Last data update: Nov 22, 2024. (Total: 48197 publications since 2009)
Records 1-5 (of 5 Records) |
Query Trace: Taboy CH[original query] |
---|
Rapid establishment of a frontline field laboratory in response to an imported outbreak of Ebola virus disease in western Uganda, June 2019.
Schuh AJ , Kyondo J , Graziano J , Balinandi S , Kainulainen MH , Tumusiime A , Nyakarahuka L , Mulei S , Baluku J , Lonergan W , Mayer O , Masereka R , Masereka F , Businge E , Gatare A , Kabyanga L , Muhindo S , Mugabe R , Makumbi I , Kayiwa J , Wetaka MM , Brown V , Ojwang J , Nelson L , Millard M , Nichol ST , Montgomery JM , Taboy CH , Lutwama JJ , Klena JD . PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2021 15 (12) e0009967 The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) declared an Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in North Kivu in August 2018. By June 2019, the outbreak had spread to 26 health zones in northeastern DRC, causing >2,000 reported cases and >1,000 deaths. On June 10, 2019, three members of a Congolese family with EVD-like symptoms traveled to western Uganda's Kasese District to seek medical care. Shortly thereafter, the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Surveillance and Laboratory Program (VHF program) at the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) confirmed that all three patients had EVD. The Ugandan Ministry of Health declared an outbreak of EVD in Uganda's Kasese District, notified the World Health Organization, and initiated a rapid response to contain the outbreak. As part of this response, UVRI and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the support of Uganda's Public Health Emergency Operations Center, the Kasese District Health Team, the Superintendent of Bwera General Hospital, the United States Department of Defense's Makerere University Walter Reed Project, and the United States Mission to Kampala's Global Health Security Technical Working Group, jointly established an Ebola Field Laboratory in Kasese District at Bwera General Hospital, proximal to an Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU). The laboratory consisted of a rapid containment kit for viral inactivation of patient specimens and a GeneXpert Instrument for performing Xpert Ebola assays. Laboratory staff tested 76 specimens from alert and suspect cases of EVD; the majority were admitted to the ETU (89.3%) and reported recent travel to the DRC (58.9%). Although no EVD cases were detected by the field laboratory, it played an important role in patient management and epidemiological surveillance by providing diagnostic results in <3 hours. The integration of the field laboratory into Uganda's National VHF Program also enabled patient specimens to be referred to Entebbe for confirmatory EBOV testing and testing for other hemorrhagic fever viruses that circulate in Uganda. |
Uganda's experience in Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness, 2018-2019
Aceng JR , Ario AR , Muruta AN , Makumbi I , Nanyunja M , Komakech I , Bakainaga AN , Talisuna AO , Mwesigye C , Mpairwe AM , Tusiime JB , Lali WZ , Katushabe E , Ocom F , Kaggwa M , Bongomin B , Kasule H , Mwoga JN , Sensasi B , Mwebembezi E , Katureebe C , Sentumbwe O , Nalwadda R , Mbaka P , Fatunmbi BS , Nakiire L , Lamorde M , Walwema R , Kambugu A , Nanyondo J , Okware S , Ahabwe PB , Nabukenya I , Kayiwa J , Wetaka MM , Kyazze S , Kwesiga B , Kadobera D , Bulage L , Nanziri C , Monje F , Aliddeki DM , Ntono V , Gonahasa D , Nabatanzi S , Nsereko G , Nakinsige A , Mabumba E , Lubwama B , Sekamatte M , Kibuule M , Muwanguzi D , Amone J , Upenytho GD , Driwale A , Seru M , Sebisubi F , Akello H , Kabanda R , Mutengeki DK , Bakyaita T , Serwanjja VN , Okwi R , Okiria J , Ainebyoona E , Opar BT , Mimbe D , Kyabaggu D , Ayebazibwe C , Sentumbwe J , Mwanja M , Ndumu DB , Bwogi J , Balinandi S , Nyakarahuka L , Tumusiime A , Kyondo J , Mulei S , Lutwama J , Kaleebu P , Kagirita A , Nabadda S , Oumo P , Lukwago R , Kasozi J , Masylukov O , Kyobe HB , Berdaga V , Lwanga M , Opio JC , Matseketse D , Eyul J , Oteba MO , Bukirwa H , Bulya N , Masiira B , Kihembo C , Ohuabunwo C , Antara SN , Owembabazi W , Okot PB , Okwera J , Amoros I , Kajja V , Mukunda BS , Sorela I , Adams G , Shoemaker T , Klena JD , Taboy CH , Ward SE , Merrill RD , Carter RJ , Harris JR , Banage F , Nsibambi T , Ojwang J , Kasule JN , Stowell DF , Brown VR , Zhu BP , Homsy J , Nelson LJ , Tusiime PK , Olaro C , Mwebesa HG , Woldemariam YT . Global Health 2020 16 (1) 24 BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the 10th Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in DRC on 1st Aug 2018, several neighboring countries have been developing and implementing preparedness efforts to prevent EVD cross-border transmission to enable timely detection, investigation, and response in the event of a confirmed EVD outbreak in the country. We describe Uganda's experience in EVD preparedness. RESULTS: On 4 August 2018, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) and the National Task Force (NTF) for public health emergencies to plan, guide, and coordinate EVD preparedness in the country. The NTF selected an Incident Management Team (IMT), constituting a National Rapid Response Team (NRRT) that supported activation of the District Task Forces (DTFs) and District Rapid Response Teams (DRRTs) that jointly assessed levels of preparedness in 30 designated high-risk districts representing category 1 (20 districts) and category 2 (10 districts). The MoH, with technical guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), led EVD preparedness activities and worked together with other ministries and partner organisations to enhance community-based surveillance systems, develop and disseminate risk communication messages, engage communities, reinforce EVD screening and infection prevention measures at Points of Entry (PoEs) and in high-risk health facilities, construct and equip EVD isolation and treatment units, and establish coordination and procurement mechanisms. CONCLUSION: As of 31 May 2019, there was no confirmed case of EVD as Uganda has continued to make significant and verifiable progress in EVD preparedness. There is a need to sustain these efforts, not only in EVD preparedness but also across the entire spectrum of a multi-hazard framework. These efforts strengthen country capacity and compel the country to avail resources for preparedness and management of incidents at the source while effectively cutting costs of using a "fire-fighting" approach during public health emergencies. |
Isolation of Angola-like Marburg virus from Egyptian rousette bats from West Africa
Amman BR , Bird BH , Bakarr IA , Bangura J , Schuh AJ , Johnny J , Sealy TK , Conteh I , Koroma AH , Foday I , Amara E , Bangura AA , Gbakima AA , Tremeau-Bravard A , Belaganahalli M , Dhanota J , Chow A , Ontiveros V , Gibson A , Turay J , Patel K , Graziano J , Bangura C , Kamanda ES , Osborne A , Saidu E , Musa J , Bangura D , Williams SMT , Wadsworth R , Turay M , Edwin L , Mereweather-Thompson V , Kargbo D , Bairoh FV , Kanu M , Robert W , Lungai V , Guetiya Wadoum RE , Coomber M , Kanu O , Jambai A , Kamara SM , Taboy CH , Singh T , Mazet JAK , Nichol ST , Goldstein T , Towner JS , Lebbie A . Nat Commun 2020 11 (1) 510 Marburg virus (MARV) causes sporadic outbreaks of severe Marburg virus disease (MVD). Most MVD outbreaks originated in East Africa and field studies in East Africa, South Africa, Zambia, and Gabon identified the Egyptian rousette bat (ERB; Rousettus aegyptiacus) as a natural reservoir. However, the largest recorded MVD outbreak with the highest case-fatality ratio happened in 2005 in Angola, where direct spillover from bats was not shown. Here, collaborative studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Njala University, University of California, Davis USAID-PREDICT, and the University of Makeni identify MARV circulating in ERBs in Sierra Leone. PCR, antibody and virus isolation data from 1755 bats of 42 species shows active MARV infection in approximately 2.5% of ERBs. Phylogenetic analysis identifies MARVs that are similar to the Angola strain. These results provide evidence of MARV circulation in West Africa and demonstrate the value of pathogen surveillance to identify previously undetected threats. |
Laboratory response to Ebola - West Africa and United States
Sealy TK , Erickson BR , Taboy CH , Stroher U , Towner JS , Andrews SE , Rose LE , Weirich E , Lowe L , Klena JD , Spiropoulou CF , Rayfield MA , Bird BH . MMWR Suppl 2016 65 (3) 44-9 The 2014-2016 Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in West Africa highlighted the need to maintain organized laboratory systems or networks that can be effectively reorganized to implement new diagnostic strategies and laboratory services in response to large-scale events. Although previous Ebola outbreaks enabled establishment of critical laboratory practice safeguards and diagnostic procedures, this Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted the need for planning and preparedness activities that are better adapted to emerging pathogens or to pathogens that have attracted little commercial interest. The crisis underscored the need for better mechanisms to streamline development and evaluation of new diagnostic assays, transfer of material and specimens between countries and organizations, and improved processes for rapidly deploying health workers with specific laboratory expertise. The challenges and events of the outbreak forced laboratorians to examine not only the comprehensive capacities of existing national laboratory systems to recognize and respond to events, but also their sustainability over time and the mechanisms that need to be pre-established to ensure effective response. Critical to this assessment was the recognition of how response activities (i.e., infrastructure support, logistics, and workforce supplementation) can be used or repurposed to support the strengthening of national laboratory systems during the postevent transition to capacity building and recovery. This report compares CDC's domestic and international laboratory response engagements and lessons learned that can improve future responses in support of the International Health Regulations and Global Health Security Agenda initiatives.The activities summarized in this report would not have been possible without collaboration with many U.S. and international partners (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/partners.html). |
Integrated disease investigations and surveillance planning: a systems approach to strengthening national surveillance and detection of events of public health importance in support of the International Health Regulations
Taboy CH , Chapman W , Albetkova A , Kennedy S , Rayfield MA . BMC Public Health 2010 10 S6 The international community continues to define common strategic themes of actions to improve global partnership and international collaborations in order to protect our populations. The International Health Regulations (IHR[2005]) offer one of these strategic themes whereby World Health Organization (WHO) Member States and global partners engaged in biosecurity, biosurveillance and public health can define commonalities and leverage their respective missions and resources to optimize interventions. The U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Cooperative Biologica Engagement Program (CBEP) works with partner countries across clinical, veterinary, epidemiological, and laboratory communities to enhance national disease surveillance, detection, diagnostic, and reporting capabilities. CBEP, like many other capacity building programs, has wrestled with ways to improve partner country buy-in and ownership and to develop sustainable solutions that impact integrated disease surveillance outcomes. Designing successful implementation strategies represents a complex and challenging exercise and requires robust and transparent collaboration at the country level. To address this challenge, the Laboratory Systems Development Branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and CBEP have partnered to create a set of tools that brings together key leadership of the surveillance system into a deliberate system design process. This process takes into account strengths and limitations of the existing system, how the components inter-connect and relate to one another, and how they can be systematically refined within the local context. The planning tools encourage cross-disciplinary thinking, critical evaluation and analysis of existing capabilities, and discussions across organizational and departmental lines toward a shared course of action and purpose. The underlying concepts and methodology of these tools are presented here. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Nov 22, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure