Search

Q fever is a notifiable disease in the Netherlands:laboratories are obliged to notify possible cases to the Municipal Health Services. These services then try to reconfirm cases with additional clinical and epidemiological data and provide anonymised reports to the national case register of notifiable diseases. Since the start of the 2007–2009 Dutch Q fever outbreak,notification rules remained unchanged, despite new laboratory insights and altered epidemiology. In this study, we retrospectively analysed how these changes influenced the proportion of laboratory-defined acute Q fever cases (confirmed, probable and possible)that were included in the national case register, during(2009) and after the outbreak (2010 and 2011).The number of laboratory-defined cases notified to the Municipal Health Services was 377 in 2009, 96 in 2010 and 50 in 2011. Of these, 186 (49.3%) in 2009, 12(12.5%) in 2010 and 9 (18.0%) in 2011 were confirmed as acute infection by laboratory interpretation. The proportion of laboratory-defined acute Q fever cases that was reconfirmed by the Municipal Health Services and that were included in the national case register decreased from 90% in 2009, to 22% and 24% in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The decrease was observed in all categories of cases, including those considered to be confirmed by laboratory criteria. Continued use ofa pre-outbreak case definition led to over-reporting of cases to the Municipal Health Services in the post-epidemic years. Therefore we recommend dynamic laboratory notification rules, by reviewing case definitions periodically in an ongoing epidemic, as in the Dutch Q fever outbreak.

During September and October 2010, the Dutch Public Health Institute detected an enterovirus (EV) 68 (EV68) epidemic in the Netherlands through general practitioner-based surveillance of acute respiratory infections. EV68 shares phenotypic and genotypic properties with human rhinovirus (HRV). Despite increased EV and HRV detections, Dutch clinical laboratories did not identify EV68. To assess the capability of Dutch clinical laboratories to detect EV68, ten laboratories with more than eight detected EV and HRV cases in September and October 2010 provided information about their detection algorithms and testing results for a 2010 Dutch EV68 strain. For EV detection mostly stool specimens (median 49%), respiratory specimens (median 27%) and cerebrospinal fluid (median 22%) were used. For HRV detection only respiratory specimens were used. Except for the Seeplex® RV15ACE EV-specific assay, all EV and 73% of HRV assays, including those of the Public Health Institute, were able to detect EV68. Two-step EV RT-PCR protocols were the most sensitive. Thus, laboratories might have misidentified EV68 as HRV. In addition, EV68 cases might have also been missed because patients with respiratory diseases are usually not tested for EV infection. Therefore, clinical laboratories should include EV detection in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Following an increase in detection of enterovirus 68 (EV68) in community surveillance of respiratory infections in The Netherlands in 2010, epidemiological and virological analyses were performed to investigate the possible public health impact of EV68 infections. We retrospectively tested specimens collected from acute respiratory infections surveillance and through three children cohort studies conducted in The Netherlands from 1994 through 2010. A total of 71 of 13,310 (0.5%) specimens were positive for EV68, of which 67 (94%) were from symptomatic persons. Twenty-four (34%) of the EV68 positive specimens were collected during 2010. EV68-positive patients with respiratory symptoms showed significantly more dyspnea, cough and bronchitis than EV68-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Phylogenetic analysis showed an increased VP1 gene diversity in 2010, suggesting that the increased number of EV68 detections in 2010 reflects a real epidemic. Clinical laboratories should consider enterovirus diagnostics in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)