Journal of Clinical Virology - Volume 82 - Supplement 1 - September 2016

63 / 152

Abstracts / Journal of Clinical Virology 82S (2016) S1–S142 S59
Reference
[1] World Health Organization, Zika Virus Fact Sheets, 2016.
[2] Z. Versant, ika RNA 1.0 Assay (kPCR) under feasibility evaluation. Not for sale,
and its future availability cannot be guaranteed, 2016 (in press).
Abstract no: 338
Presentation at ESCV 2016: Poster 76
Molecular epidemiology of enterovirus in
Scotland, January 2013–December 2015
Gina McAllister ∗ ave Yirrell ha El Sakka
Peter Simmonds , Kate Templeton
1 NHS Lothian, United Kingdom
2 NHS Tayside, United Kingdom
3 NHS Grampian, United Kingdom
4 University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Introduction: Enteroviruses are common viruses which cause
a variety of symptoms ranging from mild illness, such as fever,
rash, and cold-like symptoms, to more severe conditions, such as
viral meningitis or encephalitis. Non-polio enteroviruses (EV) are
a group of ssRNA viruses with over 100 different serotypes. They
are the major aetiological agent of childhood meningitis as well as,
rarely, encephalitis and acute flaccid paralysis
Methods: In-house PCR is used for the detection of
enteroviruses (including polioviruses) and parechoviruses in
faeces, throat swabs, CSF and blood specimens. All significant
enterovirus or parechovirus positive results (i.e. detected in CSF
or with significant symptoms) are recommended to be submitted
for typing. All EV PCR positive CSF, faecal and throat swab isolates
were typed by sequencing of VP1 or VP4 Epidemiological
information and typing data were compared for the specimens
received in the 24 month period between 1st January 2013 and
31st December 2015.
Results: A total of 329 specimens, representing 315 patients,
were submitted to the laboratory for typing between 1st January
2013 and 31st December 2015. The majority of samples were
cerebrospinal fluid samples (66%) or throat swabs (19%). Age and
gender data was available for >99% of the cases. Thirty-nine per-
cent of the cases were female. Median age of patients was 1 month
(range: 16 days–81 years). Interestingly, half of the samples were
from patients <1 year old. Typing results were available for 80% of
all samples. Twenty-seven different EV serotypes were detected.
The commonest enterovirus types were coxsackievirus B5 (12.8%),
echovirus 6 (12.1%), echovirus 30 (5.5%), coxsackievirus A6 (5.5%)
and Echovirus 9 (4.0%). Distinct seasonality of enterovirus was
observedwith peaks of infection occurring in September 2013, June
2014 and October 2015. Most notable was the predominance of
Echovirus 6 and Coxsackievirus B5 in autumn 2015.
Discussion: EV surveillance is important not only for monitor-
ing the changing epidemiology of these infections but also for the
rapid identification of spread of emerging EV. In Europe within the
last decade, echovirus 30was the cause of themajority of outbreaks
associatedwith CNS infections n 24months of enterovirus typ-
ing in Scotland we have identified peaks of infection predominated
by echovirus 6 and coxsackievirus B5 in autumn 2015.
Reference
[1] H. Harvala, N. McLeish, J. Kondracka, C.L. McIntyre, E.C. McWilliam Leitch, K.
Templeton, et al., Comparison of human parechovirus and enterovirus
detection frequencies in cerebrospinal fluid samples collected over a 5-year
period in Edinburgh: HPeV type 3 identified as the most common picornavirus
type, J. Med. Virol. 83 (5) (2011) 889–896,
PMID: 21412796.
[2] H. Rudolph, H. Schroten, T. Tenenbaum, Enterovirus infections of the central
nervous system in children: an update, Ped. Inf. Dis. J. 35 (5) (2016) 567–569.
[3] S. Bennett, H. Harvala, J. Witteveldt, E.C. McWilliam Leitch, N. McLeish, et al.,
Rapid simultaneous detection of enterovirus and parechovirus RNAs in clinical
samples by one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay, J. Clin.
Microbiol. 49 (7) (2011) 2620–2624.
[4] A. Nougairede, M. Bessaud, S.D. Thiberville, et al., Widespread circulation of a
new echovirus 30 variant causing aseptic meningitis and non-specific viral
illness, South-East France, 2013, J. Clin. Virol. 61 (2014) 118–124.
Abstract no: 353
Presentation at ESCV 2016: Poster 77
Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa –
Portuguese laboratory response overview
Rita Cordeiro ∗, Ana Pelerito,
Isabel Lopes de Carvalho, Sofia Núncio
National Institute of Health, Emergency Response
and Biopreparedness Unit, Department of Infectious
Diseases, Portugal
The Ebola outbreak inWest Africawas the largest andmost com-
plex outbreak since the virus was discovered in 1976. First cases
were notified in March of 2014 and the last ones were reported in
April of 2016 in Liberia.
To respond to the epidemic of Ebola virus, Portugal cre-
ated an coordination committee where the National Institute of
Health, through the Emergency Response and Biopreparedness
Unit (UREB), participated integrating the “Platform Response to
Ebola Virus Disease”.
This unit is the national reference laboratory for biological
events or catastrophes and has skilled professionals, know-how,
BSL-3 facilities, capacity to work 24 h/7 d and trained human
resources to increase lab capacity in emergency situations. The lab-
oratory diagnosis capacity includes the detection of bacteria, virus
and toxins, which are considered bioterrorism agents, using Micro-
biology, Immunology and Molecular Biology techniques. In order
to ensure quick and reliable results, a laboratory algorithm was
developed taking in account the available human and technical
resources. UREB also participates regularly in International Exter-
nal Quality Assessments, training courses and simulation exercises.
Although Portugal does not have a BSL-4 facility, the partici-
pation in European projects as QUANDHIP, allowed the upgrade
of Biosafety procedures, technical skills and the use of a glove con-
tainer for samples inactivation permitting the analysis of suspected
samples, avoiding the need to send suspected samples to abroad.
In Portugal 15 samples from suspected cases concerning
patients who were traveling from African countries were received
at UREB. All samples were negative for Ebola virus, and the dif-
ferential diagnosis was performed in parallel which includes the
detection of Plasmodium spp., Marburg and Lassa virus. Forty per-
cent of suspected cases were positive for Plasmodium falciparum.
The algorithmof laboratory procedures for samples suspected to
Ebola virus it was well implemented and was several times tested
through the participation in simulation exercises. The communica-
tion of the results to the competent authorities occurred in 4–5 h
from the reception of the sample in the laboratory.
The experience gained and work accomplished enabled a quick
and effective laboratory response and permitted to increase train-
ing actions, BSL-3 facility upgrading, development of national