Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 August 15; Volume 63 (Issue 8); 1026-1033.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciw452
Rosenke K, Adjemian J, Munster VJ, Marzi A, Falzarano D, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 August 15; Volume 63 (Issue 8); 1026-1033.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciw452
BACKGROUND
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in West Africa has resulted in 28 646 suspected, probable, and confirmed Ebola virus infections. Nevertheless, malaria remains a large public health burden in the region affected by the outbreak. A joint Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institutes of Health diagnostic laboratory was established in Monrovia, Liberia, in August 2014, to provide laboratory diagnostics for Ebola virus.
METHODS
All blood samples from suspected Ebola virus-infected patients admitted to the Médecins Sans Frontières ELWA3 Ebola treatment unit in Monrovia were tested by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for the presence of Ebola virus and Plasmodium species RNA. Clinical outcome in laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus-infected patients was analyzed as a function of age, sex, Ebola viremia, and Plasmodium species parasitemia.
RESULTS
The case fatality rate of 1182 patients with laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus infections was 52%. The probability of surviving decreased with increasing age and decreased with increasing Ebola viral load. Ebola virus-infected patients were 20% more likely to survive when Plasmodium species parasitemia was detected, even after controlling for Ebola viral load and age; those with the highest levels of parasitemia had a survival rate of 83%. This effect was independent of treatment with antimalarials, as this was provided to all patients. Moreover, treatment with antimalarials did not affect survival in the Ebola virus mouse model.
CONCLUSIONS
Plasmodium species parasitemia is associated with an increase in the probability of surviving Ebola virus infection. More research is needed to understand the molecular mechanism underlying this remarkable phenomenon and translate it into treatment options for Ebola virus infection.
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in West Africa has resulted in 28 646 suspected, probable, and confirmed Ebola virus infections. Nevertheless, malaria remains a large public health burden in the region affected by the outbreak. A joint Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institutes of Health diagnostic laboratory was established in Monrovia, Liberia, in August 2014, to provide laboratory diagnostics for Ebola virus.
METHODS
All blood samples from suspected Ebola virus-infected patients admitted to the Médecins Sans Frontières ELWA3 Ebola treatment unit in Monrovia were tested by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for the presence of Ebola virus and Plasmodium species RNA. Clinical outcome in laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus-infected patients was analyzed as a function of age, sex, Ebola viremia, and Plasmodium species parasitemia.
RESULTS
The case fatality rate of 1182 patients with laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus infections was 52%. The probability of surviving decreased with increasing age and decreased with increasing Ebola viral load. Ebola virus-infected patients were 20% more likely to survive when Plasmodium species parasitemia was detected, even after controlling for Ebola viral load and age; those with the highest levels of parasitemia had a survival rate of 83%. This effect was independent of treatment with antimalarials, as this was provided to all patients. Moreover, treatment with antimalarials did not affect survival in the Ebola virus mouse model.
CONCLUSIONS
Plasmodium species parasitemia is associated with an increase in the probability of surviving Ebola virus infection. More research is needed to understand the molecular mechanism underlying this remarkable phenomenon and translate it into treatment options for Ebola virus infection.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
J Infect Dis. 2016 June 30; Volume 214 (Issue suppl 3); S145-S152.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiw198
Poliquin PG, Vogt F, Kasztura M, Leung A, Deschambault Y, et al.
J Infect Dis. 2016 June 30; Volume 214 (Issue suppl 3); S145-S152.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiw198
BACKGROUND
Ebola viruses (EBOVs) are primarily transmitted by contact with infected body fluids. Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) contain areas that are exposed to body fluids through the care of patients suspected or confirmed to have EBOV disease. There are limited data documenting which areas/fomites within ETCs pose a risk for potential transmission. This study conducted environmental surveillance in 2 ETCs in Freetown, Sierra Leone, during the 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak.
METHODS
ETCs were surveyed over a 3-week period. Sites to be swabbed were identified with input from field personnel. Swab samples were collected and tested for the presence of EBOV RNA. Ebola-positive body fluid-impregnated cotton pads were serially sampled.
RESULTS
General areas of both ETCs were negative for EBOV RNA. The immediate vicinity of patients was the area most likely to be positive for EBOV RNA. Personal protective equipment became positive during patient care, but chlorine solution washes rendered them negative.
CONCLUSIONS
Personal protective equipment and patient environs do become positive for EBOV RNA, but careful attention to decontamination seems to remove it. EBOV RNA was not detected in general ward spaces. Careful attention to decontamination protocols seems to be important in minimizing the presence of EBOV RNA within ETC wards.
Ebola viruses (EBOVs) are primarily transmitted by contact with infected body fluids. Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) contain areas that are exposed to body fluids through the care of patients suspected or confirmed to have EBOV disease. There are limited data documenting which areas/fomites within ETCs pose a risk for potential transmission. This study conducted environmental surveillance in 2 ETCs in Freetown, Sierra Leone, during the 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak.
METHODS
ETCs were surveyed over a 3-week period. Sites to be swabbed were identified with input from field personnel. Swab samples were collected and tested for the presence of EBOV RNA. Ebola-positive body fluid-impregnated cotton pads were serially sampled.
RESULTS
General areas of both ETCs were negative for EBOV RNA. The immediate vicinity of patients was the area most likely to be positive for EBOV RNA. Personal protective equipment became positive during patient care, but chlorine solution washes rendered them negative.
CONCLUSIONS
Personal protective equipment and patient environs do become positive for EBOV RNA, but careful attention to decontamination seems to remove it. EBOV RNA was not detected in general ward spaces. Careful attention to decontamination protocols seems to be important in minimizing the presence of EBOV RNA within ETC wards.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 May 24; Volume 5 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001183
Grolla A, Jones SM, Fernando L, Strong JE, Stroher U, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 May 24; Volume 5 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001183
Background: Marburg virus (MARV), a zoonotic pathogen causing severe hemorrhagic fever in man, has emerged in Angola resulting in the largest outbreak of Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF) with the highest case fatality rate to date. Methodology/Principal Findings: A mobile laboratory unit (MLU) was deployed as part of the World Health Organization outbreak response. Utilizing quantitative real-time PCR assays, this laboratory provided specific MARV diagnostics in Uige, the epicentre of the outbreak. The MLU operated over a period of 88 days and tested 620 specimens from 388 individuals. Specimens included mainly oral swabs and EDTA blood. Following establishing on site, the MLU operation allowed a diagnostic response in ,4 hours from sample receiving. Most cases were found among females in the child-bearing age and in children less than five years of age. The outbreak had a high number of paediatric cases and breastfeeding may have been a factor in MARV transmission as indicated by the epidemiology and MARV positive breast milk specimens. Oral swabs were a useful alternative specimen source to whole blood/serum allowing testing of patients in circumstances of resistance to invasive procedures but limited diagnostic testing to molecular approaches. There was a high concordance in test results between the MLU and the reference laboratory in Luanda operated by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Conclusions/Significance: The MLU was an important outbreak response asset providing support in patient management and epidemiological surveillance. Field laboratory capacity should be expanded and made an essential part of any future outbreak investigation.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Nat Microbiol. 2016 February 24; Volume 1 (Issue 3); 16007.; DOI:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.7
Sprecher A, Feldman H, Hensley L, Kobinger GP, Nichol ST, et al.
Nat Microbiol. 2016 February 24; Volume 1 (Issue 3); 16007.; DOI:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.7
Concern over Ebola becoming endemic in West Africa has appeared in the medical and lay media. Routes of transmission, rates of viral evolution, suitability of humans as hosts and rarity of spillover events make this very unlikely. Without evidence that endemic Ebola is likely, ending epidemics should remain the focus.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Emerg Infect Dis. 2016 February 1; Volume 22 (Issue 2); 323-326.; DOI:10.3201/eid2202.151656
de Wit E, Falzarano D, Onyango C, Rosenke K, Marzi A, et al.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2016 February 1; Volume 22 (Issue 2); 323-326.; DOI:10.3201/eid2202.151656
Malaria is a major public health concern in the countries affected by the Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa. We determined the feasibility of using molecular malaria diagnostics during an Ebola virus disease outbreak and report the incidence of Plasmodium spp. parasitemia in persons with suspected Ebola virus infection.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
J Infect Dis. 2023 August 19; online ahead of print; jiad354.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiad354
Sprecher A, Cross RW, Marzi A, Martins KA, Wolfe D, et al.
J Infect Dis. 2023 August 19; online ahead of print; jiad354.; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiad354
Although there are now approved treatments and vaccines for Ebola virus disease (EVD), the case fatality of EVD remains unacceptably high even when treated with the newly approved therapeutics; furthermore, these countermeasures are not expected to be effective against disease caused by other filoviruses. A meeting of subject matter experts from public health, research, and countermeasure development agencies and manufacturers was held during the 10th International Filovirus Symposium to discuss strategies to address these gaps, including how newer countermeasures could be advanced for field readiness. Several investigational therapeutics, vaccine candidates, and combination strategies were presented. In all, a common theme emerged: the greatest challenge to completing development was the implementation of well-designed clinical trials of safety and efficacy during filovirus disease outbreaks. These outbreaks are usually of short duration, providing but a brief opportunity for trials to be launched, and have too few cases to allow for full enrollment during a single outbreak, so clinical trials will necessarily need to span multiple outbreaks which may occur in a number of at-risk countries. Preparing for this will require agreed-upon common protocols for trials intended to bridge multiple outbreaks across all at-risk countries. A multi-national research consortium including, and led by, at-risk countries would be an ideal mechanism to negotiate agreement on protocol design and coordinate preparation. Discussion participants recommended a follow-up meeting be held in Africa with national public health and research agencies from at-risk countries to establish such a consortium.
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 December 15; Volume 64 (Issue 2); 232.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciw734
Rosenke K, Adjemian J, Munster VJ, Strong JE, Sprecher A, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 December 15; Volume 64 (Issue 2); 232.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciw734
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
mBio. 2015 February 19; Volume 6 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1128/mBio.00137-15
Osterholm M, Moore K, Kelley N, Brosseau L, Wong G, et al.
mBio. 2015 February 19; Volume 6 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1128/mBio.00137-15
Available evidence demonstrates that direct patient contact and contact with infectious body fluids are the primary modes for Ebola virus transmission, but this is based on a limited number of studies. Key areas requiring further study include (i) the role of aerosol transmission (either via large droplets or small particles in the vicinity of source patients), (ii) the role of environmental contamination and fomite transmission, (iii) the degree to which minimally or mildly ill persons transmit infection, (iv) how long clinically relevant infectiousness persists, (v) the role that "superspreading events" may play in driving transmission dynamics, (vi) whether strain differences or repeated serial passage in outbreak settings can impact virus transmission, and (vii) what role sylvatic or domestic animals could play in outbreak propagation, particularly during major epidemics such as the 2013-2015 West Africa situation. In this review, we address what we know and what we do not know about Ebola virus transmission. We also hypothesize that Ebola viruses have the potential to be respiratory pathogens with primary respiratory spread.