|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
| 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | 12 | 20 | 21 | 16 |
| February | 14 | 19 | 26 | 19 |
| March | 7 | 21 | 8 | 27 |
| April | 12 | 10 | 11 | 13 |
| June | 4 | 11 | 1 | 6 |
| July | 5 | 5 | 9 | 8 |
| August | 5 | 9 | 12 | 7 |
| September | 6 | 7 | 13 | 8 |
| October | 15 | 8 | 10 | 70 |
| November | ? | 8 | 11 | |
| December | 11 | 20 | ||
| Total | 75 | 129 | 153 | 174 |
Review of charts of pneumonia patients at Hospital A during October revealed that many patients were admitted with a febrile illness (i.e., an illness especially including fever) characterized by weakness, lethargy, and mental confusion. Some patients had a dry cough, and several reported having watery diarrhea. Chest X-rays were consistent with a pneumonia. Most cases were residents of Bogalusa or the surrounding areas of Washington Parish.
QUESTION
4:
What are possible interpretations for the data in the table above? What would you do next? (i.e., If you wanted to intensify the investigation, what steps would you take?)
Continue only after completion of Question 4
QUESTION
5:
Develop a case definition for this outbreak. Would you want a relatively sensitive or a relatively specific case definition in this setting?
(Tip: A "sensitive" case definition is one that will identify nearly all cases of the disease being investigated ["true positives"], but at the same time may include other similar illnesses resulting from different causes ["false positives"]. In contrast, a "specific" case definition is one that excludes similar illnesses resulting from causes different from the disease under investigation [false positives], but at the same time may exclude some true cases with slightly unusual symptoms and/or signs [true positives]. In other words, would you want a case definition that identifies the maximum number of possible cases [high sensitivity] or one that only identifies true cases [high specificity]?)
QUESTION 6:
How would you go about case-finding? Do you need to find every case
Continue only after completion of Question 6
|
|
|
| Cases
Exposed/Total (%) |
Controls
Exposed/Total (%) |
Odds
Ratio |
P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indoor exposure to buildings with cooling towers | ||||
| Retail Store A | 3/28 (11%) | 10/54 (19%) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Post Office | 7/27 (26%) | 12/50 (24%) | 1.1 | 0.9 |
| Hospital A | 5/28 (18%) | 12/54 (22%) | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| Hospital B | 3/28 (11%) | 7/56 (13%) | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Paper Mill | 2/28 (7%) | 4/56 (7%) | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Outdoor exposure to stores near paper mill cooling towers | ||||
| Retail Store A | 3/28 (11%) | 10/54 (19%) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Retail Store B | 10/28 (36%) | 15/52 (29%) | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| Retail Store D | 5/28 (18%) | 7/54 (13%) | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| Retail Store E | 6/28 (21%) | 9/54 (17%) | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Restaurant A | 2/26 (8%) | 5/52 (10%) | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Bank A | 11/28 (39%) | 19/53 (36%) | 1.2 | 0.9 |
| Butcher Store A | 12/27 (44%) | 10/54 (19%) | 3.5 | 0.03 |
| Any of the above | 19/28 (68%) | 33/56 (59%) | 1.5 | 0.6 |
| Outdoor exposure to stores near other large cooling towers | ||||
| Drug Store A | 7/28 (25%) | 15/55 (27%) | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| Drug Store B | 13/28 (46%) | 20/54 (37%) | 1.5 | 0.6 |
| Doctors Plaza A | 2/27 (7%) | 8/56 (14%) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Retail Store F | 4/28 (14%) | 6/54 (11%) | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| Exposure to stores frequently reported by case-patients | ||||
| Grocery Store A | 25/27 (93%) | 28/54 (52%) | 11.6 | <0.01 |
| Grocery Store B | 19/28 (68%) | 23/54 (43%) | 2.9 | 0.05 |
| Retail Store C | 22/28 (79%) | 30/54 (56%) | 2.9 | 0.07 |
QUESTION
12:
What is your interpretation of these data? (i.e., Which of the exposures above suggest an association with illness, which accounts for the greatest number of cases, and what are the implications?)
Continue only after completion of Question 12
(time to completion: 15 minutes)
Additional epidemiological analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between time spent in grocery store A and risk of disease that is, there was a direct relation between the amount of time persons spent in the store and their risk for disease. The investigators visited grocery store A and looked for potential sources of aerosolized water. An ultrasonic mist machine was operating over one section of the produce display. No one at grocery store A was familiar with the maintenance or operation of this machine. Permission was obtained to culture a specimen of water from the reservoir of the misting device. The culture from the misting device contained Legionella pneumophila serotype 1 (LP-1). Cultures from various cooling towers around town also contained LP-1, but of different subtypes. The investigators were suspicious this misting device may have been related to the outbreak.
QUESTION
13:
At this point, is information sufficient to make recommendations have the basic criteria of causation been satisfied? How would you proceed with this investigation?
Continue only after completion of Question 13
Four additional activities were undertaken: 1) a serosurvey (that is, a survey and analysis of blood specimens obtained from a sample of persons) was conducted among all grocery store employees in Bogalusa to determine antibody status against LP-1; 2) a second case-control study was undertaken to determine if exposure to the misting device was associated with developing Legionnaires' disease; 3) ten similar misting devices from other parts of the country were cultured; and 4) the investigators asked for permission to perform autopsies on two patients who had died of pneumonia early in the epidemic.
Employees at grocery store A were more likely to have elevated antibody titers to Legionella than employees at the other grocery stores (13/48 [27%] versus 7/75 [9%] the ratio of these two percentages is defined as the prevalence ratio [the ratio of the prevalence of antibody in each group]; prevalence ratio=3, p=0.02). Analysis of the second case-control study revealed a significant association between disease and purchasing produce which was nearest the mister. Of the 10 mist machines from other parts of the country, 6 grew Legionella. The subtype of Legionella found in the grocery store misting device was also isolated in a small cooling tower which was far from public access and not in proximity to Grocery Store A. Lung tissue from the two autopsied patients revealed Legionella of the same subtype as that found in grocery store A.
Until now, the news media had not been aware of the outbreak, the investigation, or the results.
QUESTION
14:
Who needs to know about these findings? How would you go about reporting the findings?
Continue only after completion of Question 14
(time to completion: 5 minutes)
The investigators concluded that the misting device was the source of aerosols that caused the outbreak. They were reluctant to publish the results until the laboratory was able to demonstrate that viable Legionella could be isolated from aerosols produced by the machine. This was expected to take several weeks. In mid-December, the machine was removed from grocery store A and sent to CDC for further study. Since it was apparent that other mist machines were likely to be contaminated with Legionella, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was notified. The FDA developed guidelines for maintaining these mist machines. In early January, the Bogalusa newspaper printed the first article about the outbreak, without knowing its cause. This story was quickly picked up by the New Orleans paper and national news services. Soon, Bogalusa was overrun by reporters wanting to find out the cause of the outbreak. They focused their attention on the paper mill in the center of town, and demanded to know the culture results from the cooling towers.
The Louisiana state health department issued a press release and an electronic mail notification message to other health officials describing the mist machine findings. Grocery industry officials were notified about the potential problem in trade newspapers and at meetings. The electronic mail message became public and was widely quoted in newspaper articles.
The type of misting device implicated in the outbreak was new to the grocery industry. These misters produced a visible fog that attracted shoppers, but had no other practical use. They did not help to preserve produce. The health department received reports of similar types of machines used in other settings, such as amusement parks and indoor aquariums. The findings were published in CDC's weekly bulletin, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), after laboratory staff were able to isolate Legionella organisms from aerosols produced by the machine. Subsequent publication of findings in the Journal of Infectious Diseases was used to reach an even wider audience of health care professionals and to ensure that physicians specializing in the treatment of Legionnaires' disease and other infectious diseases were aware of this previously unrecognized vehicle for transmission of Legionella.
1. CDC. Legionnaires' disease outbreak associated with a grocery store mist machine - Louisiana, 1989. MMWR 1990;39:108-110.
2. Mahoney FJ, Hoge C, Farley TF, et al. Legionnaires' disease associated with a grocery store mist machine. J Infect Dis 1992;165:736-739.
3. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, sixteenth edition. Abram S. Benenson, Editor. American Public Health Association, pp. 256-258.