Mumps virus detection during an outbreak in a highly unvaccinated population in British Columbia.
Tan, Kennard E. ; Anderson, Maureen ; Krajden, Mel 等
Mumps is an acute viral illness characterized by fever and
parotitis that typically affects young children. (1) Clinical
manifestations start with a non-specific prodrome, which can include
malaise and headache, and are followed by painful swelling of the
parotid glands. Less common presentations include epididymo-orchitis,
oophoritis, pancreatitis and meningoencephalitis. Approximately half of
those infected develop classical disease, the remainder having
non-specific or respiratory symptoms and 15-20% being asymptomatic.
(2,3) Most of those who are symptomatic recover fully. There is
currently no specific antiviral treatment available, but mumps vaccine
has been available since the 1960s. (4)
The introduction of the scheduled mumps-measles-rubella (MMR)
childhood vaccination in 1967 has resulted in a dramatic decrease of
disease incidence in North America. (5) However, mumps has reemerged
since 2004, with outbreaks reported in Europe, (6) US (7) and Canada.
(8) These outbreaks have been documented in vaccinated populations,
frequently affecting older children and young adults, suggesting that
current vaccines are not adequately protective over the long term. (9)
Control measures for mumps consist of immunization of susceptible
populations and isolation of those symptomatic or potentially exposed.
Post-exposure prophylaxis with vaccine or immunoglobulin is not known to
prevent infection. (10) Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended
shortening the isolation period from 9 days to 5 days after the onset of
parotitis. (11) This was based on limited historical studies performed
prior to the availability of mumps vaccination, and one small 2008 study
in a highly vaccinated population12 in which virus detection, hence the
potential for transmission, was observed to be highest prior to the
onset of parotitis and within the subsequent 5 days. This recommendation
was also based in part on improved compliance among university students
isolated for shorter periods (4 days) compared to those isolated for up
to 9 days. (13) The Canadian guidelines for the prevention and control
of mumps have similarly adopted a 5-day case isolation period. (14)
A mumps outbreak occurred in a highly unvaccinated population in
British Columbia (BC), Canada, from February to October 2008. Most of
the affected unimmunized population belonged to a small faith-based
community who opted out of scheduled vaccination. The outbreak was
managed by using provincial mumps control guidelines, including programs
for enhanced surveillance and public awareness, in the specific
geographic region of the epidemic. After the outbreak resolved, we
retrospectively utilized clinical and laboratory data to investigate the
period of mumps virus detection following the onset of parotitis and to
compare laboratory findings with mumps vaccination status.
METHODS
Mumps is a reportable disease in British Columbia. Upon recognition
of the outbreak, a series of advisories were issued to health care
providers and the public. People presenting with mumps-like illness were
seen and assessed by their family physicians or community health nurses.
Those who met the case definition were reported to the local medical
health officer and thereby to the British Columbia Centre for Disease
Control (BCCDC). Public health staff collected clinical, demographic and
epidemiologic data during the course of the outbreak, including contact
tracing and follow-up. This information was obtained either through
discussions with the patients' health care providers or directly by
telephone interviews with the patients or their parents.
Types and timing of diagnostic laboratory tests for mumps were
determined by the health care provider and patient preferences, and
specimens were submitted from a single visit. For laboratory diagnosis,
public health guidelines recommend specimen collection for mumps virus
detection and/or both acute and convalescent serology. Mumps virus was
detected from buccal swab, urine and CSF specimens using
reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) and isolation in cell culture. RT-PCR
performed was a semi-quantitative assay with primers targeting the F and
SH genes. (15,16) This assay was performed in parallel with the National
Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg, Manitoba during the initial
course of the outbreak for validation of the RT-PCR. CT-values of the
assay <35 were considered positive for the presence of mumps virus
RNA. Sequencing of the SH gene identified outbreak strain as genotype G,
which was consistent with other outbreaks in Canada. (8) Serology for
IgG and IgM were also performed semi-quantitatively with the VIDAS
(bioMerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) automated immunoassays. A
positive laboratory result is defined as either: virus detection by
RT-PCR or isolation in cell culture; significant increase of
convalescent IgG; or having detectable IgM in either acute and/or
convalescent serology.
Data captured in a database throughout the course of the outbreak
were analyzed. Cases with both the date of parotitis reported and a
buccal swab collected were evaluated as a subset to assess the viral
shedding period. Because these activities were performed as part of the
outbreak investigation, under public health legislative authority,
ethics board approval was not required. Statistical analysis was
performed with SPSS software17 with chi-square testing to assess
statistical significance.
RESULTS
Demographics
In this outbreak, 180 cases of mumps were reported. Of these, 115
(64%) cases had at least one laboratory test performed, 38 (33%)
reported no history of prior mumps vaccination and 37 (32%) had unknown
vaccination status.
Laboratory testing
Of the 115 cases tested, results confirming mumps virus infection
were available on 85 (74%). Laboratory testing is categorized as either
virus detection by RT-PCR or isolation in cell culture, or serology
(Table 1). In 59 cases, both virus detection and serology were
performed. While serology was the more common test performed, most
laboratory-confirmed cases were identified by virus detection. An
increase in convalescent IgG did not identify any cases that were not
diagnosed by virus detection or by the presence of mumps specific IgM
antibody.
Most specimens for virus detection were assessed by both RT-PCR and
isolation in cell culture, with RT-PCR assay being more sensitive. Mumps
was detected by RT-PCR in 94% of all specimens, and in only 57% of the
specimens by isolation on cell culture. Of the 18 urine specimens
tested, the virus was detected in 5 by RT-PCR and in 2 by isolation in
cell culture. The specimens were collected up to 16 days after onset of
parotitis, and virus was detected up to day 5. None of the cases with
virus detected in urine reported having orchitis or oophoritis. CSF
specimens were collected for two cases one day after onset of symptoms
of meningitis, with the virus detected in one by both isolation and
RT-PCR.
Assessment of shedding duration
Viral shedding is believed to occur from nasal and oral secretions,
with buccal swab specimens offering the highest yield for virus
detection. (18) The date of parotitis onset was used as the starting
point of shedding duration because this is the most specific symptom of
mumps. This approach is consistent with prior studies,11 although it
should be acknowledged that shedding can precede onset of parotitis.
Detailed clinical history with dates of parotitis onset and detection of
virus from buccal swabs were available for 61 cases. Specimens from
these cases had been collected over a number of days after the onset of
parotitis, but mostly within the first three days. As shown in Table 2,
virus was detected by RT-PCR in 5 specimens (56%) collected at day 7-9
and in 3 (33%) by isolation in cell culture. Moreover the virus was
detected by both RTPCR and isolation in cell culture in 2 specimens that
were collected day 9 post onset of parotitis.
The above findings cannot be directly used to correlate the length
of viral shedding with factors such as vaccination status and age as
specimens were not collected every day to test for presence of virus.
However, of 3 patients with known vaccination status and detectable
virus in buccal swabs at days 7 to 9 post-parotitis, 2 reported and 1
denied prior vaccination. In patients with detectable virus by RT-PCR,
no correlation could be found between CT-values of the RT-PCR assay and
the timing of specimen collection after onset of symptoms.
Laboratory findings in vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients
As shown in Table 3, laboratory testing was more often performed in
cases with a history of vaccination. A history of vaccination did not
significantly affect the detection of mumps in buccal swab specimens. As
expected, mumps IgG antibody was detected in nearly all vaccinated cases
and was detected in only 67% of unvaccinated cases in acute serum
specimens. On the other hand, mumps IgM antibody was detected in 70% of
the non-vaccinated cases and in only 42% of the vaccinated cases.
DISCUSSION
Isolation of cases while they are shedding an infectious agent is
an important control measure for many communicable diseases. For mumps,
this isolation period was determined by studies that assess viral
detection in patient specimens in relation with clinical symptoms18
and/or epidemiologic data. (2) Up until recently, investigations into
mumps transmission have been largely ignored as effective vaccination
had greatly reduced the incidence of the illness in our population.
The BC mumps outbreak was similar to many other recent outbreaks,
although it included a substantial number of cases who were unvaccinated
and in the pediatric age group. As with recent studies, the rate of
viral detection was highest in specimens collected immediately after the
onset of parotitis (88%) and decreases up to day 9 (56%). However, in
contrast with previous studies, (12) virus could be detected in a subset
up to day 9 by both RT-PCR and isolation in cell culture.
Our findings are consistent with the mathematical model from
Polgreen et al., (19) which estimates that 8-15% of patients would still
be shedding virus five days after the onset of symptoms. Their model was
based on data from the 2006 Iowa outbreak, in which virus was isolated
in cell culture from 10 of 71 specimens collected during days 6 to 9. In
neither their study nor ours could the virus be detected after day 9.
However, our detection rates between days 6 to 9 were higher, and we
hypothesize this to be due to the use of more sensitive RT-PCR
technology and to selection bias; those still unwell several days after
onset of parotitis may have been more likely to have sought medical
attention and diagnostic testing.
We are unable to show a difference of viral shedding between
populations of different vaccination status. However, in both groups,
rates of viral detection were similar with virus detected after day 5.
We also found that virus was more readily detected in buccal specimens
(73%) than in urine (31%), in agreement with other studies. (20)
Due to the observational nature of our study, our results are
limited by single specimen submissions and by retrospective clinical
data. Ideally, specimens should have been collected serially after
initial presentation of parotitis, as this reflects true viral shedding.
Furthermore, detection of virus shedding, especially by RT-PCR, may not
be the only factor in determining infectivity, (19) and further work is
required for accurate modeling of virus transmission in a susceptible
population.
Despite these limitations, our study indicates that mumps viral
shedding continues for up to 9 days after onset of parotitis. While a
5-day isolation period may be pragmatic in the context of low compliance
with self-isolation, patients with mumps should be informed that while
viral shedding may be maximal in the patients up to 5 days, it continues
up to 9 days and they should be asked to limit activities associated
with direct respiratory contact for the full 9-day period. Our study
also brings into question whether a 5-day isolation period is sufficient
to prevent transmission of mumps in a susceptible population. Further
investigations to prospectively assess viral shedding and
epidemiological studies to correlate this to transmission are warranted
to validate patient isolation guidelines.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
Received: July 5, 2010
Accepted: September 13, 2010
REFERENCES
(1.) Hviid A, Rubin S, Muhlemann K. Mumps. Lancet
2008;371(9616):932-44.
(2.) Philip RN, Reinhard KR, Lackman DB. Observations on a mumps
epidemic in a virgin population. Am J Hygiene 1959;69(2):91-111.
(3.) Falk WA, Buchan K, Dow M, Garson JZ, Hill E, Nosal M, Tarrant
M. The epidemiology of mumps in Southern Alberta, 1980-1982. Am J
Epidemiol 1989;130(4):736-49.
(4.) Plotkin SA, Rubin S. Mumps vaccine. In: Plotkin SA, Orenstein
WA, Offit PA (Eds.), Vaccines, 5th ed. Philadephia, PA: WB Saunders,
2008;436-65.
(5.) McNabb SJ, Jajosky RA, Hall-Baker PA, Adams DA, Sharp P,
Anderson WJ, et al. Summary of notifiable diseases--United States, 2005.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;54(53):2-92.
(6.) Gupta RK, Best J, MacMahon E. Mumps and the UK epidemic. BMJ
2005;330(7500):1132.
(7.) Dayan GH, Quinlisk MP, Parker AA, Barskey AE, Harris ML,
Schwartz JM, et al. Recent resurgence of mumps in the United States. N
Engl J Med 2008;358(15):1580-89.
(8.) Watson-Creed G, Saunders A, Scott J, Lowe L, Pettipas J,
Hatchette TF. Two successive outbreaks of mumps in Nova Scotia among
vaccinated adolescents and young adults. CMAJ2006;175(5):483.
(9.) Dayan GH, Rubin S. Mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations:
Are available mumps vaccines effective enough to prevent outbreaks? Clin
Infect Dis 2008;47(11):1458-67.
(10.) American Academy of Pediatrics. Mumps. In: Pickering LK
(Ed.), Red Book: 2009 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,
28th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics,
2009;468-72.
(11.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated
recommendations for isolation of persons with mumps. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2008;57(40):1103-5.
(12.) Bitsko RH, Cortese MM, Dayan GH, Rota PA, Lowe L, Iversen SC,
et al. Detection of RNA of mumps virus during an outbreak in a
population with a high level of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine
coverage. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46(3):1101-3.
(13.) Soud FA, Cortese MM, Curns AT, Edelson PJ, Bitsko RH, Jordan
HT, et al. Isolation compliance among university students during a mumps
outbreak, Kansas 2006. Epidemiol Infect 2009;137(1):30-37.
(14.) Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Guidelines for the
prevention and control of mumps outbreaks in Canada. CCDR Can Commun Dis
Rep 2010;36S1.
(15.) Uchida K, Shinohara M, Shimada S, Segawa Y, Doi R, Gotoh A,
Hondo R. Rapid and sensitive detection of mumps virus RNA directly from
clinical samples by real-time PCR. J Med Virol 2005;75(3):470-74.
(16.) Boddicker JD, Rota PA, Kreman T, Wangeman A, Lowe L, Hummel
KB, et al. Real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for detection of
mumps virus RNA in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45(9):2902.
(17.) SPSS for Windows, Rel. 14.0.2. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc., 2006.
(18.) Henle G, Henle W, Wendell KK, Rosenberg P. Isolation of mumps
virus from human beings with induced apparent or inapparent infections.
J Exp Med 1948;88(2):223-32.
(19.) Polgreen PM, Bohnett LC, Cavanaugh JE, Gingerich SB,
Desjardin LE, Harris ML, et al. The duration of mumps virus shedding
after the onset of symptoms. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(9):1447-51.
(20.) Krause CH, Eastick K, Ogilvie MM. Real-time PCR for mumps
diagnosis on clinical specimens--comparison with results of conventional
methods of virus detection and nested PCR. J Clin Virol
2006;37(3):184-89.
Kennard E. Tan, MD, [1] Maureen Anderson, MSc, [2] Mel Krajden, MD,
[3] Martin Petric, PhD, [3] Annie Mak, BSc, [3] Monika Naus, MD [2]
Author Affiliations
[1.] Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
[2.] Epidemiology Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease
Control, Vancouver, BC
[3.] Laboratory Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease
Control, Vancouver, BC
Correspondence: Dr. K.E. Tan, Department of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine, UBC, Rm 1501, Vancouver General Hospital, 899 12th
Ave W, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Tel: 604-875-4892, Fax: 604-875-4988,
E-mail: kennard@interchange.ubc.ca
Table 1. Diagnostic Testing Results
Positive/
Test Performed Reactive
* (%)
Virus Buccal swabs 75 55 (73)
Detection Urine 26 8 (31)
CSF 2 1 (50)
Serology * Acute IgM serology 86 35 (41)
Convalescent IgM ([dagger]) 11 6 (55)
Acute IgG serology 96 79 (82)
Rise in convalescent
IgG signal 16 4 (25)
* Equivocal serology results excluded.
([dagger]) Where IgM was not detected in acute serum.
Table 2. Virus Detection in Buccal Specimens (n=61), by
Days After Parotitis
Isolation in RT-PCR or
RT-PCR cell culture isolation
# Days Performed Positive Performed Positive % Positive
Post- n n (%) n n (%)
parotitis
0-1 24 21 (88) 23 16 (70) 88
2-3 15 11 (73) 16 6 (38) 69
4-5 * 10 7 (70) 10 2 (20) 70
7-9 9 5 (56) 9 3 (33) 56
>9t 2 0 H 2 0 (H 0
* No specimens collected on day 6.
([dagger]) Specimens collected on day 13 and 20.
Table 3. Lab Results in Comparison With Vaccination Status
Cases With Cases With
History of No History
Comparison Vaccination of p-value *
(%) Vaccination (%)
Laboratory test performed 40 / 49 (82) 37 / 84 (44) <0.01
Virus detected in buccal
swabs 20 / 28 (71) 15 / 19 (79) 0.56
Mumps IgG ([dagger])
detected in acute serum 32 / 33 (97) 20 / 30 (67) <0.01
Mumps IgM ([double dagger])
detected in serum 13 / 31 (42) 17 / 24 (70) 0.03
* Chi squared.
([dagger]) Equivocal findings excluded.
([double dagger]) Reactive in either initial or convalescent,
and equivocal findings excluded.