Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 12

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Completeness of West Nile virus testing in patients with meningitis and encephalitis during an outbreak in Arizona, USA
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Completeness of West Nile virus testing in patients with meningitis and encephalitis during an outbreak in Arizona, USA
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Completeness of West Nile virus testing in patients with meningitis and encephalitis during an outbreak in Arizona, USA
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Summary

Accurate data on West Nile virus (WNV) cases help guide public health education and control activities, and impact regional WNV blood product screening procedures. During an outbreak of WNV disease in Arizona, records from patients with meningitis or encephalitis were reviewed to determine the proportion tested for WNV. Of 60 patients identified with meningitis or encephalitis, 24 (40%) were tested for WNV. Only 12 (28%) of 43 patients aged <50 years were tested for WNV compared to 12 (71%) of 17 patients aged ⩾50 years (P<0·01). Patients with clinical signs of weakness or paralysis, elevated CSF protein, admitted to an inpatient facility, or discharged to a rehabilitation facility were also more likely to have WNV testing performed. The lack of testing in younger age groups and in those with less severe disease probably resulted in substantial underestimates of WNV neuroinvasive disease burden.

INTRODUCTION

West Nile virus (WNV) is the leading cause of arthropod-borne viral encephalitis in the USA [1]. Although the majority of persons infected with WNV remain asymptomatic, 20% develop a non-specific febrile illness and <1% develop neuroinvasive disease, which typically manifests as meningitis, encephalitis, or acute flaccid paralysis [2, 3].

Detection and reporting of WNV neuroinvasive disease cases is assumed to be more consistent and complete than non-neuroinvasive disease cases and is often used to estimate total burden of infection [4]. Reported WNV cases help guide public health education and control activities, and impact regional WNV blood product screening procedures [5]. Confirmation of WNV infections can also help healthcare providers by informing clinical management and prognosis.

Although prior studies have described WNV underreporting [6, 7], none have investigated the completeness of WNV testing in patients with a clinically compatible illness. We reviewed cases of meningitis and encephalitis occurring during an outbreak of WNV in the East Valley of the Phoenix metropolitan area and assessed the proportion tested for WNV infection.

METHODS

We defined a case of meningitis or encephalitis as an East Valley resident admitted to an inpatient ward or seen in an emergency department (ED) with acute onset of fever and either neurological dysfunction or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis (>5 leukocytes/mm3) during 1 May–31 August 2010. For the purpose of this study, the East Valley of metropolitan Phoenix was defined as the cities and towns of Apache Junction, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek, Tempe, Phoenix (zip code 85044 only), San Tan Valley (excluding zip code 85132), and other unincorporated areas occurring within the geographical boundaries of these towns and cities. A case of WNV neuroinvasive disease was defined as a case of meningitis or encephalitis with laboratory evidence of acute WNV infection, including anti-WNV immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies or WNV RNA detected in serum or CSF.

Meningitis and encephalitis cases were identified from patients who had CSF collected at six hospitals serving the East Valley (Fig. 1). Hospitals included in the study were larger institutions with high intake capacity where physicians were more likely to see and admit patients with neuroinvasive disease, and from which WNV cases had previously been reported. Four hospitals were situated in the East Valley and two were situated outside but adjacent to the East Valley. Each of the hospitals' laboratories compiled a list of all patients who had CSF collected over the specified time period, including demographics, date of admission, and date of CSF collection. We reviewed the list and excluded patients if they were aged <2 months (possible neonatal infections), had CSF collected ⩾4 days after admission (possible nosocominal infections), or lived outside the East Valley. We then randomly sampled one-third of the eligible patients and, based on a limited record review, excluded those who did not have infectious disease testing performed on CSF [i.e. bacterial culture, herpes simplex virus polymerase chain reaction (PCR), enterovirus PCR, or WNV serology]. Excluded patients were replaced with additional patients from the same hospital who met the above-mentioned criteria, if available. Finally, a complete medical record review was performed to identify patients who met the case definition for meningitis or encephalitis and lacked a known aetiology for their illness, other than WNV.

Fig. 1. Identification and sampling of meningitis and encephalitis cases – East Valley of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2010. * East Valley residents aged ⩾2 months admitted to an inpatient ward or seen in an emergency department with CSF collected ⩽4 days after admission. † Excluded patients with no infectious disease testing performed on CSF. ‡ The number of eligible patients from one facility was too small to replace all excluded patients.

For the identified meningitis and encephalitis cases, we collected data on patient demographics, clinical signs and symptoms, illness severity and outcomes, and laboratory testing results for potential infectious aetiologies, including WNV. Data were analysed using SAS version 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., USA) and Epi Info version 3.5.1 (CDC, USA). We performed χ2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon's two-sample test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

We identified 60 patients with meningitis or encephalitis who met all inclusion criteria. Of these, 24 (40%) had WNV laboratory testing performed. The proportion of case-patients tested vs. those not tested did not differ by sex but testing increased significantly with increasing age (Table 1, Fig. 2). The median age of patients tested for WNV infection was 50 years (range 16–89 years) compared to 28 years (range 0·2–70 years) for those not tested (P<0·01). Only 12 (28%) of 43 patients aged <50 years were tested for WNV compared to 12 (71%) of 17 patients aged ⩾50 years (P<0·01). The proportion tested did not differ by hospital or city of residence, nor did it vary significantly over the time period evaluated. Testing for WNV was not associated with meningism, mental status changes, or pleocytosis; however, case-patients with weakness/paralysis and those with elevated CSF protein (>50 mg/dl) were more likely to be tested. Case-patients tested for WNV were more likely to have been admitted to the inpatient ward as opposed to being seen only in the ED (P=0·04) and, if admitted, to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility (P<0·01).

Fig. 2. Proportion of meningitis or encephalitis cases tested for West Nile virus (WNV), by age group – East Valley of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2010.

Table 1. Characteristics of meningitis and encephalitis cases by West Nile virus (WNV) testing status – East Valley of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2010

* χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.

n.s., Not significant (P⩾0·05).

Of the 24 meningitis and encephalitis case-patients tested, five (21%) had laboratory-confirmed WNV neuroinvasive disease. Of the WNV-confirmed cases, three (60%) patients had meningitis and two (40%) had encephalitis. Two (40%) patients had a history of cancer, one of whom was under treatment at the time of diagnosis with WNV infection. Patients with WNV neuroinvasive disease were older (median age 72, range 50–89 years) than patients with meningitis or encephalitis who tested negative for WNV (median age 44, range 16–80 years) (P=0·02); no other significant differences were identified.

DISCUSSION

This is the first published report to estimate the completeness of WNV testing in patients with unexplained encephalitis or meningitis. Overall, we found that only 40% of patients presenting with a clinically compatible neuroinvasive illness were tested for WNV infection. Although the proportion tested improved with increased patient age and disease severity, the lack of testing in children, young adults, and those with less severe disease probably resulted in substantial underestimates of the WNV neuroinvasive disease burden. Furthermore, this study was conducted during a WNV outbreak with increased health department alerts and media coverage and we would expect the proportion of cases tested for WNV to be even lower in non-outbreak settings.

Clinicians may omit WNV testing for several reasons. Our data suggest that patient age, disease severity, clinical signs (weakness or paralysis), and CSF parameters were significant factors. Less than 30% of the meningitis and encephalitis patients aged <50 years were tested for WNV compared to >70% of patients aged ⩾50 years. Although the incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease increases significantly with age, patients aged <50 years account for 55% of all WNV neuroinvasive disease cases nationally [4]. Of children aged <20 years, only one (6%) of 18 patients was tested for WNV. Even though cases of WNV neuroinvasive disease in children comprise only 5% of total cases reported nationally [4], the lack of testing means that the diagnosis is likely to be missed in this age group. Patients seen only in the ED were less likely to be tested for WNV, possibly due to their less severe presentation. However, this would not preclude the diagnosis, since up to 19% of patients with WNV neuroinvasive disease are not admitted to hospital [810]. Additionally, clinicians may question the impact of testing on management because of anticipated delays in receiving results and the absence of proven treatment options. Despite these shortcomings, diagnostic confirmation does inform clinical management (e.g. removing antibiotic therapy or testing for alternative aetiologies) and expectations regarding the patient's prognosis [11].

Our study was subject to several limitations. We conducted our review in larger hospitals servicing the area; testing practices in these facilities may have differed from other smaller facilities. By excluding patients who had no other infectious disease testing performed, we may have biased the sample towards those more likely to have had testing for possible WNV infection. Our case definition limited our ability to evaluate testing practices in WNV cases with less common or atypical presentations; for instance across the six institutions, we were aware of two patients who had CSF serological evidence of WNV infection but did not present with fever so they were not included in the analysis. Finally, we were unable to quantify the true rate of underdiagnosis because clinical specimens were no longer available for additional WNV testing to identify missed cases.

Detection of WNV in mosquitoes collected by environmental sampling can provide early warning of local WNV activity [12]. However, ecological surveillance activities are now curtailed in many jurisdictions due to budgetary constraints, and public health and blood collection agencies are increasingly relying on human WNV case data to make decisions on prevention measures (e.g. targeting mosquito-control efforts or intensifying blood donor screening) [13]. Providing better estimates of disease burden and location of human disease cases are critical to prevention efforts. Therefore, although human surveillance is not ideally suited for early regional detection of WNV activity [14], it should be optimized for use in combination with available environmental surveillance to aid in timely prevention measures. Based on our findings, we recommend that public health officials encourage healthcare practitioners to expand testing for WNV in persons with clinically compatible illness to include younger patients and those with less severe clinical disease. The true proportion of missed cases could be assessed prospectively by testing CSF samples submitted for other infectious disease testing for WNV to strengthen disease estimates for public health planning and response.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the infection control practitioners and medical records managers of the six facilities for kindly accommodating and assisting us during data collection and Mark Delorey and Kallie Horiuchi, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO for their input on sampling and analysis considerations.

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this work do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

REFERENCES

1. Reimann, CA, et al. Epidemiology of neuroinvasive arboviral disease in the United States, 1999–2007. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2008; 79: 974979.
2. Mostashari, F, et al. Epidemic West Nile encephalitis, New York, 1999: results of a household-based seroepidemiological survey. Lancet 2001; 358: 261264.
3. Sejvar, JJ, Marfin, AA. Manifestations of West Nile neuroinvasive disease. Reviews in Medical Virology 2006; 16: 209224.
4. Lindsey, NP, et al. Surveillance for human West Nile virus disease – United States, 1999–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report . Surveillance Summaries 2010; 59: 117.
5. Custer, B, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. blood supply for West Nile virus. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005; 143: 486492.
6. Boehmer, TK, et al. Use of hospital discharge data to evaluate notifiable disease reporting to Colorado's Electronic Disease Reporting System. Public Health Reports 2011; 126: 100106.
7. Silk, BJ, et al. Differential West Nile fever ascertainment in the United States: a multilevel analysis. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2010; 83: 795802.
8. Patnaik, JL, Harmon, H, Vogt, RL. Follow-up of 2003 human West Nile virus infections, Denver, Colorado. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2006; 12: 11291131.
9. Lindsey, NP, et al. West Nile virus disease in children, United States, 1999–2007. Pediatrics 2009; 123: e1084–1089.
10. Jean, CM, et al. Risk factors for West Nile virus neuro-invasive disease, California, 2005. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2007; 13: 19181920.
11. Sejvar, JJ. The long-term outcomes of human West Nile virus infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007; 44: 16171624.
12. Unlu, I, et al. Evaluation of surveillance methods for detection of West Nile virus activity in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 2004–2006. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 2009; 25: 126133.
13. Stramer, SL, et al. Strategies for testing blood donors for West Nile virus. Transfusion 2006; 46: 20362037.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemic/epizootic West Nile virus in the United States: guidelines for surveillance, prevention, and control. Atlanta: CDC, 2003.