Visit to New York’s Wadsworth Center reignites APHL staffer’s passion for lab science

Photo of Rana Rahmat, APHL staff person, standing in front of the David Axelrod Institute of the New York State Wadsworth Center.

By Rana Rahmat, specialist, Laboratory Response Network, APHL

After the public health emergencies of the last several years, it would be quite easy for anyone in this field, particularly laboratory scientists, to find themselves jaded about the field. As someone who worked in a laboratory for years and felt that stress, I thought I was beyond the excitement of seeing public health laboratory work.

I was wrong. And I’ve never been happier for it.

As part of APHL’s Public Health Preparedness and Response team, new team members visit one of our member public health laboratories to see, experience and learn about how the laboratories operate and the different types of work they do. How can we help support their mission if we don’t understand what they do, how they do it and why they do it? As the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) specialist, I’ve mostly worked with the bioterrorism units at public health laboratories with very little exposure to other departments. I didn’t even have a general knowledge of the types of work other parts of the lab did, nor did I know or understand the work. Visiting a public health laboratory was the perfect opportunity to change that.

For my visit, I had the opportunity to visit the New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center for a few days to tour and spend time with staff members. In those few days I transformed from the jaded scientist back to the young kid who thought science was so awesome and wanted to know everything about how the tests and instruments worked. At Wadsworth, I was in the perfect place to feed that reignited curiosity.

My first day was spent with the biodefense team who I work with the most as that section performs the laboratory’s LRN functions. One mock test later – shortened from its usual eight hour run time, of course – and the previously intimidating number of steps on the protocols didn’t seem so daunting anymore. The morning concluded with a tour of the biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) space, which is relatively small for the sheer number of instruments it needs to house most of which are quite large.

My second day was cold and wet, but inside the lab I was happily overwhelmed with the amount of dedication I saw from every staff person. The morning started with a meeting at the Biggs Laboratory at Empire State Plaza with Dr. Patrick Parsons. What followed was a two-hour tour of the facility, exploring from room to room and hearing about all the incredible work done at this lab. The immense volume of testing was impressive and learning how it impacted aspects of everyday life and helped during crisis situations was something I never really considered until that day.

The afternoon was spent at the Griffin Laboratory, home of the Arbovirus and Rabies Laboratories. It was incredible to walk through the various lab spaces and see all the different stages of work while hearing about the research, routine surveillance and the constant new challenges they face. I didn’t even mind seeing the mosquitos feeding…even though it was right after lunch!

My second stop at the Griffin Laboratory was the Rabies Laboratory. It was definitely not a space for the squeamish! Hearing about the volume and types of specimens they process, and how much team effort it takes to efficiently run the lab was astounding. I hadn’t yet toured any lab spaces with active tests until I walked into the rabies specimen processing room. Right there in a biosafety cabinet was the head of an animal that had recently been processed for testing. It was just there for me to see and examine if I was willing to get close enough with proper PPE. There was no way I was going to say no to that regardless of the little time that had passed since lunch! Before I could even wrap my head around what I was doing, three more boxes were brought in and I again felt like a child thinking, “this is SO cool!” Dr. Davis then showed me microscope slides of positive and negative specimens that were prepared for me. They were beautiful, the bright green and red hues reminiscent of Christmas. That day ended with a tour of the animal biosafety level 3 (ABSL-3) space on site, which showcased a great deal of innovative systems developed for research.

The last day of the visit was at the David Axelrod Institute, visiting more departments to learn about their work, and to learn how they all come together to function as one public health lab. Each person and each department reaffirmed that it takes a lot of effort to run every aspect of the public health laboratory. I saw that every department is unique and vital to the mission, and that there is an overwhelming amount of work to be done every day.

One thing I saw in every individual I met was that regardless of their site, department or how long they have worked at Wadsworth, they all shared an incredible amount of passion for their work. The joy they felt in doing the research, performing the testing and sharing the innovation their jobs was palpable despite how tiring it must have been with COVID-19, mpox and the many other public health events of the last several years.

Visiting Wadsworth didn’t just give me insight into how public health laboratories work, it also reminded me that laboratory science is still just as exciting to me as ever. It helped me realize that no matter how world-weary we get, how hard public health work is sometimes, it is work that’s worth doing. As for me? Who knows if I’ll ever go back to working in a lab, but it’s comforting to know that the spark of joy still exists.

There are quite a few people to whom I owe a great deal of gratitude for making this visit as incredible as it was: Christina Egan for approving it, Michael Perry for organizing every meeting and showing me the different locations, and Alex and Dominic from the biodefense team for showing me around the laboratory on the first day. I’d also like to give a massive thank you to the following people for taking time out of their day to speak with me: Patrick Parsons, Alex Ciota, April Davis, Corey Bennett, Lisa Mingle, Kara Mitchell, Bill Lee, Bill Wolfgang, Kim Musser, Sudha Chaturvedi, Vincent Escuyer, Meghan Fuschino, Linda Styler and Monica Parker. Thank you, thank you, thank you all for making this an unforgettable experience.

(Note: Though I wish I had more photos to commemorate this trip, I was so enraptured by the experience that I didn’t think to take pictures at any of the sites. I spent my time entirely focused on absorbing every detail around me, but sadly not on camera.)

The post Visit to New York’s Wadsworth Center reignites APHL staffer’s passion for lab science appeared first on APHL Blog.

New Lab Matters: Making data fly

Cover of Fall 2019 issue of Lab Matters magazine illustrating high volume of data

In today’s technology-connected world, information moves quickly. But in the world of public health, pathogens often travel faster than the data needed to diagnose, treat and prevent illness. Reporting delays and incomplete or incompatible data delay insights into pressing public health problems. The solution? Investing in public health infrastructure and resources to rapidly deliver data to public health and clinical decision makers.

Here are a few of this issue’s highlights:

Read the full issue.

Subscribe and get Lab Matters delivered to your inbox, or read Lab Matters on your mobile device.

The post New Lab Matters: Making data fly appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

Humboldt County Public Health Lab was ready for ricin thanks to LRN

Humboldt County Public Health Laboratory team poses in the lab.

By Jody DeVoll, advisor, communications, APHL

Jeremy Corrigan, Humboldt County Public Health Laboratory manager, was having a quiet Tuesday morning when he received a call from a member of the local hazmat team. Workers processing mail at a nearby California state prison had found envelopes containing an unidentified white powder, and samples were being sent to the lab for testing. Meanwhile, 116 prison workers were under quarantine at the prison.

Fortunately, the Humboldt County laboratory was well prepared and equipped to handle this sort of request. As a member of the Laboratory Response Network for Biological Threats, the national laboratory system that protects Americans from serious biological threats, such as anthrax and plague, and from emerging infectious diseases, it is the only facility with these capabilities in this remote section of northern California.

Three Humboldt County Public Health Laboratory scientists dressed in protective gear take a selfie in the laboratory.Though the situation was urgent, Humboldt laboratory staff were careful to maintain chain of custody and preserve evidence and therefore did not immediately launch into testing when the samples arrived. Following protocol, they devoted two hours to documenting, photographing and opening the samples, handling them with the utmost care. Then they turned to testing with a time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay (TRF) followed by molecular testing.

The results were startling. Normally white powder samples come back negative for any select agent as so-called “white-powder incidents” are typically hoaxes, but these tested positive, specifically for ricin A chain. Ricin has two protein chains – ricin A chain and ricin B chain – and both must be present to have toxic effects. When ricin is used as a biothreat agent, the presence of A chain usually means testing will also reveal B chain.

Once Corrigan had the preliminary results, he called his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) weapons of mass destruction contact, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the prison incident commander. This was the beginning of an all-night phone marathon with the CDC, the FBI and local and state government officials. During a short break, Corrigan lay down for 30 minutes to rest his eyes.

Back at the laboratory early Wednesday morning, Corrigan’s next challenge was shipping. To be certain the samples were positive for ricin A chain and ricin B chain, they would have to go to a federal laboratory for confirmatory testing. However, the Humboldt laboratory did not have the materials required for shipping ricin and delivery would take up to two days. Seeing no other alternative, Corrigan placed the order for the shipping materials and waited.

Then came a call from an FBI agent traveling aboard a C-130 military transport aircraft announcing that he would be arriving within the hour to pick up the samples. Corrigan later learned that the California Governor’s Office and the FBI had prevailed upon federal authorities to make their resources available to expedite transport of the samples.

Once at the FBI laboratory, the samples tested positive for both ricin A chain and ricin B chain. The unidentified white powder from the prison mailroom was indeed ricin and the toxin was active. Using samples forwarded by the FBI, CDC laboratories reached the same conclusion. At this point, the acute phase of the incident ended for the laboratory as the focus shifted to the criminal investigation for the FBI and United States Postal Service. While not actively involved, Corrigan and his team at the Humboldt laboratory offered any additional testing support should the need arise.

Corrigan credits the Laboratory Response Network for his facility’s efficient response to the crisis. “The LRN backbone is what allowed us to respond so quickly. We had the protocols, the procedures, the partners, the proficiency and the relationships to handle the response.” He also commends the strong support he received from the county, the health department, the acting state public health officer and the Sonoma County Public Health Laboratory, which handled Humboldt’s overflow testing during the height of the crisis.

According to Corrigan, “The ricin event strengthened our existing relationships and allowed us to develop new ones.” To build upon this dynamic, he is planning a regional training that will bring together Humboldt laboratory staff, local hazmat teams, the sheriff’s department and the region’s civil support team.

The post Humboldt County Public Health Lab was ready for ricin thanks to LRN appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

Lab Culture Ep. 20: 20 Years of the Laboratory Response Network

Stefan Saravia and Maureen Sullivan at the Minnesota Public Health Laboratory

This year marks 20 years since the inception of the Laboratory Response Network (LRN). Founded by APHL, CDC and the FBI, the LRN exists to protect the public from biological and chemical threats. How did the LRN get its start? And how has it evolved over the past 20 years? This episode of Lab Culture features an interview with two public health laboratory scientists and LRN experts.

Listen here or wherever you get your podcasts:

Maureen “Moe” Sullivan
Emergency Preparedness and Response Laboratory Supervisor
Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health

Stefan Saravia
Biomonitoring and Emerging Contaminants Unit Supervisor
Public Health Laboratory, Minnesota Department of Health

Links:

Minnesota Laboratory Emergency Preparedness
About the Laboratory Response Network (APHL.org)
The Laboratory Response Network Partners in Preparedness (CDC.gov)
What is biomonitoring? (Video)
“Pine County man charged with government center threats, more” (StarTribune)

 

The post Lab Culture Ep. 20: 20 Years of the Laboratory Response Network appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

The LRN’s job is to prepare, detect and respond. But what exactly does that mean?

The LRN’s job is to prepare, detect and respond. But what exactly does that mean? | www.APHLblog.org

As one of the nation’s emergency response systems, the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) is known for detecting and responding to all types of health threats. Its mission is to maintain an integrated network of laboratories that can respond to bioterrorism, emerging infectious diseases, chemical terrorism and other public health emergencies. During an emergency, one of the LRN’s most critical functions is ensuring that US laboratories have the right test at the right time.

When a public health threat emerges, one of the first tasks of public health systems is to make sure that laboratories are able to test for the causative agent, whether biological, chemical or radiological. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quickly works with these laboratories and other partners to get the tests in place using equipment found in LRN reference laboratories. For instance in 2014, CDC partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the LRN deployed a test for Ebola. The network  rolled out training and other programs to ensure quality testing and reporting. This approach ensured laboratories such as the Texas Department of State Health Services Laboratory was ready to test for Ebola before it struck. Similarly, CDC quickly worked with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to secure an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) assay for Zika and again deployed the test via the LRN to laboratories across the country. Where training was needed, CDC partnered with APHL to deliver these skills to public health laboratory scientists. Whatever the testing needs may be, the LRN jumps into action to ensure testing capabilities are in place for an effective response.

So what exactly does the LRN do to support and expedite development and deployment of such tests? The LRN:

  • Collaborates with the specialized laboratory developing the test. This may be a laboratory at a government agency, such as CDC or DoD, or a private entity.
  • Optimizes the test to ensure it provides reliable results, operates on instrumentation available nationwide and integrates with systems for reporting of test results.
  • Prepares and submits a request to the FDA for use of the test on an emergency basis. This Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) details test detection limitations, reagents, instruments, authorized users and other technical information.
  • Issues proficiency tests to assure laboratory scientists across the network are capable of properly performing the tests and generating accurate results.
  • Quickly deploys the test to LRN laboratories with the capability to test for the agent.
  • Provides a mechanism for standardized electronic data exchange of test results.
  • Facilitates communications across partners such as APHL, DoD, FBI and other stakeholder.

Here are examples of public health emergences where the LRN made sure the proper test was at the proper laboratory just in time to initiate the response:

As a founding partner, APHL recognizes the value of the LRN and celebrates its accomplishments across the last 20 years. The LRN, via funding from CDC’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement, provides a warm base for public health laboratories, positioning them to respond to all threats including the 2009 pandemic influenza and the recent opioid epidemic. Though many Americans have never heard of the LRN, the Network is nonetheless there, keeping us safe from threats known and unknown.

For more information about the Laboratory Response Network, visit CDC’s “The Laboratory Response Network Partners in Preparedness” webpage.

The post The LRN’s job is to prepare, detect and respond. But what exactly does that mean? appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs?

Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs? | www.APHLblog.org

Maybe the saying is true: you don’t know what you had until it is gone. For the families in this episode, the absence of public health laboratories turned their worlds upside down and negatively impacted both the present and future. These families represent us all and highlight the vulnerabilities that would exist if there were no public health laboratories working continuously to keep our communities and populations safe.

This is the second episode in the series produced by members of the Emerging Leader Program cohort 10.

You can listen to our show via the player embedded below or on iTunes, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. Please be sure to subscribe to Lab Culture so you never miss an episode.

Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs? | www.APHLblog.orgEmerging Infectious Disease Response:

APHL’s Infectious Disease Program

Laboratory Response Network (LRN)

Interviewer: Kate Wainwright, PhD, D(ABMM), HCLD (ABB), MPH, MSN, RN, deputy director, Public Health Protection and Laboratory Services, Indiana State Department of Health

Expert: Peter Shult, PhD, director, Communicable Disease Division; associate director, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs? | www.APHLblog.orgNewborn Screening:

APHL’s Newborn Screening Program

NewSTEPs

Baby’s First Test

Interviewer: Josh Rowland, MBA, MT(ASCP), manager, Training and Workforce Development, Association of Public Health Laboratories

Expert: Miriam Schachter, PhD, research scientist 3, New Jersey Department of Health, Newborn Screening Laboratory

 

Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs? | www.APHLblog.orgFoodborne Illness:

APHL’s Food Safety Program

5 Things You Didn’t Know (but Need to Know) About Listeria

Interviewer: Samir Patel, PhD, FCCM, (D)ABMM, clinical microbiologist, Public Health Ontario; Toronto, Canada

Expert: Vanessa Allen, MD, MPH, medical microbiologist, chief of microbiology, Public Health Ontario; Toronto, Canada

 

Narrator:  Erin Bowles, B.S., MT(ASCP), Wisconsin Clinical Laboratory Network coordinator and co-biosafety officer, Communicable Disease Division, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Contributor: Emily Travanty, PhD, scientific director, Laboratory Services Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Special thanks to Jim Hermanson at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene for his help in recording this episode.

The post Lab Culture Ep. 11: What if there were no public health labs? appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

September 30, 2014: As Ebola Arrived, the Texas Public Health Lab was Ready

This post was originally written for From The Lab Bench on October 2, 2014.
________

By Michelle M. Forman, senior media specialist, APHL

The world is not as large as it often seems, and there are countless reminders that diseases are willing travelers. As US health officials saw Ebola ravage populations in West Africa, it became clear that we needed to prepare just in case this devastating disease arrived here. To much of the public health community in the US, the question of Ebola arriving wasn’t a matter “if” but rather “when.” And when it arrived, a coordinated response would be critical to rapid and thorough containment.

The first step was to ensure we were able to detect Ebola in suspect cases. In August, FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for an Ebola detection test developed by scientists at the Department of Defense (DoD) United States Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID). Once the EUA was issued, CDC quickly began working with certain state and local public health laboratories, all members of the Laboratory Response Network (LRN), to determine which were best equipped to perform this testing.

September 29, 2014: As Ebola Arrived, the Texas Public Health Lab was Ready | www.APHLblog.org Select laboratories were approached by CDC to receive the test kit (Initial deployment of the test was limited to 12 LRN member laboratories but CDC continues to expand the number of qualified labs.); the Laboratory Services Section of the Texas Department State Health Services (the state public health lab) was an obvious choice given its stellar record in biothreat testing. Dr. Grace Kubin, director of the state public health lab, explained that they had the necessary instrumentation, four highly skilled biothreat staff well versed in handling select agents and a biothreat laboratory located in a separate building from the rest of the laboratory to ensure proper containment of threat agents. Once the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Dr. David Lakey, gave his approval, the laboratory immediately began preparing.

The first step was to inform all of the staff at the state laboratory. “I wanted them to hear it from me first, not the media,” said Dr. Kubin. She reviewed the extensive safety precautions that would be taken to ensure everyone’s safety. From there, she worked closely with her team to establish step-by-step guidelines for handling of an Ebola specimen from receipt to distribution of test results. Laboratory staff would work with state epidemiologists who would serve as the initial contact for suspect cases. Staff in the shipping office would be alerted when potential Ebola specimens were expected; just as with all biothreat specimens, they were not to open the package but instead contact biothreat lab staff to come pick it up.

None of this was atypical for this laboratory, though. Its biothreat team works routinely with far more dangerous select agents such as ricin and anthrax. This is what they do and they do it safely. Everything was already in place for their routine work; the possibility of Ebola meant tightening existing systems and keeping fear at bay.

September 29, 2014: As Ebola Arrived, the Texas Public Health Lab was Ready | www.APHLblog.orgAt the end of August they determined they were ready to test for Ebola.

Just over a month later, on Sunday, September 28, Dr. Kubin started receiving emails concerning a possible Ebola case in Dallas; later that evening CDC approved the Texas state public health lab to begin testing. On Monday the specimens were shipped to the state lab and to CDC for simultaneous testing. Early Tuesday morning the specimen arrived at the lab where staff were waiting to receive it.

This was their first specimen.

Just as instructed, the shipping staff alerted the biothreat laboratory staff of the package’s arrival without opening it. Testing began right away.

By early afternoon the biothreat lab staff obtained a presumptive positive result for Ebola. CDC laboratory staff, working simultaneously and performing additional testing, confirmed that finding shortly after.

Lab staff devoted the rest of the day to distributing information to Commissioner Lakey, the hospital staff, CDC and other key parties. Though the patient was already in treatment and under isolation, staff knew other potential cases could surface as the contact investigation progressed so they were poised to receive specimens any time of the day or night. “They’re used to getting calls at three AM saying there is a specimen that needs immediate testing,” explained Dr. Kubin.

While I expected my conversation with Dr. Kubin to end with her telling me that her staff felt a sense of accomplishment or relief that they successfully performed this critical test, she didn’t. For her staff, aside from the convoy of news trucks in their parking lot, this was all in a day’s work.

The Texas state public health lab acted quickly and efficiently, just as expected. Had the specimen been sent to any of the other approved LRN laboratories, we trust they would’ve done the same. They are strong, dedicated members of the public health system in this country. Because we have such a system in place, health officials and experts remain confident that this single Ebola case will not spiral into an outbreak.

When news of Ebola in Texas disappears, you’ll know the public health system did its job.

September 29, 2014: As Ebola Arrived, the Texas Public Health Lab was Ready | www.APHLblog.org

 

Building Connections and Recognizing Excellence at the 2015 LRN National Meeting

By Kara MacKeil-Pepin, associate specialist, Public Health Preparedness and Response, APHL

At the 2015 Laboratory Response Network (LRN) National Meeting in Atlanta, members gathered to learn from each other, solve problems, and finally put a face to the disembodied voices they’ve heard over hours of conference calls.

The LRN is a system of state and local public health laboratories, sentinel clinical laboratories, federal facilities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), international laboratories, and partners from the intelligence, military and first responder communities. Members train together, share common procedures and standards, and maintain a strong communication network to promote rapid detection and response. Thanks to strong relationships across these varied groups, the LRN is able to respond quickly and comprehensively to a wide variety of deliberate and naturally occurring threats, from the 2013 ricin letters to singular cases of endemic anthrax in Minnesota. The LRN National Meeting is an essential part of building these strong relationships. While members are in frequent contact with each other throughout the year, allowing face-to-face contact and collaboration with members from across the network offers a level of relationship building that can’t be achieved with an e-mail.

Sessions often reflect lessons learned from recent biological and chemical threats. This year was no exception, with several big-picture discussions of the 2014 Ebola Virus outbreak and a presentation on chemical weapons security from Dr. Hugh Gregg, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Laboratory. Practical sessions included topics like data security, training strategies, need for standards for field screening devices, and radiological preparedness. Attendees were also treated to video addresses by Dr. David Nabarro, special representative to the United Nations Secretary-General, and Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the CDC.

Awards

The National Meeting also gives members a chance to honor a few select agencies and individuals who have gone above and beyond the already demanding work of the LRN. Ebola response featured heavily among the winners: the Dallas County Health and Human Services Laboratory and the Texas Department of State Health Services Laboratory Services Section each received awards for Excellence in Public Health Response for the 2014 Ebola Outbreak, and the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was honored with the Excellence in Partnership award for their work in developing assays to respond to and rule out Ebola in the US.

Partnership continued to be emphasized with the other awards presented. The Indiana State Department of Health State Health Laboratories was recognized with the Outstanding Sentinel Training Program award for their exemplary outreach to sentinel clinical laboratories which paid off when the lab identified the first US case of Middle East Respiratory System Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Office of Laboratory Services was also honored for their partnership efforts in the wake of the Elk River chemical spill in 2014, winning the award for Outstanding Outreach to Poison Control Centers or Hospitals. Finally, the Minnesota Department of Health Public Health Laboratory received the Innovative Collaborations with First Responder Communities award for their well-known and wide reaching program of training, exercises, and networking with first responder agencies throughout the state of Minnesota.

In the individual awards, Maureen Sullivan of the Minnesota Department of Health was recognized with the Excellence in Leadership honor for her long-standingefforts to shape public health emergency preparedness programs and policy in her home state and at the national level, and her irreplaceable contributions to first responder and clinical outreach programs in Minnesota.

The second and final individual honor, the award for Excellence in Public Service, was presented to Dr. Mary Ritchie, bioterrorism laboratory program advisor for the Florida Bureau of Public Health Laboratories. Dr. Ritchie has almost singlehandedly established and maintained an interagency laboratory workgroup for Florida, bringing together laboratories across Florida to communicate and share critical information.

The awards have a lighter side too, with winners selected at each meeting for the LRN Video and Photo Contest. Contestants submit their own original photos and videos, trying to capture what it means to be an LRN member on film.

2015 LRN Best Photo Award winner was the State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of Iowa | www.APHLblog.org

This year’s Best Photo Award winner was the State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of Iowa for their photo of laboratorians hard at work at their Annual Sentinel Laboratory Training Wet Workshop in 2015.

Finally, attendees were treated to a world-premiere showing of the Best Video Award winner, a pro wrestling-esque, Lego-inspired depiction of the Texas response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak submitted by the San Antonio Metro Health District Laboratory.

LRN Smack Down: Mr. Inactivator vs Ebola Virus (LRN *Best Video Award* winner) from APHL on Vimeo.

APHL congratulates all of this year’s winners!

PHPR_2015Sep_LRN-meeting-blog-post-group-photo

 

In US, Massive Effort to Detect and Respond to Ebola Already Underway

By Tyler Wolford, MS, Specialist, Laboratory Response Network, APHL

Our curiosity and fears have been running wild since the 2014 Ebola* outbreak in West Africa hit headlines. Scenes from Outbreak, the 1995 box office hit that focused on a fictional outbreak of an Ebola-like virus in Zaire, begin running through our minds. We need to stray from these dramatizations and focus on the facts. Movies are supposed to build suspense and fear, but real life outbreaks don’t happen like they do in the movies. This isn’t Hollywood.

In US, Massive Effort to Detect and Respond to Ebola Already Underway | www.aphlblog.orgThe most common question on the minds of people around the United States: Are we fighting Ebola well enough to keep it from coming to my community?

The truth with many emerging infectious diseases including Ebola, is that the only way to fight it is to be prepared to respond. In the United States, we’re doing just that.

Although the Ebola-Zaire virus circulating in West Africa has not arrived in the United States, a massive effort is underway to detect and control any isolated cases of the disease should they occur in this country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States Department of Defense (DoD), pharmaceutical companies, public health laboratories and many more are all working domestically and abroad to minimize the potential threat. The DoD has long been studying Ebola virus and successfully developed a test to detect the Zaire strain. On August 5, 2014, the DoD Ebola detection test received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be used in this extreme circumstance. (An EUA expedites the FDA approval process for unapproved medical devices that could benefit response efforts when no adequate alternatives exist.) After the EUA was issued, CDC worked quickly to deploy the test to select public health laboratories across the United States. As the supply of test kits increases, CDC will look to expand the number of laboratories qualified to detect the Ebola-Zaire virus.

The public health laboratories receiving the Ebola detection assay are part of the Laboratory Response Network (LRN), a specialized network of laboratories that are capable of responding to biological, chemical, radiological and other emerging threats. This preparedness and response effort is not unique to Ebola. Most recently, the LRN has been leveraged to respond to emerging infectious diseases like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome – Coronavirus. The LRN provides a strong infrastructure of trained personnel, clear communication lines, and advanced technology to launch an effective response to emerging infectious disease.

The race to contain Ebola is on since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Ebola outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in early August 2014. Moreover, the CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center at the highest response level to help with the outbreak. As Dr. Tom Frieden, CDC director, said in a press conference this week, “We know how it spreads. We know how to stop it from spreading. The challenge is to do that everywhere that’s needed. In order to do that effectively, speed is key.”

While we all are concerned for the health and safety of the people in the most affected nations, we can find some comfort in knowing that a coordinated effort of qualified scientists, doctors, public health officials and organizations is underway to minimize the threat of outbreak in the US.

*Did you know there are five known strains of Ebola virus? The most dangerous one, Ebola-Zaire, is responsible for the outbreak in West Africa. The virus spreads person to person through direct contact with blood and other bodily fluids; despite what you may have read in fear-mongering articles, the spread of the virus through the air has never been documented. Once inside the host, the virus works by weakening the immune system and starving the host organs to the point of failure.

 

MERS-CoV: Why We Are Not Panicking

By Tyler Wolford, Specialist, Laboratory Response NetworkPublic Health Preparedness and Response Program; and Stephanie Chester, Senior Specialist, Influenza Program, Infectious Disease Program, APHL

MERS-CoV: Why We Are Not Panicking | www.aphlblog.orgBy now you have probably heard that CDC has confirmed two cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) infection in the US. Both were imported from Saudi Arabia; travelers became sick on their journey and sought care here in the US. This is the kind of stuff that typically gets us, infectious disease and preparedness folks, amped up, reaching for coffee and telling our loved ones we might be working late. We know that MERS-CoV is a serious infection – as of mid-May 2014, there have been 536 laboratory-confirmed cases and 145 deaths of MERS-CoV. However, the laboratory community is accustomed to responding to these situations—and that’s good news for public health. We have written, tested and rewritten preparedness plans, policies and procedures for dealing with novel and/or unexpected events and pathogens. We have dealt with white powders (more times than we can count), influenza A(H3N2)v, re-emerging vaccine preventable diseases and many other threats. In addition, we were given a lengthy (roughly two-year) heads-up with MERS-CoV. And while we know not to expect this luxury every time (we’re looking at you, 2009 H1N1 pandemic), the lead time meant that CDC, public health laboratories, health departments and clinicians were alerted and prepared well before the first US two cases occurred. Efforts by CDC and the public health labs ensured that, when the first cases arrived, they could be rapidly identified so proper precautions and epidemiologic investigations could begin. What are the reasons for our relative calmness despite the arrival of MERS-CoV on our shores? We were – and still are – prepared as the case count mounted on the other side of the Atlantic. Here are the specifics:

  • Planning. MERS-CoV was first reported in 2012 in Saudi Arabia. Once transmission became sustained in the Middle East, public health officials knew it was likely that a case would arrive in the US: we just didn’t know when. We had time to plan our response.
  • An approved test. CDC rapidly developed a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test which was granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA on June 5, 2013, and deployed the same month to 44 state public health laboratories and one local public health laboratory.
  • Infrastructure. The Laboratory Response Network (LRN) provided critical infrastructure for rapid distribution of the MERS-CoV test to public health laboratories across the US.
  • Training. Once laboratories received the test, they trained their staff and completed proficiency testing to demonstrate that they were trained and ready to perform testing should the need arise.
  • Experience. With health departments and physicians on alert, over 150 patients with MERS associated symptoms have been tested using the CDC assay. All were found to be negative.  This testing provided valuable opportunities for laboratories to familiarize themselves with the test.
  • Communication. CDC, APHL and other partner organizations have maintained timely communications with states, and others partners to keep everyone abreast of the current situation.
  • Dedication. Our public health labs are full of amazing scientists who are willing to spend countless hours, seven days a week to ensure rapid test results.

So if we aren’t panicking now that we have MERS-CoV cases in the US, what are we doing? We’re sprinting to keep pace with MERS-CoV and so far we have performed well, managing every step in the process with precision.

  • Indiana promptly notified CDC of a presumptive positive MERS-CoV infection and CDC rapidly confirmed this result.
  • CDC and Indiana started epidemiologic investigations and tested samples from close contacts of the infected patient.
  • APHL and CDC began communications immediately after the first case was confirmed.
  • APHL, in collaboration with CDC, held a laboratory alert call on May 6, 2014, to provide state and local public health labs with a situational update and to review laboratory testing guidance.
  • Currently CDC is distributing new proficiency testing panels so labs can refresh their competency on the CDC MERS-CoV test.

MERS-CoV is a serious threat that deserves the highest level of preparedness and attention.  Fortunately for the American public, we in the public health system are poised to handle MERS-CoV and other health threats whenever, wherever and however they enter our country. This is why we aren’t panicking, but it’s also why public health requires steady support.  Pathogens have no regard for budgets, funding cycles or economic trends. They won’t wait, and neither can we.