Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label biologic hazards

Laboratory #Diagnosis of #Hendra and #Nipah: Two Emerging Zoonotic Diseases with One Health Significance

Abstract Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) are two highly pathogenic RNA viruses with zoonotic potential, which can cause severe diseases with high mortality rates (50–100%) in humans and animals . Given this context, these viruses are classified as Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) pathogens , thus limiting research studies. Despite the high case fatalities , there are currently no human vaccines available for either virus , owing in part to the limitations in research and hesitancy in funding . In the absence of widespread vaccination, diagnostic tests are crucial for the rapid identification of cases and disease surveillance. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the epidemiology, transmission dynamics, and pathogenesis of NiV and HeV to contextualize a detailed assessment of the available diagnostic tools. We examined molecular and serological assays, including RT-PCR, ELISA, and LAMP , highlighting sample sources, detection windows, and performance. Diagnostic considerations...

Modeling Effects of Routine #Screening for Accidental #Lab-Acquired #Infections on #Risk of Potential #Pandemic Pathogen #Escape from High-Biosafety Research Facilities

Abstract Accidental lab–acquired infections (LAIs) risk releasing potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) from BSL–3/4 facilities . We constructed a stochastic network infectious disease model to simulate how the probability of an outbreak of a pathogen resembling wild–type SARS–COV–2, following an initial LAI would be influenced by test–and–isolate interventions over a 100–day horizon . We varied test frequency (0–7 tests/week), peak sensitivity (50–100%), and isolation delay (0–3 days). For each of 192 parameter combinations, we conducted 1,000 simulations and used logistic regression to quantify how each parameter influenced the likelihood of an outbreak of 50 or more infections. Results indicated that even relatively infrequent routine testing significantly reduced the risk of outbreaks under diverse plausible scenarios, with greater reductions achieved at higher test frequencies. Once-weekly testing reduced outbreak risk by 52% under optimistic assumptions (80% sensitivity, 1–day dela...