Virgie S Fields1, Haytham Safi2, Catherine Waters2, Jennifer Dillaha2, Lucy Capelle3, Sheldon Riklon4, J Gary Wheeler2, Dirk T Haselow5. 1. Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock, AR, USA; Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Applied Epidemiology Fellowship, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock, AR, USA. 3. Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese, Springdale, AR, USA. 4. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Northwest Campus, Fayetteville, AR, USA. 5. Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock, AR, USA. Electronic address: dirk.haselow@arkansas.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During 2000-15, Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock, AR, USA, investigated between one and six cases of mumps each year. From Aug 5, 2016, to Aug 5, 2017, the department received notification of more than 4000 suspected mumps cases in the second largest outbreak in the USA in the past 30 years. METHODS: Arkansas Department of Health investigated all reported cases of mumps to ascertain exposure, travel, and vaccination histories and identify close contacts. Cases were classified as confirmed if the patient had laboratory confirmation of mumps virus or probable if they had clinical symptoms and either a positive serological test or a known epidemiological link to a confirmed case. FINDINGS: 2954 cases of mumps related to the outbreak were identified during the outbreak period: 1665 (56%) were laboratory confirmed, 1676 (57%) were in children aged 5-17 years, and 1692 (57%) were in Marshallese people. Among the 1676 school-aged cases, 1536 (92%) had previously received at least two doses of a vaccine containing the mumps virus. Although 19 cases of orchitis were reported, severe complications were not identified. Unusual occurrences, such as recurrent parotitis and prolonged viral shedding, were observed mostly in Marshallese individuals. Viral samples were characterised as genotype G. INTERPRETATION: This large-scale outbreak, primarily affecting a marginalised community with intense household crowding, highlights the need for coordinated, interdisciplinary, and non-traditional outbreak responses. This outbreak raises questions about mumps vaccine effectiveness and potential waning immunity. FUNDING: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BACKGROUND: During 2000-15, Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock, AR, USA, investigated between one and six cases of mumps each year. From Aug 5, 2016, to Aug 5, 2017, the department received notification of more than 4000 suspected mumps cases in the second largest outbreak in the USA in the past 30 years. METHODS: Arkansas Department of Health investigated all reported cases of mumps to ascertain exposure, travel, and vaccination histories and identify close contacts. Cases were classified as confirmed if the patient had laboratory confirmation of mumps virus or probable if they had clinical symptoms and either a positive serological test or a known epidemiological link to a confirmed case. FINDINGS: 2954 cases of mumps related to the outbreak were identified during the outbreak period: 1665 (56%) were laboratory confirmed, 1676 (57%) were in children aged 5-17 years, and 1692 (57%) were in Marshallese people. Among the 1676 school-aged cases, 1536 (92%) had previously received at least two doses of a vaccine containing the mumps virus. Although 19 cases of orchitis were reported, severe complications were not identified. Unusual occurrences, such as recurrent parotitis and prolonged viral shedding, were observed mostly in Marshallese individuals. Viral samples were characterised as genotype G. INTERPRETATION: This large-scale outbreak, primarily affecting a marginalised community with intense household crowding, highlights the need for coordinated, interdisciplinary, and non-traditional outbreak responses. This outbreak raises questions about mumps vaccine effectiveness and potential waning immunity. FUNDING: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors: Kevin J McHugh; Lihong Jing; Sean Y Severt; Mache Cruz; Morteza Sarmadi; Hapuarachchige Surangi N Jayawardena; Collin F Perkinson; Fridrik Larusson; Sviatlana Rose; Stephanie Tomasic; Tyler Graf; Stephany Y Tzeng; James L Sugarman; Daniel Vlasic; Matthew Peters; Nels Peterson; Lowell Wood; Wen Tang; Jihyeon Yeom; Joe Collins; Philip A Welkhoff; Ari Karchin; Megan Tse; Mingyuan Gao; Moungi G Bawendi; Robert Langer; Ana Jaklenec Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Marguerite M Riggenbach; Iana H Haralambieva; Inna G Ovsyannikova; Daniel J Schaid; Gregory A Poland; Richard B Kennedy Journal: Clin Immunol Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Hua Zhu; Han Zhao; Rong Ou; Haiyan Xiang; Ling Hu; Dan Jing; Manoj Sharma; Mengliang Ye Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shirlee Wohl; Hayden C Metsky; Stephen F Schaffner; Anne Piantadosi; Meagan Burns; Joseph A Lewnard; Bridget Chak; Lydia A Krasilnikova; Katherine J Siddle; Christian B Matranga; Bettina Bankamp; Scott Hennigan; Brandon Sabina; Elizabeth H Byrne; Rebecca J McNall; Rickey R Shah; James Qu; Daniel J Park; Soheyla Gharib; Susan Fitzgerald; Paul Barreira; Stephen Fleming; Susan Lett; Paul A Rota; Lawrence C Madoff; Nathan L Yozwiak; Bronwyn L MacInnis; Sandra Smole; Yonatan H Grad; Pardis C Sabeti Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 8.029