Search

In the past decade, fluctuations in numbers of imported malaria cases have been seen in Canada. In 1997 to 1998, malaria case numbers more than doubled before returning to normal. This increase was not seen in any other industrialized country. The Canadian federal malaria surveillance system collects insufficient data to interpret these fluctuations. Using local (sentinel), provincial, federal, and international malaria surveillance data, we evaluate and interpret these fluctuations. Several epidemics are described. With an ever-increasing immigrant and refugee population of tropical origin, improved surveillance will be necessary to guide public health prevention policy and practice. The Canadian experience is likely to be generalizable to other industrialized countries where malaria is a reportable disease within a passive surveillance system.

The importation of malaria into a region where it is not endemic raises many concerns, including the timely delivery of appropriate care, safety of the blood supply, and the risk of autochthonous transmission. There is presently no consensus on the best way to screen mobile populations for malaria. Between August 2000 and March 2001, 535 refugees arrived in Quebec, Canada, from Tanzanian camps. Within 4 weeks of resettlement of the first group of 224, the McGill University Centre for Tropical Diseases noted an outbreak of malaria across the province (15 cases over a 3-week period). This group (group 1) was traced and screened for malaria between 3 and 4 months after arrival in Canada. Subsequent groups of 106 and 205 refugees were screened immediately upon arrival in Canada (group 2) and immediately prior to their departure from refugee camps (group 3), respectively. A single EDTA-blood sample was obtained from 521 refugees for testing by thick and thin blood smears (groups 1 and 2), antigen detection (ICT Malaria Pf and OptiMAL; group 1 only), and nested PCR (all groups). Overall, 98 of 521 refugees were found to be infected (18.8%). The vast majority of infections (81 of 98) were caused by Plasmodium falciparum alone. Using PCR as the "gold standard," both microscopy (sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 100%) and antigen detection (ICT sensitivity, 37.5%; ICT specificity, 100%; OptiMAL sensitivity, 29.1%; OptiMAL specificity, 95.6%) performed poorly. None of the PCR-positive subjects were symptomatic at the time of testing, and only two had recently had symptoms compatible with malaria (with or without diagnosis and treatment). Active surveillance of migrants from regions of intense malaria transmission can reduce the risk of morbidity in the migrant population and mitigate against transmission to the host population. Our data demonstrate that PCR is, by far, the most powerful tool for such surveillance.

Background and Purpose: Wild-caught New World monkeys (NWM) from Central or South America are often infected with Trypanosoma species, including T. cruzi. In humans, T. cruzi causes Chagas' disease. Even in closed monkey colonies, T. cruzi can be propagated by blood-to-blood exposure, sexual activity, and transplacental transmission. Animal handlers and laboratory staff who deal with blood and tissues from infected NWM are at riskfor acquiring Chagas' disease via accidental exposure., Methods: We screened 162 blood samples from wild-caught Saimiri sp. monkeys for Trypanosoma species infections by use of blood smear examination, ELISA, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Blood samples from 19 employees with recent history of monkey-associated injuries also were tested., Results: Six percent (10/162) of the monkey samples were T. cruzi positive on the basis of blood smear examination results, 10.4% (17/162) were positive by ELISA results, and 26.5% (43/162) were positive by PCR results. Other organisms identified by PCR analysis included T. rangeli in two animals, Plasmodium spp. in two animals (P. malariae confirmed by PCR results) and microfilariae in one animal (morphologically, Mansonella perstans). Evidence of trypanosome infection was not found in the 19 employee samples on the basis of results of any of the three aforementioned tests., Conclusions: Close attention must be paid to worker safety where wild-caught NWM are used. The PCR analysis has a clear advantage over conventional techniques (ELISA, blood smear) for screening NWM for trypanosome infections during quarantine and after employee injury.