Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical in controlling disease, but there is concern that waning immunity may predispose to reinfection. We analyzed the magnitude and phenotype of the SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response in 100 donors at 6 months following infection. T cell responses were present by ELISPOT and/or intracellular cytokine staining analysis in all donors and characterized by predominant CD4+ T cell responses with strong interleukin (IL)-2 cytokine expression. Median T cell responses were 50% higher in donors who had experienced a symptomatic infection, indicating that the severity of primary infection establishes a 'set point' for cellular immunity. T cell responses to spike and nucleoprotein/membrane proteins were correlated with peak antibody levels. Furthermore, higher levels of nucleoprotein-specific T cells were associated with preservation of nucleoprotein-specific antibody level although no such correlation was observed in relation to spike-specific responses. In conclusion, our data are reassuring that functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses are retained at 6 months following infection.

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection.

BACKGROUND: The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. METHODS: We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 95% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) - considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050.).

Exportation of Monkeypox Virus From the African Continent.

BACKGROUND: The largest West African monkeypox outbreak began September 2017, in Nigeria. Four individuals traveling from Nigeria to the United Kingdom (n = 2), Israel (n = 1), and Singapore (n = 1) became the first human monkeypox cases exported from Africa, and a related nosocomial transmission event in the United Kingdom became the first confirmed human-to-human monkeypox transmission event outside of Africa. METHODS: Epidemiological and molecular data for exported and Nigerian cases were analyzed jointly to better understand the exportations in the temporal and geographic context of the outbreak. RESULTS: Isolates from all travelers and a Bayelsa case shared a most recent common ancestor and traveled to Bayelsa, Delta, or Rivers states. Genetic variation for this cluster was lower than would be expected from a random sampling of genomes from this outbreak, but data did not support direct links between travelers. CONCLUSIONS: Monophyly of exportation cases and the Bayelsa sample, along with the intermediate levels of genetic variation, suggest a small pool of related isolates is the likely source for the exported infections. This may be the result of the level of genetic variation present in monkeypox isolates circulating within the contiguous region of Bayelsa, Delta, and Rivers states, or another more restricted, yet unidentified source pool.

A Longitudinal, Observational Study of Etiology and Long-Term Outcomes of Sepsis in Malawi Revealing the Key Role of Disseminated Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis protocols in sub-Saharan Africa are typically extrapolated from high-income settings, yet sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa is likely caused by distinct pathogens and may require novel treatment strategies. Data to guide such strategies are lacking. We aimed to define causes and modifiable factors associated with sepsis outcomes in Blantyre, Malawi, in order to inform the design of treatment strategies tailored to sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We recruited 225 adults who met a sepsis case definition defined by fever and organ dysfunction in an observational cohort study at a single tertiary center. Etiology was defined using culture, antigen detection, serology, and polymerase chain reaction. The effect of treatment on 28-day outcomes was assessed using Bayesian logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 143 of 213 (67%) participants living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We identified a diagnosis in 145 of 225 (64%) participants, most commonly tuberculosis (TB; 34%) followed by invasive bacterial infections (17%), arboviral infections (13%), and malaria (9%). TB was associated with HIV infection, whereas malaria and arboviruses with the absence of HIV infection. Antituberculous chemotherapy was associated with survival (adjusted odds ratio for 28-day death, 0.17; 95% credible interval, 0.05-0.49 for receipt of antituberculous therapy). Of those with confirmed etiology, 83% received the broad-spectrum antibacterial ceftriaxone, but it would be expected to be active in only 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis in Blantyre, Malawi, is caused by a range of pathogens; the majority are not susceptible to the broad-spectrum antibacterials that most patients receive. HIV status is a key determinant of etiology. Novel antimicrobial strategies for sepsis tailored to sub-Saharan Africa, including consideration of empiric antituberculous therapy in individuals living with HIV, should be developed and trialed.

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN).

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. METHODS: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. FINDINGS: From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13-0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. INTERPRETATION: A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care of the UK Government, Public Health England, The National Institute for Health Research, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Blood Donors and Changes after Introduction of Public Health and Social Measures, London, UK.

We describe results of testing blood donors in London, UK, for severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG before and after lockdown measures. Anonymized samples from donors 17-69 years of age were tested using 3 assays: Euroimmun IgG, Abbott IgG, and an immunoglobulin receptor-binding domain assay developed by Public Health England. Seroprevalence increased from 3.0% prelockdown (week 13, beginning March 23, 2020) to 10.4% during lockdown (weeks 15-16) and 12.3% postlockdown (week 18) by the Abbott assay. Estimates were 2.9% prelockdown, 9.9% during lockdown, and 13.0% postlockdown by the Euroimmun assay and 3.5% prelockdown, 11.8% during lockdown, and 14.1% postlockdown by the receptor-binding domain assay. By early May 2020, nearly 1 in 7 donors had evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Combining results from the Abbott and Euroimmun assays increased seroprevalence by 1.6%, 2.3%, and 0.6% at the 3 timepoints compared with Euroimmun alone, demonstrating the value of using multiple assays.

Comparability of six different immunoassays measuring SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with neutralizing antibody levels in convalescent plasma: From utility to prediction.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) provides virus-neutralizing antibodies that may ameliorate the outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The effectiveness of CP likely depends on its antiviral neutralizing potency and is determined using in vitro neutralizing antibody assays. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated abilities of three immunoassays for anti-spike antibodies (EUROimmun, Ortho, Roche), a pseudotype-based neutralization assay, and two assays that quantify ACE2 binding of spike protein (GenScript and hemagglutination test [HAT]-based assay) to predict neutralizing antibody titers in 113 CP donations. Assay outputs were analyzed through linear regression and calculation of sensitivities and specificities by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Median values of plasma samples containing neutralizing antibodies produced conversion factors for assay unitage of ×6.5 (pseudotype), ×19 (GenScript), ×3.4 (HAT assay), ×0.08 (EUROimmun), ×1.64 (Roche), and ×0.10 (Ortho). All selected assays were sufficient in identifying the high titer donations based on ROC analysis; area over curve ranged from 91.7% for HAT and GenScript assay to 95.6% for pseudotype assay. However, their ability to predict the actual neutralizing antibody levels varied substantially as shown by linear regression correlation values (from 0.27 for Ortho to 0.61 for pseudotype assay). DISCUSSION: Overall, the study data demonstrate that all selected assays were effective in identifying donations with high neutralizing antibody levels and are potentially suitable as surrogate assays for donation selection for CP therapy.

Convalescent plasma therapy for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: Assessment of methods available for antibody detection and their correlation with neutralising antibody levels.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of approved specific therapeutic agents to treat coronavirus disease (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has led to the rapid implementation of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) trials in many countries, including the United Kingdom. Effective CPT is likely to require high titres of neutralising antibody (nAb) in convalescent donations. Understanding the relationship between functional neutralising antibodies and antibody levels to specific SARS-CoV-2 proteins in scalable assays will be crucial for the success of a large-scale collection. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with reactivity in a range of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) targeting the spike (S) protein, the main target for human immune response. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 52 individuals with a previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. These were assayed for SARS-CoV-2 nAbs by microneutralisation and pseudo-type assays and for antibodies by four different ELISAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to further identify sensitivity and specificity of selected assays to identify samples containing high nAb levels. RESULTS: All samples contained SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, whereas neutralising antibody titres of greater than 1:20 were detected in 43 samples (83% of those tested) and >1:100 in 22 samples (42%). The best correlations were observed with EUROimmun immunoglobulin G (IgG) reactivity (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient 0.88; p < 0.001). Based on ROC analysis, EUROimmun would detect 60% of samples with titres of >1:100 with 100% specificity using a reactivity index of 9.1 (13/22). DISCUSSION: Robust associations between nAb titres and reactivity in several ELISA-based antibody tests demonstrate their possible utility for scaled-up production of convalescent plasma containing potentially therapeutic levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs.

Human-to-Human Transmission of Monkeypox Virus, United Kingdom, October 2018.

In September 2018, monkeypox virus was transmitted from a patient to a healthcare worker in the United Kingdom. Transmission was probably through contact with contaminated bedding. Infection control precautions for contacts (vaccination, daily monitoring, staying home from work) were implemented. Of 134 potential contacts, 4 became ill; all patients survived.

Convalescent plasma treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the first 436 donors in England, 22 April to 12 May 2020.

Serological reactivity was analysed in plasma from 436 individuals with a history of disease compatible with COVID-19, including 256 who had been laboratory-confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Over 99% of laboratory-confirmed cases developed a measurable antibody response (254/256) and 88% harboured neutralising antibodies (226/256). Antibody levels declined over 3 months following diagnosis, emphasising the importance of the timing of convalescent plasma collections. Binding antibody measurements can inform selection of convalescent plasma donors with high neutralising antibody levels.

A probable case of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) acquired in England, July 2019.

The United Kingdom (UK) has thus far been considered to be free from tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), yet in July 2019, a German infant developed serologically diagnosed TBE following a tick bite in southern England. This first report of a probable human case together with recent findings of TBE virus in ticks in foci in England suggest that TBE may be acquired in parts of England and should be considered in patients with aetiologically-unexplained neurological manifestations.

Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease: Past, Present, and Future.

Laboratory diagnosis of Ebola virus disease plays a critical role in outbreak response efforts; however, establishing safe and expeditious testing strategies for this high-biosafety-level pathogen in resource-poor environments remains extremely challenging. Since the discovery of Ebola virus in 1976 via traditional viral culture techniques and electron microscopy, diagnostic methodologies have trended toward faster, more accurate molecular assays. Importantly, technological advances have been paired with increasing efforts to support decentralized diagnostic testing capacity that can be deployed at or near the point of patient care. The unprecedented scope of the 2014-2015 West Africa Ebola epidemic spurred tremendous innovation in this arena, and a variety of new diagnostic platforms that have the potential both to immediately improve ongoing surveillance efforts in West Africa and to transform future outbreak responses have reached the field. In this review, we describe the evolution of Ebola virus disease diagnostic testing and efforts to deploy field diagnostic laboratories in prior outbreaks. We then explore the diagnostic challenges pervading the 2014-2015 epidemic and provide a comprehensive examination of novel diagnostic tests that are likely to address some of these challenges moving forward.

Case of Nigeria-Acquired Human African Trypanosomiasis in United Kingdom, 2016.

Human African trypanosomiasis has not been reported in Nigeria since 2012. Nevertheless, limitations of current surveillance programs mean that undetected infections may persist. We report a recent case of stage 2 trypanosomiasis caused by Trypanosoma brucei gambiense acquired in Nigeria and imported into the United Kingdom.

Influence of Referral Pathway on Ebola Virus Disease Case-Fatality Rate and Effect of Survival Selection Bias.

Case-fatality rates in Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) varied widely during the Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa. We assessed the influence of referral pathway on ETC case-fatality rates with a retrospective cohort of 126 patients treated at the Mathaska ETC in Port Loko, Sierra Leone. The patients consisted of persons who had confirmed EVD when transferred to the ETC or who had been diagnosed onsite. The case-fatality rate for transferred patients was 46% versus 67% for patients diagnosed onsite (p = 0.02). The difference was mediated by Ebola viral load at diagnosis, suggesting a survival selection bias. Comparisons of case-fatality rates across ETCs and clinical management strategies should account for potential survival selection bias.

Performance of the GeneXpert Ebola Assay for Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in Sierra Leone: A Field Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa, field laboratory testing for EVD has relied on complex, multi-step real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays; an accurate sample-to-answer RT-PCR test would reduce time to results and potentially increase access to testing. We evaluated the performance of the Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay on clinical venipuncture whole blood (WB) and buccal swab (BS) specimens submitted to a field biocontainment laboratory in Sierra Leone for routine EVD testing by RT-PCR ("Trombley assay"). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study was conducted in the Public Health England EVD diagnostic laboratory in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, using residual diagnostic specimens remaining after clinical testing. EDTA-WB specimens (n = 218) were collected from suspected or confirmed EVD patients between April 1 and July 20, 2015. BS specimens (n = 71) were collected as part of a national postmortem screening program between March 7 and July 20, 2015. EDTA-WB and BS specimens were tested with Xpert (targets: glycoprotein [GP] and nucleoprotein [NP] genes) and Trombley (target: NP gene) assays in parallel. All WB specimens were fresh; 84/218 were tested in duplicate on Xpert to compare WB sampling methods (pipette versus swab); 43/71 BS specimens had been previously frozen. In all, 7/218 (3.2%) WB and 7/71 (9.9%) BS samples had Xpert results that were reported as "invalid" or "error" and were excluded, leaving 211 WB and 64 BS samples with valid Trombley and Xpert results. For WB, 22/22 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 84.6%-100%), and 181/189 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 95.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.8%-98.2%). Seven of the eight Trombley-negative, Xpert-positive (Xpert cycle threshold [Ct] range 37.7-43.4) WB samples were confirmed to be follow-up submissions from previously Trombley-positive EVD patients, suggesting a revised Xpert specificity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.0%-100%). For Xpert-positive WB samples (n = 22), Xpert NP Ct values were consistently lower than GP Ct values (mean difference -4.06, 95% limits of agreement -6.09, -2.03); Trombley (NP) Ct values closely matched Xpert NP Ct values (mean difference -0.04, 95% limits of agreement -2.93, 2.84). Xpert results (positive/negative) for WB sampled by pipette versus swab were concordant for 78/79 (98.7%) WB samples, with comparable Ct values for positive results. For BS specimens, 20/20 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 83.2%-100%), and 44/44 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 100%, 95% CI 92.0%-100%). This study was limited to testing residual diagnostic samples, some of which had been frozen before use; it was not possible to test the performance of the Xpert Ebola assay at point of care. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert Ebola assay had excellent performance compared to an established RT-PCR benchmark on WB and BS samples in a field laboratory setting. Future studies should evaluate feasibility and performance outside of a biocontainment laboratory setting to facilitate expanded access to testing.

ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test kit for point-of-care and laboratory-based testing for Ebola virus disease: a field validation study.

BACKGROUND: At present, diagnosis of Ebola virus disease requires transport of venepuncture blood to field biocontainment laboratories for testing by real-time RT-PCR, resulting in delays that complicate patient care and infection control efforts. Therefore, an urgent need exists for a point-of-care rapid diagnostic test for this disease. In this Article, we report the results of a field validation of the Corgenix ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test kit. METHODS: We performed the rapid diagnostic test on fingerstick blood samples from 106 individuals with suspected Ebola virus disease presenting at two clinical centres in Sierra Leone. Adults and children who were able to provide verbal consent or assent were included; we excluded patients with haemodynamic instability and those who were unable to cooperate with fingerstick or venous blood draw. Two independent readers scored each rapid diagnostic test, with any disagreements resolved by a third. We compared point-of-care rapid diagnostic test results with clinical real-time RT-PCR results (RealStar Filovirus Screen RT-PCR kit 1·0; altona Diagnostics GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) for venepuncture plasma samples tested in a Public Health England field reference laboratory (Port Loko, Sierra Leone). Separately, we performed the rapid diagnostic test (on whole blood) and real-time RT-PCR (on plasma) on 284 specimens in the reference laboratory, which were submitted to the laboratory for testing from many clinical sites in Sierra Leone, including our two clinical centres. FINDINGS: In point-of-care testing, all 28 patients who tested positive for Ebola virus disease by RT-PCR were also positive by fingerstick rapid diagnostic test (sensitivity 100% [95% CI 87·7-100]), and 71 of 77 patients who tested negative by RT-PCR were also negative by the rapid diagnostic test (specificity 92·2% [95% CI 83·8-97·1]). In laboratory testing, all 45 specimens that tested positive by RT-PCR were also positive by the rapid diagnostic test (sensitivity 100% [95% CI 92·1-100]), and 214 of 232 specimens that tested negative by RT-PCR were also negative by the rapid diagnostic test (specificity 92·2% [88·0-95·3]). The two independent readers agreed about 95·2% of point-of-care and 98·6% of reference laboratory rapid diagnostic test results. Cycle threshold values ranged from 15·9 to 26·3 (mean 22·6 [SD 2·6]) for the PCR-positive point-of-care cohort and from 17·5 to 26·3 (mean 21·5 [2·7]) for the reference laboratory cohort. Six of 16 banked plasma samples from rapid diagnostic test-positive and altona-negative patients were positive by an alternative real-time RT-PCR assay (the Trombley assay); three (17%) of 18 samples from individuals who were negative by both the rapid diagnostic test and altona test were also positive by Trombley. INTERPRETATION: The ReEBOV rapid diagnostic test had 100% sensitivity and 92% specificity in both point-of-care and reference laboratory testing in this population (maximum cycle threshold 26·3). With two independent readers, the test detected all patients who were positive for Ebola virus by altona real-time RT-PCR; however, this benchmark itself had imperfect sensitivity. FUNDING: Abundance Foundation.

Evaluation of the Biofire FilmArray BioThreat-E Test (v2.5) for Rapid Identification of Ebola Virus Disease in Heat-Treated Blood Samples Obtained in Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom.

Rapid Ebola virus (EBOV) detection is crucial for appropriate patient management and care. The performance of the FilmArray BioThreat-E test (v2.5) using whole-blood samples was evaluated in Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom and was compared with results generated by a real-time Ebola Zaire PCR reference method. Samples were tested in diagnostic laboratories upon availability, included successive samples from individual patients, and were heat treated to facilitate EBOV inactivation prior to PCR. The BioThreat-E test had a sensitivity of 84% (confidence interval [CI], 64% to 95%) and a specificity of 89% (CI, 73% to 97%) in Sierra Leone (n = 60; 44 patients) and a sensitivity of 75% (CI, 19% to 99%) and a specificity of 100% (CI, 97% to 100%) in the United Kingdom (n = 108; 70 patients) compared to the reference real-time PCR. Statistical analysis (Fisher's exact test) indicated there was no significant difference between the methods at the 99% confidence level in either country. In 9 discrepant results (5 real-time PCR positives and BioThreat-E test negatives and 4 real-time PCR negatives and BioThreat-E test positives), the majority (n = 8) were obtained from samples with an observed or probable low viral load. The FilmArray BioThreat-E test (v2.5) therefore provides an attractive option for laboratories (either in austere field settings or in countries with an advanced technological infrastructure) which do not routinely offer an EBOV diagnostic capability.

Lessons for control of heroin-associated anthrax in Europe from 2009-2010 outbreak case studies, London, UK.

Outbreaks of serious infections associated with heroin use in persons who inject drugs (PWIDs) occur intermittently and require vigilance and rapid reporting of individual cases. Here, we give a firsthand account of the cases in London during an outbreak of heroin-associated anthrax during 2009-2010 in the United Kingdom. This new manifestation of anthrax has resulted in a clinical manifestation distinct from already recognized forms. During 2012-13, additional cases of heroin-associated anthrax among PWIDs in England and other European countries were reported, suggesting that anthrax-contaminated heroin remains in circulation. Antibacterial drugs used for serious soft tissue infection are effective against anthrax, which may lead to substantial underrecognition of this novel illness. The outbreak in London provides a strong case for ongoing vigilance and the use of serologic testing in diagnosis and serologic surveillance schemes to determine and monitor the prevalence of anthrax exposure in the PWID community.

Seroconversion for infectious pathogens among UK military personnel deployed to Afghanistan, 2008-2011.

Military personnel are at high risk of contracting vector-borne and zoonotic infections, particularly during overseas deployments, when they may be exposed to endemic or emerging infections not prevalent in their native countries. We conducted seroprevalence testing of 467 UK military personnel deployed to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, during 2008-2011 and found that up to 3.1% showed seroconversion for infection with Rickettsia spp., Coxiella burnetii, sandfly fever virus, or hantavirus; none showed seroconversion for infection with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus. Most seroconversions occurred in personnel who did not report illness, except for those with hantavirus (70% symptomatic). These results indicate that many exposures to infectious pathogens, and potentially infections resulting from those exposures, may go unreported. Our findings reinforce the need for continued surveillance of military personnel and for education of health care providers to help recognize and prevent illnesses and transmission of pathogens during and after overseas deployments.