1 / 35

Q Fever: A Public Health Paradox

Q Fever: A Public Health Paradox. Emerging Zoonotic Diseases Summit, August 23, 2005 Jennifer H. McQuiston, Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Background. “Query fever”

rcrump
Download Presentation

Q Fever: A Public Health Paradox

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Q Fever: A Public Health Paradox Emerging Zoonotic Diseases Summit, August 23, 2005 Jennifer H. McQuiston, Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

  2. Background • “Query fever” • Worldwide zoonosis • Caused by Coxiella burnetii - Gram-negative coccobacillus - replicates in host macrophages and monocytes • Shed in birthing fluids, excreta, milk • Humans infected via inhalation, ingestion

  3. Electron micrograph showing an infected monkey cell with one large vacuole harboring about 20 Coxiella burnetii bacteria. [Credit: R Heinzen, NIAID]

  4. Environmental Persistence • Shed in the environment in a small cell form • that is very hardy (“spore-like”) • Resistant to pH changes, desiccation, UV light • Resistant to some common disinfectants • Remains viable in soil, dust for months to years • - isolated from barns, soil – culture, PCR • Raises questions regarding: • - environmental contamination • - appropriate cleaning/disinfection

  5. Transmission • Ruminants most common source of human infection • - Cattle, sheep, goats • Domestic animals • - Cats • Wild Animals (rodents) • Birds (pigeons) • Ticks • Wind-borne environmental spread • - Can be spread several miles • down-wind from farms • Contact with contaminated products • - Straw • - Fertilizer • - Farm equipment • Human-to-human rare (OB/GYN, sexual)

  6. Acute Q fever • 1-3 week incubation • Asymptomatic infections occur • Nonspecific signs and symptoms • fever • severe headache • myalgias • cough • fatigue • night sweats • rigors • nausea/vomiting

  7. Acute Q fever • Nonspecific flu-like illness • Pulmonary Syndrome (~30%) • Hepatitis (30-60%) • Myocarditis, meningoencephalitis (rare) • Antibiotics may shorten course • Low mortality (< 1 %) • Treatment: Doxycycline • Chronic fatigue-like illness • - following acute infection in Australian • slaughterhouse workers (10%)

  8. Chronic Q fever • Endocarditis • - latent infection • - < 1-2% of acute cases • - immunocompromised, heart valve disorders • at greater risk • - life-threatening, heart valve replacement may • be required • - treament: 18 months doxycycline, • hydroxychloroquine • Granulomatous hepatitis, osteomyelitis

  9. Diagnosis • Serology • IFA, paired sera • Phase 2 antibody: acute infection • Phase I > Phase 2 antibody: chronic infection • Antibody can persist for a long time, • or take a while to develop • Commercial labs may incorrectly report low titers • as positive • Culture • Requires BSL-3, Select Agent • PCR, Immunohistochemistry

  10. Q fever and Bioterrorism • Category B bioterrorism agent • - high morbidity • - inhalation route of transmission • - extreme persistence in environment • Previous development as an agent of biowarfare • Accessible – obtain from environment

  11. History of Q fever Bioweapons Research • First agent studied by Fort Detrick’s bioweapons • program in 1954 • Successfully developed an aerosol dispersion model • - demonstrated infectivity for animal subjects and • human volunteers in the “8-ball” • - successfully field-tested via aerosol • dispersion to human volunteers located • > 0.5 miles downwind • - developed dosage curves (1-10 units infective dose)

  12. The “8-Ball” Ft. Detrick, MD ca. 1968

  13. Q fever Outbreaks in the United States • Occupational exposures most frequently cited • research facilities using parturient ruminants • slaughterhouses • farms • factories • Sheep implicated more frequently than other animals in • outbreaks

  14. Q fever Seroprevalence in the United States • Human Seroprevalence Studies : • - persons with livestock contact 7.8% • - general population 0.8% • - Risk Ratio 10.3 [95% CI 9.0-11.8]) • Ruminant Seroprevalence Studies: • - bovine bulk tank: 26.3% • - cattle: 3.4% • - sheep: 16.5% • - goats: 41.6% • Vet school dairy herds, antibodies in milk • - 9/22 (38%) had titers ≥ 1:256

  15. Q fever Surveillance in the United States: Human Cases Reported by State Health Departments, 1978-1999 15 11 7 5 18 23 2 7 13 2 12 4 1 (CT) 3 3 1 1 67 5 181 5 1 (DC) 17 10 19 3 n=436 Mean: 20 per year

  16. Current Surveillance for Q fever in the United States • Q fever in animals is not reportable • Human disease was made reportable in 1999 • - states report cases to CDC via NETSS • - data available for 2000-2004

  17. Cases of Q fever in Humans Reported by State Health Departments, 1978-2004 * Years in which Q fever was a Nationally Reportable Disease

  18. National Reporting, 2000-2004 Demographics • n = 255, Mean 64 cases per year • Gender: 195 (77%) Male • Age: mean, median 51 years • Race • White: 92% • Black: 6% • Asian: 2% • Hispanic: 13.4% • No significant difference in gender distribution • among age groups

  19. Age Distribution of Q fever Cases in the United States, NETSS 2000-2004 p< 0.0001

  20. Month of Illness Onset, Q fever Cases in the United States, NETSS 2000-2004

  21. < 0.28 per million Average Annual Incidence of Q fever in Humans Reported by State Health Departments, 2000-2004 0.63 0.31 0.51 0.94 0.44 0.42 (MA) 2.40 0.93 0.64 1.33 (DC) 0.35 0.45 0.28 0.32 1.52 0.52 0.28 ≥ 0.28 per million Not Reportable 2000-2004 * Incidence calculated for years when Q fever was reportable.

  22. Summary: Human Surveillance • Incidence of Q fever in humans is highest in the midwestern • and western states, and lower in the eastern U.S. • - differences in livestock densities do not offer • complete understanding • - complex interplay of agricultural practices, human population • density, and climactic factors • Demographics similar to previously published studies • - middle-aged male patients • - exception: no evidence of gender difference between adolescent • cases vs. adult cases

  23. Why is Surveillance so difficult? • Nonspecific clinical signs • resembles a variety of other common illnesses • self-limiting in most cases • poor physician recognition • Requires laboratory confirmation for reporting • Serology requires paired serum specimens • - early specimens frequently negative • - patients rarely return to provide convalescent • samples • Physicians must request appropriate tests

  24. Why is Surveillance so important? • Category B bioterrorism agent • - vital to establish endemic baseline levels • - need to understand background seroprevalence • before a BT event takes place • Current numbers of cases are under-reported • - true level of disease unknown • - level of serious disease (endocarditis) unknown • - economic burden of Q fever in humans and • animals is poorly assessed • - in Australia, considered the most • economically important zoonosis

  25. Credit: Ralph A. Clevenger, 1999

  26. Q fever: Investigation Challenges • All human cases should be investigated and reported • - Document geographic trends • - Recognize persons at high risk for endocarditis • - Assess source to determine outbreak potential • Investigating animal infection may be problematic • - Endemic in ruminants • - Serologic assessment difficult • - Phase 1 antibody may be more prominent • - Historically, only Phase 2 antibody was examined • - Cannot easily prevent or control infection in herds

  27. Q fever: A Public Health Paradox • Difficulties in clinical and laboratory diagnosis make • adequate surveillance problematic. • However, because of bioterrorism potential and • possible serious outcomes in high-risk persons, • surveillance and reporting are critical. • Investigating sporadic human cases may not help • reduce risk • - there is often little that can be done to • minimize transmission in farm settings.

  28. Prevention • Laboratory environments • - vaccination when possible (IND in U.S.) • - appropriate respiratory protection • Research environments with parturient ruminants • - Q fever-free animals • - employee biomonitoring program • - strict biocontainment • Farm/slaughterhouse situations: • - vaccine (Australia, not available in U.S.) • - attention to hygiene • - need for employee serologic monitoring? • General Public • - pasteurize milk products • - limit contact with parturient animals, especially • in public settings (petting zoos, etc)

  29. Discussion • Q fever in humans is likely substantially underreported • - nonspecific clinical signs • - poor physician recognition • - difficult laboratory diagnosis • Surveillance for Q fever in the U.S. is improving • - made nationally reportable in 1999 • - reporting increased by ~ 300% from 2000-2004 • - reportable in 46 states in 2004 • Future studies will improve our understanding of • geographic patterns of infection and risk

  30. Acknowledgments Bob Holman, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, CDC Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, CDC Especially: Herb Thompson Vrinda Nargund Margaret Bowman Tracey McCracken Candace McCall Jamie Childs NETSS Staff State Health Departments U.S. Veterinary Schools

  31. < 0.28 per million Average Annual Incidence of Q fever in Humans Reported by State Health Departments, 2000-2004 0.63 0.31 0.51 0.94 0.44 0.42 (MA) 2.40 0.93 0.64 1.33 (DC) 0.35 0.45 0.28 0.32 1.52 0.52 0.28 ≥ 0.28 per million Not Reportable 2000-2004 * Incidence calculated for years when Q fever was reportable.

  32. Dairy Cows per Square Mile In the United States, 1998 5.1 24.1 10.6 5.0 37.6 21.4 7.8 5.8 20.1 8.9 9.3 5.4 13.3 5.0 6.5 11.8 0.0-2.0 per square mile > 2.0 per square mile

  33. Beef Cattle per Square Mile In the United States, 1998 46.3 60.1 87.6 30.1 38.2 78.6 59.5 57.4 51.0. 76.7 33.2 53.6 30.9 > 0.0- 15.0 per square mile > 15 per square mile

  34. Sheep per Square Mile In the United States, 1998 3.4 5.4 7.3 4.7 3.3 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.8 No reports 0.0-1.5 per square mile > 1.5 per square mile

More Related