Outbreak of dengue fever in Palau, Western Pacific: risk factors for infection.

Between January and June 1995, an outbreak of dengue fever occurred in Palau, an island nation of 32,000 inhabitants in the Western Pacific. To determine the magnitude of this outbreak and to determine modifiable risk factors to guide control strategies, we established active surveillance at the national hospital and private clinics, reviewed available clinical records, and conducted serologic and entomologic surveys. Between January 1 and July 1, 1995, 817 case-patients with acute febrile illness with body or joint aches and one of the following: headache, rash, nausea, vomiting, or hemorrhagic manifestations presented to health facilities in Palau. The epidemic peaked in the second week of April 1995. Of 338 case-patients tested, 254 (75%) had positive serologic results by an IgM capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Dengue 4 virus was isolated from 78 (51%) of 154 serum samples tested. Blood samples collected during a cross-sectional survey were tested for IgM antibody and yielded an attack ratio of 27% (95% confidence interval = 23-31%). Potential vectors included the introduced species Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus, and the native species Ae. hensilli. Significant risk factors (P < or = 0.05) for infection included age < 20 years, the presence of food or water pans for animals on the property, taro farming, the presence of Ae. aegypti on the property, and presence of Ae. scutellaris group mosquitoes (Ae. Hensilli, Ae. albopictus, and a native species). This was the first outbreak of dengue 4 virus in the Western Pacific, and the first documented epidemic of dengue in Palau since 1988.

A pilot study of treatment of Buruli ulcer with rifampin and dapsone.

OBJECTIVE: Buruli ulcer disease (BU), caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, is endemic in many regions of Africa and causes substantial physical disability. Surgical resection, currently the mainstay of clinical management of BU, is impractical in many endemic areas. Therefore, the study was undertaken to evaluate an antibiotic regimen for medical management of BU. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study of dapsone plus rifampin versus placebo was conducted. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were recruited in a BU-endemic zone of Côte d'Ivoire. Thirty persons completed the 2-month trial: 15 were treated with placebo and 15 with dapsone and rifampin. On blinded evaluation of photographs of the ulcers, clinicians with experience examining BU judged that 82% of ulcers in the treatment group improved compared with 75% in the placebo group (P=0.51). The median change in ulcer size was a decrease of 14.0 cm2 in the treatment group and a decrease of 2.5 cm2 in the placebo group (P=0.02), but initial ulcer sizes were larger in the treatment group (median 26.2 cm2) compared with the placebo group (median 4.8 cm2) (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that larger studies of antimycobacterial therapy of BU are warranted and can be successfully undertaken.

Evaluation of four commercially available rapid serologic tests for diagnosis of leptospirosis.

Four rapid tests for the serologic diagnosis of leptospirosis were evaluated, and the performance of each was compared with that of the current standard, the microscopic agglutination test (MAT). The four rapid tests were a microplate immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), an IgM dipstick assay (LDS), and an IgM dot-ELISA dipstick test (DST). A panel of 276 sera from 133 cases of leptospirosis from four different geographic locations was tested as well as 642 sera from normal individuals or individuals with other infectious or autoimmune diseases. Acute-phase sera from cases (n = 148) were collected or=15 days after onset (median = 29.1). By a traditional method (two-by-two contingency table), the sensitivities for detection of leptospirosis cases were 93.2% by LDS, 92.5% by DST, 86.5% by ELISA, and 79.0% by IHA. Specificity was 98.8% by DST, 97% by ELISA and MAT, 95.8% by IHA, and 89.6% by LDS. With a latent class analysis (LCA) model that included all the rapid tests and the clinical case definition, sensitivity was 95.5% by DST, 94.5% by LDS, 89.9% by ELISA, and 81.1% by IHA. The sensitivity and specificity estimated by the traditional methods were quite close to the LCA estimates. However, LCA allowed estimation of the sensitivity of the MAT (98.2%), which traditional methods do not allow. For acute-phase sera, sensitivity was 52.7% by LDS, 50.0% by DST, 48.7% by MAT and ELISA, and 38.5% by IHA. The sensitivity for convalescent-phase sera was 93.8% by MAT, 84.4% by DST, 83.6% by LDS, 75.0% by ELISA, and 67.2% by IHA. A good overall correlation with the MAT was obtained for each of the assays, with the highest concordance being with the DST (kappa value, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 0.90). The best correlation was between ELISA and DST (kappa value, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.91). False-positive LDS results were frequent (>or=20%) in sera from individuals with Epstein-Barr virus, human immunodeficiency virus, and periodontal disease and from healthy volunteers. The ease of use and significantly high sensitivity and specificity of DST and ELISA make these good choices for diagnostic testing.

Adverse events in humans associated with accidental exposure to the livestock brucellosis vaccine RB51.

Brucella abortus strain RB51 vaccine, is an attenuated live bacterial vaccine that was licensed conditionally by the Center for Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, on 23 February 1996, for vaccination of cattle in the United States. Accidental human inoculations can occur during vaccination of cattle, and previous live Brucella vaccines designed for cattle have been known to cause brucellosis in humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established passive surveillance for accidental inoculation with the RB51 vaccine in the United States to determine if this veterinary vaccine is associated with human disease, to describe the circumstances of accidental inoculation, to evaluate the potential efficacy of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis, and to develop recommendations for post-exposure management following exposure to RB51. Reports were received from 26 individuals. Accidental exposure to RB51 occurred by needle stick injury in 21 people (81%), conjunctival spray exposure in four (15%), and spray exposure of an open wound in one (4%) individual. At least one systemic symptom was reported in 19 (73%) people, including three (12%) who reported persistent local reactions with systemic involvement. One case required surgery, and B. abortus strain RB51 was isolated from the wound of that individual. Seven cases reported no adverse event associated with accidental exposure. Nine cases reported previous exposure to Brucella vaccines, including one case who also reported a previous diagnosis of brucellosis following exposure to S19 vaccine. Accidental needle stick injuries and conjunctival or open wound exposures of humans with the RB51 vaccine are associated with both local and systemic adverse events in the United States that are consistent with brucellosis; however, it remains undetermined if strain RB51 vaccine can cause systemic brucellosis in humans. Early culture attempts on those exposed and developing disease in the future and serologic diagnostic assays for anti-RB-51 antibodies are needed to define if these adverse events are due to RB51 and to define appropriate prophylaxis regimens.