CDC Acute Flaccid Myelitis Update

December 5, 2019

Slide 1

CDC Acute Flaccid Myelitis Update, December 5, 2019

CDC Acute Flaccid Myelitis Update

Janell Routh, MD MHS
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Herpesvirus, and Polio Domestic Epidemiology Team
Division of Viral Diseases
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting
December 5, 2019


Slide 2

Background

Background


Slide 3

Number of confirmed reported AFM cases, Aug 2014 – December 2018 (n=569)

National increase in AFM cases every 2 years since 2014

  • Number of confirmed reported AFM cases, Aug 2014 – December 2018 (n=569)
    • 2014: 120 cases
    • 2015: 22 cases
    • 2016: 153 cases
    • 2017: 37 cases
    • 2018: 237 cases

More information about confirmed AFM cases in the United States


Slide 4

AFM presents with rapid onset of limb weakness and spinal cord grey matter lesions

AFM presents with rapid onset of limb weakness and spinal cord grey matter lesions

  • Sudden limb weakness
  • Difficulty with swallowing or speaking
  • Facial droop or weakness
  • Ptosis
  • Lesions in spinal grey matter, particularly anterior horn cell distribution
  • Cervical spinal cord most affected

Slide 5

2019 AFM epidemiology

2019 AFM epidemiology


Slide 6

2019 looks like another non-peak year for AFM activity

2019 looks like another non-peak year for AFM activity

  • Number of U.S. AFM patients under investigation reported to CDC by case status and month of onset, Jan-Nov 26, 2019

Total PUI – 115
Total classified – 93

  • Confirmed – 32
  • Probable – 5
  • Not a case – 56

Under review – 4
Awaiting information – 18


Slide 7

Lack of geographic clustering of 2019 AFM cases

Lack of geographic clustering of 2019 AFM cases

  • 2019 confirmed cases of acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) by state (N=32)

*Confirmed AFM cases as of Nov. 26, 2019. Patients under investigation are still being classified, and the case counts are subject to change.


Slide 8

Evidence for a viral etiology

Evidence for a viral etiology


Slide 9

U.S. surveillance shows a consistent baseline rate of AFM

U.S. surveillance shows a consistent baseline rate of AFM
Number of confirmed reported AFM cases, Aug 2014 – Sept 2019 (n=597)

More information about confirmed AFM cases in the United States


Slide 10

Baseline cases of AFM have multiple causes

Baseline cases of AFM have multiple causes

Infectious Causes

  • Enteroviruses (EV-D68, EV-A71)
  • Flaviviruses (WNV, JEV)
  • Adenoviruses
  • Herpesviruses

Non-Infectious Causes

  • Neuro-inflammatory (TM, ADEM, NMOSD, anti-MOG, MS)
  • Spinal stroke/embolism

Slide 11

What is causing the biennial peaks in AFM

What is causing the biennial peaks in AFM?

Number of confirmed reported AFM cases, Aug 2014 – Sept 2019 (n=597)

More information about confirmed AFM cases in the United States


Slide 12

97-percent of AFM cases have symptoms of a viral illness

97% of AFM cases have symptoms of a viral illness

Among 228 confirmed AFM cases with onset in 2018

Proportion of AFM cases with symptoms of a viral illness
Symptom Proportion of cases Median days from symptom onset to limb weakness
Any 97% 6
Fever or URI 94% 6
URI 81% 6
Fever 79% 3
Neck/back pain 48% 1
Headache 37% 2
GI illness 21% 2.5
Rash 10% 4

Source: Kidd, et al. CDC preliminary data


Slide 13

AFM diagnostic testing remains low yield

AFM diagnostic testing remains low yield

CDC testing results, 2018

CDC AFM testing results for 2018 by test, number, and result
Specimen Source Number EV/RV Positive
CSF 69 2 (3%)
Stool 95 13 (14%)
Respiratory 117 53 (45%)
Total* 143 63 (44%)

*Some patients had multiple positive specimens

Source: Lopez, et al. Vital Signs: Surveillance for Acute Flaccid Myelitis – US, 2018, MMWR 2019


Slide 14

AFM cases in peak years are different from non-peak years

AFM cases in peak years are different from non-peak years

More pleocytosis, upper extremity weakness, preceding illness, EV/RV and EV-D68 +

Percentage of characteristic between peak and non-peak years for AFM cases
Characteristic 2016 & 2018 (peak years) 2015 & 2017 (non-peak years)
CSF pleocytosis 86% 60%
Upper limbs only 33% 16%
Lower limbs only 13% 32%
Severity 3% 18%
Any fever 72% 55%
Any respiratory symptoms 78% 43%
Enterovirus/Rhinovirus + 38% 16%
EV-D68 + 54% 0%
Median age 5.2 years 8.3 years

Slide 15

AFM cases in non-peak years have more lower extremity weakness, are more severe and older

AFM cases in non-peak years have more lower extremity weakness, are more severe and older

Percentage of characteristic between peak and non-peak years for AFM cases
Characteristic 2016 & 2018 (peak years) 2015 & 2017 (non-peak years)
CSF pleocytosis 86% 60%
Upper limbs only 33% 16%
Lower limbs only 13% 32%
Severity 3% 18%
Any fever 72% 55%
Any respiratory symptoms 78% 43%
Enterovirus/Rhinovirus + 38% 16%
EV-D68 + 54% 0%
Median age 5.2 years 8.3 years

Slide 16

AFM cases during peak years also have differences

AFM cases during peak years also have differences

2016 cases had more severity, cranial nerve involvement and EV-D68 +

AFM cases during peak years of 2016 and 2018 by characteristic and percentage
Characteristic 2016 2018
Severity 6% 0%
Cranial nerve involvement 37% 19%
Any fever 68% 75%
Any respiratory symptoms 76% 80%
Any gastrointestinal symptoms 26% 36%
Enterovirus/Rhinovirus + 36% 39%
EV-D68 + 70% 45%
EV-A71 + 6% 17%

Slide 17

Preceding illness and EV-A71 detections greater in 2018 cases

Preceding illness and EV-A71 detections greater in 2018 cases

AFM cases during peak years of 2016 and 2018 by characteristic and percentage
Characteristic 2016 2018
Severity 6% 0%
Cranial nerve involvement 37% 19%
Any fever 68% 75%
Any respiratory symptoms 76% 80%
Any gastrointestinal symptoms 26% 36%
Enterovirus/Rhinovirus + 36% 39%
EV-D68 + 70% 45%
EV-A71 + 6% 17%

Slide 18

Enterovirus-binding antibodies in CSF of AFM patients

Enterovirus-binding antibodies in CSF of AFM patients

  • Tested 14 paired CSF and serum samples from AFM patients in both assays
  • VirScan study tested CSF from additional cases
  • Limitation: Control patients were not ideal

SeroChip (peptide microarray)

  1. Block and add serum/plasma sample
  2. Wash and add detecting antibody
  3. Wash, dry and scan
  4. Data analysis

VirScan (phage display)

Next-generation sequencing to determine which phage/peptides were bound

SeroChip method: Tokarz et al., Sci Rep 2018;8:3158; VirScan method: Xu at al., Science 2015;348:aaa0698


Slide 19

Enterovirus-binding antibodies in CSF of AFM patients

Enterovirus-binding antibodies in CSF of AFM patients

  • SeroChip (160,000, 12-aa)
  • VirScan (482,000, 62-aa)

Source: Mishra et al., mBio 2019;10:e01903-19; Schubert et al., Nature Med 2019;In Pressexternal icon.


Slide 20

Preparations for AFM Response, 2020

Preparations for AFM Response, 2020


Slide 21

Research activities in preparation for 2020

Research activities in preparation for 2020

Enhance surveillance for AFM

  • New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) AFM surveillance
  • Pilot studies to improve case finding and decrease reporting lag
  • Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) funding to health departments for increased AFM surveillance, outreach, and education

Characterize the etiologies causing AFM

  • Enhanced viral surveillance to characterize EV/RV types (Emerging Infections Program [EIP], NVSN)
  • EV-D68 national sero-survey (1999-2018)
  • EV-D68 viral shedding study
  • Examine enterovirus biology in neuronal and respiratory disease models

Understand AFM pathophysiology

  • Characterize clinical spectrum using AFM medical chart abstraction data
  • NIH natural history study
  • Long-term follow-up data collection
  • Update clinical guidance document

Increase outreach and communications

  • Market research with health care providers to improve AFM communication strategies
  • Development of new AFM content and products for HCPs, parents and the public
  • Continue AFM parent engagement

Slide 22

Preparedness and response activities for 2020

Preparedness and response activities for 2020

Monitor and Prepare

  • Prepare COCA call
  • Develop templates for rapid alerts – Epi-X, Health Alert Notifications (HANs)
  • Develop communication messages
  • Set laboratory testing algorithm

Activate

  • Establish AFM team response structure
  • Alert health jurisdiction partners
  • Alert health care providers through medical society/social media outreach
  • COCA call for health care providers
  • Sitrep for CDC leadership/HHS

Respond

  • Track suspect case notifications
  • Classify cases
  • Conduct diagnostic laboratory testing
  • Continue medical outreach efforts
  • Active website updates to inform public
  • Public/parent inquiry response

Demobilize and Evaluate

  • After action report
  • 2020 surveillance data analysis and publications

Slide 23

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

CDC: Adriana Lopez, Manisha Patel, Sarah Kidd, Adria Lee, Susannah McKay, Tracy Ayers, Sue Gerber and the EV Team, Nilay McLaren, Steve Oberste, Allan Nix, Will Weldon, Jennifer Anstadt, Shannon Rogers, Brian Emery, Anita Kambhampati

External Collaborators: Sarah Hopkins, Dan Pastula, Cate Otten, Grace Gombolay, State and local health departments, the AFM Task Force, NVSN AFM investigators


Slide 24

Thank You

Thank you

View Page In:pdf icon PDF [901K]
Page last reviewed: January 29, 2020