Saturday 30 August 2014

BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS OF CEREBRAL MALARIA



BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS OF CEREBRAL MALARIA

Cerebral malaria (CM) forms part of the spectrum of severe malaria, with a case fatality rate ranging from 15% in adults in southeast Asia to 8.5% in children in Africa. Clinical signs of acidosis carry a higher risk of death but nevertheless CM accounts for a significant proportion of malaria mortality, as well as the potential for neurological deficits in survivors. The standard clinical definition of CM centers on a state of unarousable coma partnered with the presence of malaria infected red blood cells in the peripheral circulation and a lack of other potential causes of coma such as other infections or hypoglycemia. More recently, ophthalmic observations of retinopathy have been added to this definition in both adults and children to increase the specificity of the clinical diagnosis. Most observations of the pathophysiology of disease come from postmortem observations of Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) infections, which are thought to account for the vast majority of CM cases, and show a common feature of vascular sequestration of infected erythrocytes (IE) in the brain. Plasmodium falciparum can cause a diffuse encephalopathy known as cerebral malaria (CM), a major contributor to malaria associated mortality. Despite treatment, mortality due to CM can be as high as 30% while 10% of survivors of the disease may experience short- and long-term neurological complications. The pathogenesis of CM and other forms of severe malaria is multi-factorial and appear to involve cytokine and chemokine homeostasis, inflammation and vascular injury/repair. Identification of prognostic markers that can predict CM severity will enable development of better intervention.

Biomarkers have been used to diagnose and prognosticate the progress and outcome of many chronic diseases such as neoplastic and non communicable diseases. However, only recently did the field of malaria research move in the direction of actively identifying biomarkers that can accurately discriminate the severe forms of malaria. Malaria continues to be a deadly disease, killing close to a million people (mostly children) every year. One life-threatening complication of malaria is cerebral malaria (CM). Studies carried out in Africa have demonstrated that even with the best treatment, as high as 15–30% of CM patients die and about 10–24% of CM survivors suffer short-or long-term neurological impairment. The transition from mild malaria to CM can be sudden and requires immediate intervention. Currently, there is no biological test available to confirm the diagnosis of CM and its complications. It is hoped that development of biomarkers to identify CM patients and potential risk for adverse outcomes would greatly enhance better intervention and clinical management to improve the outcomes. We review here what is currently known regarding biomarkers for CM outcomes.

Biomarkers in disease management
A biomarker is a substance or a characteristic that can be objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biologic processes, pathogenic processes
or responses to a therapeutic intervention. Biomarkers have been used to diagnose and prognosticate the progress and outcome of many diseases. They can be used to support disease management and control in many different aspects:
1) to diagnose a disease,
2) to identify “at risk” individuals,
3) to stratify patients depending on disease severity,
4) provide prognosis of the disease,
5) to assess disease severity,
6) to provide some guidance in the treatment and management of a disease and eventually
7) to identify at risk patients for long term complication after the manifestation of
a particular illness.

Biomarkers can be found in any biological fluids such as serum, plasma, urine, cells or they can be biological products such as metabolites, cytokines or genetic markers. An example of an ideal biomarker is the measurement of hemoglobin as an indicator of anemia. This is a simple, quantitative and inexpensive procedure, therefore allowing for wide usage. Biomarkers have become valuable for the diagnosis and prognosis of many chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and HIV/AIDS. However, the use of biomarkers in parasitic infectious diseases is limited. Biomarkers have been used to diagnose and prognosticate the progress and outcome of many chronic and acute infectious, metabolic and non communicable diseases. The transition from MM to the severe
forms of malaria can be sudden and requires immediate intervention. Therefore, the use of biomarkers to risk-stratify severe malaria patients would greatly enhance patient care and assist in appropriate management of health care resources. In addition, biomarkers that identify asymptomatic cases, who might have levels of parasitemia undetectable by light microscopy or other conventional testing methods, will be crucial for monitoring the elimination of malaria reservoirs from endemic populations. Therefore, biomarkers for malaria management are clearly a necessary tool for malaria control programs.

Proposed biomarkers for cerebral malaria
Phase 1 of biomarker identification starts with some understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease and an exploratory phase in which different factors that can clearly discriminate different levels of disease severity are identified. The pathogenesis of CM is still not well understood although it is clearly multifactorial,
involving sequestration of P. falciparum infected erythrocytes to brain vasculature, triggering inflammatory cytokine responses and apoptotic pathway leading to a breach and dysfunction of the blood brain barrier, tissue damage and repair. In an attempt to understand the pathogenesis of CM, our previous studies in Ghana and India for the first time revealed a striking association between the chemokine interferon inducible protein-10 (CXCL10-) and CM severity, suggesting that CXCL10 may be a biomarker for CM severity. We believe that the management of CM will require at least three main categories of biomarkers: early biomarkers, diagnostic biomarkers and prognostic biomarkers.

Early/predictive biomarkers
Only a subset of malaria patients develops CM with the rest developing asymptomatic or mild forms of the disease, or other forms of SM such as SMA. Risk factors for CM include age less than 10 years and living in malaria endemic regions. However, it is not known if other unknown risk factors exist that would facilitate the identification of “at risk” patients during hospital visits before they succumb to CM. Early/predictive biomarkers would allow heath care workers to stratify febrile patients into those at risk for CM and those who are likely to develop MM or other forms of SM. The “at risk” patients would then be started early on the appropriate treatment and on any adjunctive measures available or referred to better health facilities as required. To date, no such biomarkers exist and clearly more studies are required in this area.

Diagnostic biomarkers
Diagnostic biomarkers are biomarkers that can be used to categorically identify CM patients. Currently, the diagnosis of CM relies on clinical indicators characterized mainly by
(1) unarousable coma (no localizing response to pain) that persists for more than six hours after experiencing a generalized convulsion;
(2) Presence of asexual forms of P. falciparum; and
(3) Exclusion of other causes of encephalopathy (e.g. viral, bacterial).
Other clinical algorithms and indicators have been investigated. One of these is malaria retinopathy, whose usefulness has been tested in different parts of Africa and India. Many of these studies have shown malaria retinopathy to be a good diagnostic indicator capable of distinguishing CM patients from patients with other causes of coma in parasitemic comatose patients. In addition, several serological factors have been identified that are differentially expressed in CM patients compared to either MM patients or healthy controls. Our group and others have demonstrated that distinct profiles of cytokine and/or chemokine are associated with discrete clinical manifestation of falciparum malaria. For example, increased levels of CXCL10, sFas, sTNF-R2, IL-8, IL-1ra, and decreased levels of RANTES and vascularendothelial growth factor (VEGF) were all found in CM patients and not in MM or health control cases. The endothelial regulators, angiopoietin-1 (ANG-1) and ANG-2 were also shown to be differentially expressed in CM compared to MM patients. Some of these discriminatory factors have also been observed in cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) samples. Our studies in Ghana demonstrated that higher levels of CSF CXCL10 and lower levels of VEGF were found in CM patients compared toMMor healthy controls. Many of the factors discussed above can be viewed as being in the phase 1 of biomarker development during which preclinical exploration of potential biomarkers is performed andmarkers capable of discriminating the severity of the disease are identified. Perhaps the only serological factors analyzed for their predictive value for CM diagnosis, to date, are the endothelial regulators, ANG-1 and ANG-2 and the chemokine CXCL10. Angiopoietins are known to regulate the maintenance of vascular integrity and were found to be differentially regulated in two different populations of CM patients from Thailand and Africa. The levels of ANG-1 were significantly reduced in CM patients compared to healthy controls and MM patients and, conversely, ANG-2 levels were significantly elevated in CM patients compared to control groups. Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analyses were performed to test the sensitivity and specificity of these factors, as discriminatory biomarkers for the accurate diagnosis of CM. ANG-1, ANG-2 and the ratio of ANG-2/ANG-1 were all shown to accurately discriminate between CM and MM patients. Indeed, ANG-1 levels were independently associated with CM even in a multivariate logistic regression model. In the same study, TNF levels were shown to be significantly increased in CM compared to MM patients in the Thai adult population, but this factor did not discriminate well in the Uganda children. This finding demonstrates the importance of testing the utility of any potential biomarker using different populations and different age groups as the sensitivity and specificity might be affected by the transmission intensity and host immunity.

4.3. Prognostic biomarkers
More often than not, appropriate treatment of CM leads to complete patient recovery. However, an unacceptably high number (up to 30%) of CM patients die regardless of receiving the recommended treatment and up to 24% of CM survivors develop neurological complications and cognition problems post-recovery. Prognostic biomarkers to predict CM outcomes may be life-saving as the “at risk” patients can be given the necessary interventions and/or adjunctive therapies to prevent the adverse CM outcomes. These biomarkers can be divided into two main groups: those that can predict neurological sequelae post recovery and those that predict CM mortality. To date, some potential biomarkers that can be used to predict CM adverse outcomes have been suggested although their utility needs to be validated.

4.4. Biomarkers to predict risk of developing neurological sequelae post-recovery
Identifying persons at risk for neurological sequelae will assist in providing the necessary remedy at discharge or as early as is necessary and possible. For example, a recent study demonstrated that computerized cognitive training for children who survived CM provided some benefit on some neuropsychological and behavioral functions even long after the malaria episode. Therefore, this remedy, or others, can be administered to those patients at risk for the development of neurological deficit post-recovery. Neuroprotective factors such as erythropoietin (EPO) are critical in the brain repair process and are therefore important for recovery from any brain insult. A recent study using African children demonstrated that high plasma EPO levels were associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of being discharged with neurological sequelae. EPO levels above 200 units/liter were independently associated with about an 80% reduction in risk of developing neurological sequelae in a matched analysis. The beneficial effects of EPO occur locally in the tissue or the brain via EPO receptors found in neurons, astrocytes, microglia and endothelial cells [48], and previous studies have shown that EPO can actively translocate across the blood brain barrier. From the point of view of biomarker development, serological EPO levels would provide a usable biomarker for development of neurological sequelae with CM patients having < 200U/liter (or another cutoff found to be more appropriate) of plasma EPO being at risk. Validation of this hypothesis is required using large studies in different endemic regions and using different age groups.

4.5. Biomarkers to predict fatal CM
While a biomarker to predict fatal CM would serve for prognosis, it would be of more value if interventions or adjunctive therapies are available to save the patients. Using these biomarkers, clinicians can provide the additional intervention before it is too late. Inflammatory cytokines induce brain injury and cause apoptotic death of brain tissue components and several studies have shown that some of these are associated solely with CM mortality. In a study conducted in India, we evaluated the role of the ratio of some apoptotic and angiogenic factors in discriminating between the different malaria disease groups. Increased levels of CXCL10, sTNF-R2 and sFas were associated with disease severity being highest in the CM non-survivors. The role of CXCL10 in CM mortality was further confirmed using a murine model of CM in which, CXCL10 and CXCL9 (both CXCR3 ligands) were shown to be highly induced in the brains of mice infected with P. Berghei ANKA. Mice deficient in these ligands were protected from experimental CM-related death and accordingly, CXCL10 and CXCL9 knockout mice were shown to be partially protected from CM associated death [50]. Elevated plasma levels of CXCL10 and CXCL4 were tightly associated withCM mortality, and ROC analysis revealed that these chemokines can discriminate CM-non survivors from MM (p < 0.0001) and CM-survivors (p < 0.0001) with an area under the curve (AUC) = 1. In addition, other studies revealed that CXCL10 independently predicted severe and fatal CM as elevated levels of CXCL10 expression in the CSF and peripheral blood plasma were observed in CM patients who died compared to CM survivors. Other factors shown to influence CM outcome include circulating levels ofVEGF, a factor known to protect neuronal compartments from injury and death, ANG-1 and ANG-2/ANG-1 ratio. CM patients who died had the lowest level of VEGF compared to CM-survivors. The study by Jain et al. Further demonstrated that the mean and median ratios of CXCL10/VEGF, sTNFR2/VEGF, and sFas/VEGF increased as the disease severity increased, with the highest ratio occurring in the CM-non survivor group. ANG-1 levels at presentation were also associated with higher risk of mortality in African children, while ANG-2/ANG-1 ratios were higher in those patients who subsequently died of CM. All these studies point to the fact that these serological factors can be used to predict fatal CM.

Quantification of Cerebral Malaria Biomarker
The detection, semi-quantification, and clinical use of the Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein-2 (PfHRP-2) as a parasite antigen biomarker for cerebral malaria had been investigated.
The examination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in cerebral malaria cases typically shows normal parameters with normal protein, glucose, and low cell count and hitherto a CSF biomarker for cerebral malaria has yet to be identified.

An international team of scientists led by those from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Baltimore, MD, USA) collected 73 CSF samples from Tanzanian children, 6 months to 9 years of age with P. falciparum parasitaemia. The CSF samples from nine Tanzanian children, who were microscopy negative for P. falciparum in peripheral blood, were also collected at the same site from 1994 to 1995. An additional 24 CSF samples were selected from archived CSF samples obtained from patients with neuroimmunological or neuroinflammatory conditions to use as controls.
The rapid diagnostic test (RDT) Binax NOW Malaria Test (Alere; Waltham, MA, USA), which detects both PfHRP-2 and panspecies aldolase was performed on the CSF samples. An immuno-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was optimized and the real-time PCR amplifications were performed in a C1000 Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad; Hercules, CA, USA). Western blots analysis was performed to compare some plasma and CSF samples.
The PfHRP-2 was detected in archival CSF samples from cerebral malaria patients from Tanzania both by a newly developed sensitive and specific immuno-PCR in 72 of 73 samples, and by rapid diagnostic tests in 62 of 73 samples. The geometric mean PfHRP-2 CSF concentration was 8.76 ng/mL with no significant differences in those who survived with 9.2 ng/mL, those who died with11.1 ng/mL, and those with neurologic sequelae with 10.8 ng/mL. The cerebral biomarker CSF PfHRP-2 was undetectable in all aparasitemic endemic and non-endemic control samples.
It was concluded that the widely used RDTs for malaria may be useful in CSF detection of PfHRP-2 in patients with cerebral malaria. A total of 62 of 73 samples had at least 1 ng/mL PfHRP-2 concentration detectable, an amount well above the 100 pg limit of detection threshold, if 100 µL is used for the RDT. The CSF PfHRP2 is proportional to plasma such that detection in the CSF is reflective of elevated plasma or whole blood PfHRP2 seen in many studies of cerebral malaria. The study was published June 30, 2014, in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Monday 25 August 2014

IINTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SPECIMEN COLLECTION, TRANSPORT, TESTING AND SUBMISSION FOR PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED INFECTION WITH EBOLA VIRUS



IINTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SPECIMEN COLLECTION, TRANSPORT, TESTING AND SUBMISSION FOR PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED INFECTION WITH EBOLA VIRUS

Background
CDC is working with the World Health Organization (WHO), the ministries of health, and other international organizations in response to an outbreak of EVD in West Africa, which was first reported in late March 2014. This is the largest outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) ever documented and the first recorded in West Africa. For the latest information on the outbreak, see the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa highlights.
EVD is one of numerous viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHF). It is a severe, often fatal disease in human and nonhuman primates. EVD is spread by direct contact with the blood or secretions (urine, feces, semen, breast milk, and possibly others) of an infected person or exposure to objects that have been contaminated with infected secretions. The incubation period is usually 8–10 days (rarely ranging from 2 to 21 days). Patients can transmit the virus while febrile and through later stages of disease, as well as postmortem.
hospitals can safely manage a patient with EVD by following recommended isolation and infection control procedures. Standard, contact, and droplet precautions are recommended for management of hospitalized patients with known or suspected EVD.

Potentially infectious diagnostic specimens are routinely handled and tested in U.S. laboratories in a safe manner, through adherence to standard safety precautions as outlined below.

Purpose
This document provides interim guidance for laboratorians and other healthcare personnel collecting or handling specimens on appropriate specimen collection, transport and testing of specimens from patients who are suspected to be infected with Ebola virus.

Infection Control for Collecting and Handling Specimens
It is expected that all laboratorians and other healthcare personnel collecting or handling specimens follow established standards compliant with the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard, which encompasses blood and other potentially infectious materials. This includes wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and adhering to engineered safeguards, for all specimens regardless of whether they are identified as being infectious.

Recommendations for specimen collection: full face shield or goggles, masks to cover all of nose and mouth, gloves, fluid resistant or impermeable gowns. Additional PPE may be required in certain situations.

Recommendations for laboratory testing: full face shield or goggles, masks to cover all of nose and mouth, gloves, fluid resistant or impermeable gowns AND use of a certified class II Biosafety cabinet or plexiglass splash guard, as well as manufacturer-installed safety features for instruments

Specimen Handling for Routine Laboratory Testing (not for Ebola Diagnosis)
Routine laboratory testing includes traditional chemistry, hematology, and other laboratory testing used to support and treat patients. Precautions as described above offer appropriate protection for healthcare personnel performing laboratory testing on specimens from patients with suspected infection with Ebola virus. These precautions include both manufacturer installed safety features for instruments and the environment as well as PPE specified in the box above.
When used according to the manufacturer’s instructions, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered disinfectants routinely used to decontaminate the laboratory environment (benchtops and surfaces) and the laboratory instrumentation are sufficient to inactivate enveloped viruses, such as influenza, hepatitis C, and Ebola viruses.

When Specimens Should Be Collected for Ebola Testing
Ebola virus is detected in blood only after onset of symptoms, most notably fever. It may take up to 3 days post-onset of symptoms for the virus to reach detectable levels. Virus is generally detectable by real-time RT-PCR from 3-10 days post-onset of symptoms, but has been detected for several months in certain secretions. Specimens ideally should be taken when a symptomatic patient reports to a healthcare facility and is suspected of having an EVD exposure; however, if the onset of symptoms is <3 days, a subsequent specimen will be required to completely rule-out EVD.

Preferred Specimens for Ebola Testing
A minimum volume of 4mL whole blood preserved with EDTA, clot activator, sodium polyanethol sulfonate (SPS), or citrate in plastic collection tubes can be submitted for EVD testing. Do not submit specimens in glass containers. Do not submit specimens preserved in heparin tubes. Specimens should be stored at 4°C or frozen. Specimens other than blood may be submitted upon consult. Standard labeling should be applied for each specimen. The requested test only needs to be identified on the requisition and specimen submission forms.

Storing Clinical Specimens for Ebola
Specimens should be stored at 4°C or frozen.

Transporting Specimens within the Hospital / Institution
In compliance with 29 CFR 1910.1030, specimens should be placed in a durable, leak-proof secondary container for transport within a facility. To reduce the risk of breakage or leaks, do not use any pneumatic tube system for transporting suspected EVD specimens.

Packaging and Shipping Clinical Specimens
Specimens collected for EVD testing should be packaged and shipped without attempting to open collection tubes or aliquot specimens. Specimens for shipment should be packaged following the basic triple packaging system which consists of a primary receptacle (a sealable specimen bag) wrapped with absorbent material, secondary receptacle (watertight, leak-proof), and an outer shipping package.
The following steps outline the submission process.
Ø  Hospitals should follow their state and/or local health department procedures for notification and consultation for Ebola testing requests 
Ø  NO specimens will be accepted without prior consultation.
Ø  Contact your state and/or local health department and CDC to determine the proper category for shipment based on clinical history and risk assessment by CDC. State guidelines may differ and state or local health departments should be consulted prior to shipping.
Ø  Email tracking number.
Ø  Do not ship for weekend delivery unless instructed
Include the following information: your name, the patient's name, test(s) requested, date of collection, laboratory or accession number, and the type of specimen being shipped.
Ø  Include the Infectious Disease specimen submission forms.
Ø  On the outside of the box, specify how the specimen should be stored:refrigerated or frozen

Occupational Health
Potential exposures to blood, body fluids and other infectious materials must be reported immediately according to your institution’s policy and procedures.


EBOLA HEMORRHAGIC FEVER



EBOLA HEMORRHAGIC FEVER

Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) is one of numerous Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers. It is a severe, often fatal disease in humans and nonhuman primates (such as monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees). Ebola HF is caused by infection with a virus of the family Filoviridae, genus Ebolavirus. When infection occurs, symptoms usually begin abruptly. The first Ebolavirus species was discovered in 1976 in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo near the Ebola River. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically. There are five identified subspecies of Ebolavirus. Four of the five have caused disease in humans: Ebola virus (Zaire ebolavirus); Sudan virus (Sudan ebolavirus); Taï Forest virus (Taï Forest ebolavirus, formerly Côte d’Ivoire ebolavirus); and Bundibugyo virus (Bundibugyo ebolavirus). The fifth, Reston virus (Reston ebolavirus), has caused disease in nonhuman primates, but not in humans.

The natural reservoir host of ebolaviruses remains unknown. However, on the basis of available evidence and the nature of similar viruses, researchers believe that the virus is zoonotic (animal-borne) with bats being the most likely reservoir. Four of the five subtypes occur in an animal host native to Africa. A host of similar species is probably associated with Reston virus, which was isolated from infected cynomolgous monkeys imported to the United States and Italy from the Philippines. Several workers in the Philippines and in US holding facility outbreaks became infected with the virus, but did not become ill.

2014 West Africa Outbreak
The 2014 Ebola outbreak is one of the largest Ebola outbreaks in history and the first in West Africa. It is affecting four countries in West Africa: Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, but does not pose a significant risk to the U.S. public. CDC is working with other U.S. government agencies, the World Health Organization, and other domestic and international partners in an international response to the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa. CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to help coordinate technical assistance and control activities with partners. CDC has deployed several teams of public health experts to the West Africa region and plans to send additional public health experts to the affected countries to expand current response activities.

Past Ebola Outbreaks
Past Ebola outbreaks have occurred in the following countries:
Ø  Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Ø  Gabon
Ø  South Sudan
Ø  Ivory Coast
Ø  Uganda
Ø  Republic of the Congo (ROC)
Ø  South Africa (imported)
Current Ebola Outbreak in West Africa
The current (2014) Ebola outbreak is occurring in the following West African countries:
Ø  Guinea
Ø  Liberia
Ø  Sierra Leone
Ø  Nigeria

Signs and Symptoms
Symptoms of Ebola typically include
Ø  Fever (greater than 38.6°C or 101.5°F)
Ø  Severe headache
Ø  Muscle pain
Ø  Weakness
Ø  Diarrhea
Ø  Vomiting
Ø  Abdominal (stomach) pain
Ø  Lack of appetite

Symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure to ebolavirus, although 8-10 days is most common. Some who become sick with Ebola are able to recover. We do not yet fully understand why. However, patients who die usually have not developed a significant immune response to the virus at the time of death

Transmission
Because the natural reservoir of ebolaviruses has not yet been proven, the manner in which the virus first appears in a human at the start of an outbreak is unknown. However, researchers have hypothesized that the first patient becomes infected through contact with an infected animal.
When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. The virus is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with a sick person's blood or body fluids (urine, saliva, feces, vomit, and semen) objects (such as needles) that have been contaminated with infected body fluids of infected animals
Healthcare workers and the family and friends in close contact with Ebola patients are at the highest risk of getting sick because they may come in contact with infected blood or body fluids. During outbreaks of Ebola HF, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital). Exposure to ebolaviruses can occur in healthcare settings where hospital staff are not wearing appropriate protective equipment, such as masks, gowns, and gloves. Proper cleaning and disposal of instruments, such as needles and syringes, is also important. If instruments are not disposable, they must be sterilized before being used again. Without adequate sterilization of the instruments, virus transmission can continue and amplify an outbreak.


Risk of Exposure
Ebola viruses are found in several African countries. The first Ebola virus was discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since then, outbreaks of Ebola among humans have appeared sporadically in Africa.

Risk
Risk assessment in disease-endemic areas is difficult because the natural reservoir host of ebolaviruses, and the manner in which transmission of the virus to humans occurs remains unknown. All cases of human illness or death have occurred in Africa (with the exception of several laboratory contamination cases: one in England and two in Russia). In 2014, two U.S. healthcare workers who were infected with Ebola virus in Liberia were transported to a hospital in the United States.
Those at highest risk include
Ø  Healthcare workers
Ø  Family and friends of patients with Ebola

Healthcare workers in Africa should consult the Infection Control for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers in the African Health Care Setting to learn how to prevent and control infections in these setting.

Prevention
Because we still do not know exactly how people are infected with Ebola, few primary prevention measures have been established and no vaccine exists. When cases of the disease do appear, risk of transmission is increased within healthcare settings. Therefore, healthcare workers must be able to recognize a case of Ebola and be ready to use practical viral hemorrhagic fever isolation precautions or barrier nursing techniques. They should also have the capability to request diagnostic tests or prepare samples for shipping and testing elsewhere.
Barrier nursing techniques include:
Ø  wearing of protective clothing (such as masks, gloves, gowns, and goggles)
Ø  using infection-control measures (such as complete equipment sterilization and routine use of disinfectant)
Ø  isolating patients with Ebola from contact with unprotected persons.
The aim of all of these techniques is to avoid contact with the blood or secretions of an infected patient. If a patient with Ebola dies, direct contact with the body of the deceased patient should be avoided. CDC, in conjunction with the World Health Organization, has developed a set of guidelines to help prevent and control the spread of Ebola. Entitled Infection Control for Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers in the African Health Care Setting, the manual describes how to recognize cases of viral hemorrhagic fever (such as Ebola)  prevent further transmission in healthcare setting by using locally available materials and minimal financial resources.
If you must travel to an area with known Ebola cases, make sure to do the following:
Ø  Practice careful hygiene. Avoid contact with blood and body fluids.
Ø  Do not handle items that may have come in contact with an infected person’s blood or body fluids.
Ø  Avoid funeral or burial rituals that require handling the body of someone who has died from Ebola.
Ø  Avoid contact with bats and nonhuman primates or blood, fluids, and raw meat prepared from these animals.
Ø  Avoid hospitals where Ebola patients are being treated. The U.S. embassy or consulate is often able to provide advice on facilities.
Ø  After you return, monitor your health for 21 days and seek medical care immediately if you develop symptoms of Ebola.

Diagnosis
Diagnosing Ebola HF in an individual who has been infected for only a few days is difficult, because the early symptoms, such as red eyes and a skin rash, are nonspecific to ebolavirus infection and are seen often in patients with more commonly occurring diseases.
However, if a person has the early symptoms of Ebola HF and there is reason to believe that Ebola HF should be considered, the patient should be isolated and public health professionals notified. Samples from the patient can then be collected and tested to confirm infection.
Laboratory tests used in diagnosis include:

Timeline of Infection                                              Diagnostic tests available
Within a few days after symptoms -          Antigen-capture enzyme-linked
begin                                                                                  immunosorbent assay (ELISA) 
                                                                       testing IgM
         ELISA
        Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Virus
        Isolation
Later in disease course or after   -           IgM and IgG antibodies
recovery
Retrospectively in deceased             -      Immunohistochemistry testing PCR
patients


Treatment
No specific vaccine or medicine (e.g., antiviral drug) has been proven to be effective against Ebola. Symptoms of Ebola are treated as they appear. The following basic interventions, when used early, can increase the chances of survival. Providing intravenous fluids and balancing electrolytes (body salts)
Ø  Maintaining oxygen status and blood pressure
Ø  Treating other infections if they occur
Timely treatment of Ebola HF is important but challenging because the disease is difficult to diagnose clinically in the early stages of infection. Because early symptoms, such as headache and fever, are nonspecific to ebolaviruses, cases of Ebola HF may be initially misdiagnosed. However, if a person has the early symptoms of Ebola HF and there is reason to believe that Ebola HF should be considered, the patient should be isolated and public health professionals notified. Supportive therapy can continue with proper protective clothing until samples from the patient are tested to confirm infection.
Experimental treatments have been tested and proven effective in animal models but have not yet been used in humans.