Emerging Infections

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.

“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.

“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”

Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.

Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.

So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
 

Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process

To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.

The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.

“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”

The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.

So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.

For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.

In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
 

Uncertainty Emphasized

The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.

Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”

The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.

“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.

Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”

Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.

“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”

So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.

“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.

Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
 

Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests

Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.

The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.

In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.

The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.

“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.

“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”

During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”

When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.

“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.

“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.

“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”

Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.

Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.

So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
 

Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process

To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.

The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.

“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”

The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.

So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.

For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.

In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
 

Uncertainty Emphasized

The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.

Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”

The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.

“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.

Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”

Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.

“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”

So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.

“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.

Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
 

Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests

Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.

The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.

In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.

The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.

“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.

“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”

During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”

When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.

“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Noopur Raje, MD, has been sitting at home for 5 weeks waiting for her COVID-19 test to turn negative so she can get back to work. She’s a cancer specialist – head of the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Multiple Myeloma – but Raje says as soon as she’s allowed back to the hospital, she’ll head straight to the front line of COVID-19 caregivers.

“It’s people like us who have to get back in the trenches and do the work now,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“I still will be at risk,” she said. But, having nursed her physician husband through COVID-19 at home until he was admitted to an intensive care unit, she is determined to help in the COVID-19 wards.

“I will be the first one to volunteer to take care of these patients,” she said. “I can’t wait, as I want to give these folks hope. They are so scared.”

Around the world, it’s assumed that she and others like her who’ve recovered from COVID-19 will be immune to the infection.

Some have suggested that with antibodies to the virus coursing through their veins, these survivors might be given immunity passports. They could be the ones to jump-start people’s lives again ― the first to be let out from lockdown, and in healthcare, the ones to head the ongoing battle against this pandemic.

So, there has been a race to develop COVID-19 antibody tests to identify these people.
 

Circumventing the Usual Clearance Process

To speed up the process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a much-criticized move to allow a free-for-all for developers to begin marketing antibody tests that had not gone through the agency’s usual evaluation process. The result was a flood of more than 90 unapproved tests “that have, frankly, dubious quality,” said Scott Becker, CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), which represents local and state public laboratories.

The APHL spoke out in dismay – its chief program officer, Eric Blank, decried the “Wild West” of tests unleashed on the public.

“These tests create more uncertainty than before,” said Kelly Wroblewski, APHL’s director of infectious diseases, in a news conference on April 14. “Having many inaccurate tests is worse than having no tests at all.”

The APHL and the FDA, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have moved quickly into damage control, conducting evaluations of the tests in an effort to distinguish the potentially useful from the useless.

So far, they have succeeded in issuing emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to only four tests, those marketed by Cellex, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Chembio Diagnostic Systems, and the Mount Sinai Laboratory.

For all the other antibody tests on the market that do not have an EUA, “They’re trusting that the test developer has done a good job in validation,” Becker said. But there are worrying anecdotes. “Our members have reported that they’ve seen fraudulent marketing.... We’ve seen the FDA clamp down on some companies... [and] a number of cities and health departments have issued warnings because of what they’ve seen,” he added.

In particular, Wroblewski said, some companies are marketing tests for use in physicians’ offices or pharmacies. “Today, there are no serology tests approved for point-of-care settings,” she warned. “We don’t know how to interpret the test results, if the presence of antibodies indicates immunity, how long it will last, or what titer might be sufficient.”
 

Uncertainty Emphasized

The FDA emphasized the uncertainty about antibody tests in a statement released on April 18.

Although the tests can identify people who have been exposed and who developed an immune response to the virus, the agency noted, “we don’t yet know that just because someone has developed antibodies, that they are fully protected from reinfection, or how long any immunity lasts.”

The FDA says that the role of these antibody tests, at present, lies in providing information to “help us track the spread of the virus nationwide and assess the impact of our public health efforts now, while also informing our COVID-19 response as we continue to move forward.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasized the current uncertainty over antibody tests at a press briefing on April 17. “Nobody is sure about the length of protection that antibodies may give and whether they fully protect against ... the disease,” said Mike Ryan, MD, executive director of the WHO’s emergencies program. There is also a concern that such tests may give false assurance or be misused. “There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to validate these antibody tests,” he added.

“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with COVID-19,” commented Prof. Chris Dye, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, in reaction on the UK Science Media Center.

Expanding on this point on the same site, Andrew Easton PhD, professor of virology at the University of Warwick, noted that “a serology test does not discriminate between neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies; a discriminatory test is much more complex and slow.”

Only the neutralizing antibodies have the ability to inactivate the invading virus, he noted.

“When people are infected, the proportions of neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies can differ. It is not always understood what makes an antibody neutralising and another non-neutralising, or why an infection leads to production of more of one of these types of antibodies,” he explained. “The initial immune response immediately following infection sets the memory of the immune system, so if the person had generated mostly non-neutralising antibodies, the next time that person encounters the same virus, they may not be able to prevent an infection.”

So at present, the information from antibody testing is largely unhelpful to individuals, but it could be valuable to epidemiologists and policy makers.

“States are looking at ways they can integrate reliable serologic tests for surveillance,” explained APHL’s Blank.

Knowing how widespread the infection has been within a community could guide research and possibly public health decisions, Wroblewski said at the APHL press conference. But she’s hesitant here, too. “I know there has been a lot of talk about using this testing to ease restrictions, but I do think we need to be cautious on how quickly we move in that direction.” If people don’t have antibodies, it means they haven’t been exposed and that they’re still vulnerable, she noted. “If nothing else, that still informs policy decisions, even if they’re not the policy decisions we want.”
 

Trials Recruiting, Medical Centers Develop Own Tests

Despite the uncertainties over antibody testing, many efforts are still being guided by this strategy.

The NIH is recruiting volunteers to its antibody testing study and suggests that immunity is “likely” for those who test positive.

In addition, several large medical centers have developed their own antibody tests, including Stanford, the Yale New Haven Hospital, and the Mayo Clinic.

The Stanford test detects two types of antibodies: IgM, which is made early in an immune response and usually wanes quickly, and IgG, which rises more slowly after infection but usually persists longer.

“There’s limited data out of China and Europe showing that this appears to be the response pattern followed with this virus,” commented Thomas Montine, MD, PhD, professor and chair of pathology at Stanford University. “But no one has had this long enough to know how long after infection the antibodies persist,” he added.

“There is enormous demand for serologic testing,” said William Morice, MD, PhD, president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “At this time, serology testing needs to be prioritized for efforts to identify individuals in areas where potential immunity is key ― supporting healthcare workers, screening for potential plasma donors, and helping advance the most promising vaccine candidates.”

During a recent webinar with the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care, the largest physician-owned oncology-hematology practice in the country, the president, Lucio Gordan, MD, said his organization was looking into antibody testing for staff. “They wanted to see how many have been exposed,” he said, although “what it means is uncertain.”

When Medscape Medical News checked back with him a few weeks later, Gordan, president of Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, reported that no progress had been made.

“We unfortunately have not been able to test yet, due to concerns with reliability of kits. We are waiting for a better solution so we can reassess our strategy,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirmed a new case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on Feb. 5, 2020, bringing the total number of cases in the United States to 12.* 

Earlier in the day, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that 206 individuals under investigation had tested negative for infection with the novel virus and that tests were pending on another 76 individuals.

The agency also announced during a press briefing call that diagnostic test kits will begin shipping on Feb. 5, less than 24 hours after receiving an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Full information is available in an article published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The emergency use authorization will allow for broader use of the CDC’s 2019-nCoV Real Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which to date has been limited for use at CDC laboratories. Under the emergency use authorization, the diagnostic kit is authorized for patients who meed the CDC criteria for 2019-nCoV testing. The diagnostic test is a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that provides presumptive detection of 2019-nCoV from respiratory secretions, such as nasal or oral swabs. A positive test indicates likely infection, although a negative test does not preclude infection and should not be the sole determination for patient management decisions.

“Today, the test kits will start shipping to over 100 U.S. public health labs,” she said. “Each of these labs is required to perform international verification for [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] compliance prior to reporting out. This process is expected to take a few days.”

Dr. Messonnier said that 200 test kits will be distributed to domestic labs and another 200 test kits will go to select international labs. Each kit can perform diagnostics on 700-800 patient samples.

“What that means is that, by the start of next week, we expect there to be much enhanced capacity for laboratory testing closer to our patients,” she said, adding that additional test kits are being produced and will be available for ordering in the future. Each laboratory that places an order will receive one test kit.

“Distribution of these tests will improve the global capacity to detect and respond to this new virus,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Availability of this test is a starting place for greater commercial availability of diagnostic testing for nCoV.”

The CDC also said that the next batch of passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, will be arriving in one of four locations: Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego; Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio; and Eppley Airfield, Omaha, Neb. Passengers will be quarantined for up to 14 days from the day the flight left Wuhan and medical care will be provided if needed.

“We do not believe these people pose a threat to the communities where they are being housed as we are taking measures to minimize any contact,” she said, adding that confirmed infections are expected among these and other returning travelers.

Dr. Messonnier warned that the quarantine measures “may not catch every single returning traveler returning with novel coronavirus, given the nature of this virus and how it is spreading. But if we can catch the majority of them, that will slow the entry of this virus into the United States.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

*This story was updated on 02/05/2020. 

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.

By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.

“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.

Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.

The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.

The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.

In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.

The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.

“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”

In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.

All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”

All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.

The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.

The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.

SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.

By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.

“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.

Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.

The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.

The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.

In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.

The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.

“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”

In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.

All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”

All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.

The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.

The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.

SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.

By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.

“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.

Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.

The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.

The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.

In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.

The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.

“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”

In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.

All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”

All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.

The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.

The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.

SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com