The Journal of infectious diseases
-
The Ebola epidemic in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, was recognized because of a nosocomial outbreak in Kikwit General Hospital. Initially, a diagnosis of shigella infection was suspected because many patients presented with bloody diarrhea. On 4 May 1995, blood samples from 14 acutely ill patients were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta), and on 9 May, a diagnosis of Ebola hemorrhagic fever was confirmed. The major disease control measures that were undertaken were the isolation of patients in a quarantine ward at Kikwit General Hospital, the distribution of protective equipment to health care workers and family members caring for Ebola patients, the use of barrier nursing techniques, the distribution of health education material, active and passive case finding, and the burying of the deceased in plastic bags by a trained team of Red Cross volunteers who wore gloves and protective clothing.
-
A cohort of convalescent Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) patients and their household contacts (HHCs) were studied prospectively to determine if convalescent body fluids contain Ebola virus and if secondary transmission occurs during convalescence. Twenty-nine EHF convalescents and 152 HHCs were monitored for up to 21 months. Blood specimens were obtained and symptom information was collected from convalescents and their HHCs; other body fluid specimens were also obtained from convalescents. ⋯ Blood specimens of 5 HHCs not identified as EHF patients were initially antibody positive. No direct evidence of convalescent-to-HHC transmission of EHF was found, although the semen of convalescents may be infectious. The existence of initially antibody-positive HHCs suggests that mild cases of Ebola virus infection occurred and that the full extent of the EHF epidemic was probably underestimated.
-
The outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, clearly signaled an end to the days when physicians and researchers could work in relative obscurity on problems of international importance, and it provided many lessons to the international public health and scientific communities. In particular, the outbreak signaled a need for stronger infectious disease surveillance and control worldwide, for improved international preparedness to provide support when similar outbreaks occur, and for accommodating the needs of the press in providing valid information. A need for more broad-based international health regulations and electronic information systems within the World Health Organization also became evident, as did the realization that there are new and more diverse partners able to rapidly respond to international outbreaks. Finally, a need for continued and coordinated Ebola research was identified, especially as concerns development of simple and valid diagnostic tests, better patient management procedures, and identification of the natural reservoir.
-
On 6 May 1995, the Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) coordinator in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), received a request for assistance for what was believed to be a concurrent outbreak of bacillary dysentery and viral hemorrhagic fever (suspected Ebola hemorrhagic fever [EHF]) in the town of Kikwit, DRC. On 11 May, the MSF intervention team assessed Kikwit General Hospital. ⋯ The priorities set by MSF were to establish a functional isolation ward to deal with EHF and to distribute protective supplies to individuals who were involved with patient care. Before the intervention, 67 health workers contracted EHF; after the initiation of control measures, just 3 cases were reported among health staff and none among Red Cross volunteers involved in body burial.
-
A 3-month ecologic investigation was done to identify the reservoir of Ebola virus following the 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Efforts focused on the fields where the putative primary case had worked but included other habitats near Kikwit. ⋯ The epidemiology of Ebola hemorrhagic fever suggests that humans have only intermittent contact with the virus, which complicates selection of target species. Further study of the epidemiology of human outbreaks to further define the environmental contact of primary cases would be of great value.