Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
system. This choice was optimal not only for the interest and willingness
of the lab to participate but also because they had expertise in WNV test-
ing and the ability to provide full-service diagnostic testing. Sample types
requested by the diagnostic laboratory included blood (preferably serum)
and tissue, including kidney, heart, and brain.
A major concern of participants was the privacy of the information gath-
ered from their institution. When the media reported that WNV was found
at the Bronx Zoo, gate receipts fell 30% (T. McNamara, pers. comm.). As most
zoos rely heavily on their gate receipts for funding, it was understandable
for institutions to have trepidation about testing for WNV on their grounds.
As such, it was crucial to the system that data flow be precisely delineated
so participants were ensured their data would remain confidential. The first
step to protecting the data came from requiring the diagnostic laboratory to
report test results directly to the submitting institution. Those data were also
sent to a secure centralized database at LPZ.
The second step was to require the submitting institution to relay results
to their local public health agency. This was meant to strengthen the relation-
ship between zoos and their local public health authorities. An important
aspect of this relationship was the sense of trust that would allow zoos to
report results to public health agencies without fear of inappropriate release.
This step was also essential as the response to an outbreak is much timelier
if initiated at the local level.
The third step was to de-identify any data made available to the public.
De-identified data from the LPZ database were summarized and made
available to animal and public health agencies. In keeping with the goal
of providing additional data to national WNV surveillance, the de-iden-
tified results from the surveillance system could also be uploaded into
ArboNet, a cooperative database for WNV surveillance maintained by
the CDC.
5.3.4 results
The WNV surveillance system was well received by the zoological commu-
nity, as well as rehabilitation centers, animal hospitals, and wildlife centers.
Nearly 180 organizations representing 45 states and U.S. territories submit-
ted samples to the system during its 5 years of operation. The response was
so great that the NAHLN laboratory at Cornell University where the testing
was taking place surpassed its maximum capacity. Many submissions had
to be stored temporarily while the lab continued to process WNV samples.
More than 17,800 samples were submitted for testing. This represented more
than 14,000 individual animals, including approximately 10,600 birds, 3,300
mammals, and 150 reptiles. Furthermore, the system received multiple sam-
ples from more than 3,700 animals, providing an opportunity for longitudi-
nal analysis.
