symptom onset), bleeding at an injection site (OR 33·9, 95% CI 12·7–101·3), bleeding gums (7·5, 3·7–15·4), conjunctivitis (2·4, 1·7–3·4), asthenia (1·9, 1·5–2·3), sore throat (1·8, 1·3–2·4), dysphagia (1·8, 1·4–2·3), and diarrhoea (1·6, 1·3–1·9) were additional strong predictors of Ebola virus disease. Some Ebola virus disease-specific signs were less prevalent among vaccinated individuals who were positive for Ebola virus disease when compared with the unvaccinated, such as dysphagia (–47%, p=0·0024), haematemesis (–90%, p=0·0131), and bleeding gums (–100%, p=0·0035).
INTERPRETATION
Establishing the exact time an individual first had symptoms is essential to assessing their infection risk. An individual's exposure history remains of paramount importance, especially in the early phase. Ebola virus disease vaccination reduces symptom severity and should also be considered when assessing the likelihood of infection. These findings about symptomatology should be translated into practice during triage and should inform testing and quarantine procedures.
Conference Material > Abstract
Ardiet DL
Epicentre Scientific Day Paris 2023. 2023 June 8
CONTEXT
Sudan Virus (SUDV) is one of the five filoviruses of the genus Ebolavirus. In September 2022, an outbreak of SUDV was declared in Uganda, a country that has experienced several Ebola outbreaks over the past two decades.
METHODS
Using the line list of cases from the Ministry of Health, we aimed to describe the timeline and geographic spread of SUDV cases during the 2022 outbreak, their demographic features, and case fatality rates, in relation to contextual elements and the operational response.
RESULTS
Three aspects of this outbreak are highlighted and discussed: 1. Population mobility and the geographic spread of SUDV cases, 2. A superspreading event in a small rural town, and 3. The difficulty of early detection of Ebola virus disease (EVD), especially in children. Based on these observations, we raise some operational questions and suggest possible interventions to better cope with the challenges experienced by the healthcare system during Ebola outbreak responses.
CONCLUSION
Prior to, during, and after Ebola outbreaks, continuing efforts are needed to improve preparedness of the healthcare system for better outbreak control and quality of care.
KEY MESSAGE
Although rapidly controlled, the 2022 SUDV outbreak revealed both successful approaches and remaining challenges that should inform ongoing preparedness efforts for future epidemics.
This abstract is not to be quoted for publication.
Sudan Virus (SUDV) is one of the five filoviruses of the genus Ebolavirus. In September 2022, an outbreak of SUDV was declared in Uganda, a country that has experienced several Ebola outbreaks over the past two decades.
METHODS
Using the line list of cases from the Ministry of Health, we aimed to describe the timeline and geographic spread of SUDV cases during the 2022 outbreak, their demographic features, and case fatality rates, in relation to contextual elements and the operational response.
RESULTS
Three aspects of this outbreak are highlighted and discussed: 1. Population mobility and the geographic spread of SUDV cases, 2. A superspreading event in a small rural town, and 3. The difficulty of early detection of Ebola virus disease (EVD), especially in children. Based on these observations, we raise some operational questions and suggest possible interventions to better cope with the challenges experienced by the healthcare system during Ebola outbreak responses.
CONCLUSION
Prior to, during, and after Ebola outbreaks, continuing efforts are needed to improve preparedness of the healthcare system for better outbreak control and quality of care.
KEY MESSAGE
Although rapidly controlled, the 2022 SUDV outbreak revealed both successful approaches and remaining challenges that should inform ongoing preparedness efforts for future epidemics.
This abstract is not to be quoted for publication.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 January 1; Volume 23 (Issue 1); 91-102.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00584-9
Nsio JM, Ardiet DL, Coulborn RM, Grellety E, Albela M, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 January 1; Volume 23 (Issue 1); 91-102.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00584-9
BACKGROUND
In its earliest phases, Ebola virus disease's rapid-onset, high fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms are largely indistinguishable from other infectious illnesses. We aimed to characterise the clinical indicators associated with Ebola virus disease to improve outbreak response.
METHODS
In this retrospective analysis, we assessed routinely collected data from individuals with possible Ebola virus disease attending 30 Ebola health facilities in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between Aug 1, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019. We used logistic regression analysis to model the probability of Ebola infection across 34 clinical variables and four types of possible Ebola virus disease exposures: contact with an individual known to have Ebola virus disease, attendance at any funeral, health facility consultation, or consultation with an informal health practitioner.
FINDINGS
Data for 24 666 individuals were included. If a patient presented to care in the early symptomatic phase (ie, days 0–2), Ebola virus disease positivity was most associated with previous exposure to an individual with Ebola virus disease (odds ratio [OR] 11·9, 95% CI 9·1–15·8), funeral attendance (2·1, 1·6–2·7), or health facility consultations (2·1, 1·6–2·8), rather than clinical parameters. If presentation occurred on day 3 or later (after symptom onset), bleeding at an injection site (OR 33·9, 95% CI 12·7–101·3), bleeding gums (7·5, 3·7–15·4), conjunctivitis (2·4, 1·7–3·4), asthenia (1·9, 1·5–2·3), sore throat (1·8, 1·3–2·4), dysphagia (1·8, 1·4–2·3), and diarrhoea (1·6, 1·3–1·9) were additional strong predictors of Ebola virus disease. Some Ebola virus disease-specific signs were less prevalent among vaccinated individuals who were positive for Ebola virus disease when compared with the unvaccinated, such as dysphagia (–47%, p=0·0024), haematemesis (–90%, p=0·0131), and bleeding gums (–100%, p=0·0035).
INTERPRETATION
Establishing the exact time an individual first had symptoms is essential to assessing their infection risk. An individual's exposure history remains of paramount importance, especially in the early phase. Ebola virus disease vaccination reduces symptom severity and should also be considered when assessing the likelihood of infection. These findings about symptomatology should be translated into practice during triage and should inform testing and quarantine procedures.
In its earliest phases, Ebola virus disease's rapid-onset, high fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms are largely indistinguishable from other infectious illnesses. We aimed to characterise the clinical indicators associated with Ebola virus disease to improve outbreak response.
METHODS
In this retrospective analysis, we assessed routinely collected data from individuals with possible Ebola virus disease attending 30 Ebola health facilities in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between Aug 1, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019. We used logistic regression analysis to model the probability of Ebola infection across 34 clinical variables and four types of possible Ebola virus disease exposures: contact with an individual known to have Ebola virus disease, attendance at any funeral, health facility consultation, or consultation with an informal health practitioner.
FINDINGS
Data for 24 666 individuals were included. If a patient presented to care in the early symptomatic phase (ie, days 0–2), Ebola virus disease positivity was most associated with previous exposure to an individual with Ebola virus disease (odds ratio [OR] 11·9, 95% CI 9·1–15·8), funeral attendance (2·1, 1·6–2·7), or health facility consultations (2·1, 1·6–2·8), rather than clinical parameters. If presentation occurred on day 3 or later (after symptom onset), bleeding at an injection site (OR 33·9, 95% CI 12·7–101·3), bleeding gums (7·5, 3·7–15·4), conjunctivitis (2·4, 1·7–3·4), asthenia (1·9, 1·5–2·3), sore throat (1·8, 1·3–2·4), dysphagia (1·8, 1·4–2·3), and diarrhoea (1·6, 1·3–1·9) were additional strong predictors of Ebola virus disease. Some Ebola virus disease-specific signs were less prevalent among vaccinated individuals who were positive for Ebola virus disease when compared with the unvaccinated, such as dysphagia (–47%, p=0·0024), haematemesis (–90%, p=0·0131), and bleeding gums (–100%, p=0·0035).
INTERPRETATION
Establishing the exact time an individual first had symptoms is essential to assessing their infection risk. An individual's exposure history remains of paramount importance, especially in the early phase. Ebola virus disease vaccination reduces symptom severity and should also be considered when assessing the likelihood of infection. These findings about symptomatology should be translated into practice during triage and should inform testing and quarantine procedures.