Volume 21, Number 7—July 2015
Research
Assessment of Arbovirus Surveillance 13 Years after Introduction of West Nile Virus, United States1
Table 2
Laboratory capacity |
No. responding states (% with activity) |
% Difference from 2004 to 2012 |
|
2012 |
2004 |
||
Overall | |||
Have some in-state capacity for WNV testing |
50 (92) |
– |
NA |
Human surveillance | |||
Test for IgG | 46 (48) | 47 (72) | −24 |
Test for IgM | 46 (93) | 47 (100) | −7 |
Test by culture | 46 (2) | 47 (19) | −17 |
Test by PCR | 46 (13) | 47 (49) | −36 |
Test by PRNT | 46 (22) | 47 (21) | +1 |
Test all CSF specimens submitted for WNV for ≥1 other arbovirus |
43 (60) |
– |
NA |
Avian surveillance | |||
Test by culture | 46 (4) | 47 (13) | −9 |
Test by PCR | 46 (39) | 47 (77) | −38 |
Test IgG or IgM | 46 (11) | 47 (9) | +2 |
Test by any of above methods |
46 (43) |
47 (77) |
−34 |
Mosquito surveillance | |||
In-state capacity to test mosquitoes (state or local level) | 50 (84) | – | NA |
Testing for >1 other arbovirus | 42 (81) | – | NA |
Culture or PCR | 42 (81) | 47 (81) | 0 |
Vec Test or RAMP | 42 (19) | 47 (21) | −2 |
*WNV, West Nile virus; –, not asked; NA, not applicable; PRNT, plaque reduction neutralization test; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; Vec Test, vector test; RAMP, rapid analyte measurement platform.
1A shorter version of this report has been published previously (1).
Page created: June 12, 2015
Page updated: June 12, 2015
Page reviewed: June 12, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.