Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:04:12.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nipah virus infection: A review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2019

Aditi
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India
M. Shariff*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi, India
*
Author for correspondence: M. Shariff, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nipah virus (NiV) is an emerging bat-borne pathogen. It was first identified 20 years ago in Malaysia and has since caused outbreaks in other parts of South and Southeast Asia. It causes severe neurological and respiratory disease which is highly lethal. It is highly infectious and spreads in the community through infected animals or other infected people. Different strains of the virus show differing clinical and epidemiological features. Rapid diagnosis and implementation of infection control measures are essential to contain outbreaks. A number of serological and molecular diagnostic techniques have been developed for diagnosis and surveillance. Difficulties in diagnosis and management arise when a new area is affected. The high mortality associated with infection and the possibility of spread to new areas has underscored the need for effective management and control. However, no effective treatment or prophylaxis is readily available, though several approaches show promise. Given the common chains of transmission from bats to humans, a One Health approach is necessary for the prevention and control of NiV infection.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

Nipah virus (NiV) is an RNA virus belonging to family Paramyxoviridae. It belongs to the genus Henipavirus which also contains Hendra virus (HeV) and the recently described Cedar virus. Bats are the natural reservoir of Henipaviruses [Reference Clayton, Wang and Marsh1]. While Cedar virus has not been found to be pathogenic to any animal, NiV and HeV cause lethal neurologic and/or respiratory disease [Reference Marsh2]. NiV is one of the pathogens on the WHO priority list of pathogens likely to cause outbreaks needing urgent research and development action [3]. It first emerged in Malaysia in 1998 and has since caused several outbreaks in South and Southeast Asia. NiV is highly pathogenic to a broad range of mammals and is considered to have pandemic potential due to its zoonotic as well as person to person transmission [Reference Luby4]. The reservoir of infection, Pteropus bats, have a worldwide distribution. It is likely that new areas where they reside will be the location of spillover events in the future. A recent outbreak in a new geographical area in Kerala, India is just the latest such event [Reference Chatterjee5]. Research into this disease has been hampered by the relatively small number of cases as well as difficulties in diagnosis. NiV is classified as a Biological safety level 4 (BSL 4) pathogen and access to such laboratories is limited in many countries. Research into epidemiology, modes of transmission and potential prevention and control strategies is needed urgently.

A One Health approach that takes into account humans, domestic and peri-domestic animals and the environment is required to control the disease effectively.

Methods

We conducted a literature search using the digital archives Pubmed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library. The following MeSH terms were used: ‘Nipah Virus Infection’, ‘Epidemiology Nipah virus’, ‘Clinical features Nipah virus’, ‘Diagnosis Nipah virus’, ‘Surveillance Nipah virus’, ‘Vaccine Nipah virus’, ‘Nipah virus Malaysia’, ‘Nipah virus Bangladesh’, Nipah virus infection India’ and ‘Nipah virus Philippines’. All literature reviews, original papers and case reports referring to all aspects of NiV origin, modes of transmission, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management were reviewed. The cross-references from these publications were also included. Additionally, epidemiological reports from the WHO and the National centre for disease control (NCDC), India and other public health organisations were assessed for this paper. The aim of this search strategy was to find literature describing the transmission of the disease, diagnosis of infection and control strategies.

Epidemiology

Malaysia/Singapore

Human NiV infection was first identified in Malaysia from 1998 to 1999 [Reference Chua6]. The name ‘Nipah’ comes from Sungai Nipah (Nipah River village). A number of cases presenting with fever, headache and reduced consciousness were reported from the state of Perak, Malaysia in September 1998. Initially, four cases tested positive for IgM antibodies against Japanese Encephalitis (JE) and a JE outbreak was declared. Despite the implementation of control measures, the outbreak intensified. By the end of the year, more clusters were reported in Port Dickson District, 300 km south [Reference Luby and Gurley7]. In March 1999, a new virus (NiV) was isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of a patient from Sungai Nipah village [Reference Chua8]. Eventually, the outbreak caused 283 symptomatic cases and 109 deaths [Reference Chua6]. In March 1999, an outbreak (11 cases, one death) was reported from Singapore among slaughterhouse workers [Reference Paton9].

In these outbreaks, close contact with pigs or pig excreta was shown to be a risk factor [Reference Paton9, Reference Parashar10]. The infected animals themselves showed mild respiratory illness. In Malaysia, large numbers of animals are raised together in pig farms/slaughterhouses, where the outbreak began and animal to animal spread is likely. Culling of over a million pigs followed by disposal by deep burial and decontamination with quick lime, along with other control strategies was successful in controlling the outbreak [Reference Uppal11].

Dogs were also found to be commonly infected [Reference Field12] and dogs dying on farms was found to be another risk factor [Reference Parashar10]. There is no evidence of human to human transmission from these outbreaks. Eventually, Pteropus bats were shown to be the reservoir of infection in Malaysia [Reference Rahman13] which infected the amplifying hosts, pigs, through the consumption of bat-bitten fruit.

Bangladesh

The epidemiology of NiV is significantly different in Bangladesh. Since 2001, seasonal outbreaks of NiV have occurred in Bangladesh in the winter months, primarily in 20 districts [14] in central and north-western Bangladesh (the ‘Nipah belt’), where the majority of spillover events occur [Reference Luby and Gurley7]. Pteropus bats have been identified as the reservoir [Reference Yadav15]. Though contact with pigs has been reported from a majority of patients in Bangladesh, close contact with pigs was found to be a risk factor in one outbreak [Reference Rahman and Chakraborty16]. Transmission in Bangladesh may occur through various routes. Drinking raw date palm sap is the most common form of transmission of infection from bats to humans [Reference Luby17]. Outbreaks coincide with sap harvesting season (December–May). Pteropus bats have been found to visit date palm trees and lick the sap streams being used for collection. Bats may also contaminate the sap collection pots with urine or faeces [Reference Salah Uddin Khan18]. Domestic animals may also serve as a route of transmission from bats to humans. Pigs show high seroprevalence against NiV in Bangladesh [Reference Chowdhury19] though they have not been implicated in outbreaks there. This is due to differences in animal husbandry in Bangladesh and Malaysia. Rather than large slaughterhouses, in Bangladesh, individual people own animals in small groups and there is little chance of animal to animal spread. Other animals such as cattle and goats have also been found to be susceptible by seroprevalence studies [Reference Chowdhury19, Reference Chua20]. Person- to- person spread is an important mode of transmission in Bangladesh and has been identified in all outbreaks. The largest person-to-person outbreak occurred in Faridpur in 2004 [Reference Gurley21]. NiV is transmitted via droplet infection [Reference Homaira22] and NiV RNA has been detected in the saliva of patients [Reference Harcourt23]. Other possible pathways include living under a bat roost, where bat urine may infect surroundings. However, no evidence to support this hypothesis has been found [Reference Luby24]. Consumption of bat bitten fruit has also been suspected of being a potential mode of transmission, though definitive evidence has so far been elusive. The primary modes of transmission in Bangladesh have been found to be date palm sap consumption and person-to-person transmission [Reference Hegde25].

India

In India, there was a large outbreak (66 probable cases and 45 deaths) in Siliguri, West Bengal in 2001 and another smaller outbreak (five cases, 100% fatality) in 2007 in Nadia district, West Bengal. These outbreaks were across the border from the Nipah belt in Bangladesh. In May 2018, an outbreak of NiV was declared in Kozhikode and Malappuram districts of Kerala, a southern state in the west coast, which is geographically disconnected from previously affected areas. Date palm sap consumption is not a common practice in this area. There were 18 confirmed cases and 17 deaths as of 1 June 2018 [3]. All cases belonged to the economically productive age group, with no sex differential [26]. In 2001 in Siliguri, the index case remained unidentified but was admitted to Siliguri District Hospital and infected 11 secondary cases, all patients at the hospital. These patients were transferred to other hospitals and further transmission infected 25 staff and eight visitors [Reference Chadha27]. The 2007 outbreak consisted of one person who contracted the disease due to consumption of alcohol made from date palm and all the others, including one healthcare worker, acquired the disease from the first case [Reference Arankalle28]. At least one healthcare professional also contracted the disease in a healthcare setting in the recent outbreak in 2018 [Reference Chatterjee5]. All Indian outbreaks have seen person-to-person transmission. Though the epidemiology of NiV in India is similar to Bangladesh, since only three outbreaks have been reported so far, definitive evidence is unavailable.

Philippines

An outbreak of NiV infection occurred in the Philippines in 2014. Seventeen cases were confirmed, the case fatality rate was 82%. Ten patients had a history of close contact with horses or of horse meat consumption. Deaths of 10 horses were reported in the same time period, of which nine showed neurological symptoms. However, samples from horses were not tested for NiV. Five patients, including two healthcare personnel, acquired the disease through person to person transmission. This strain was closely related to the Malaysian strain where definite person to person spread had not been previously identified [Reference Ching29]. This suggests the possibility of co-evolution of different strains of NiV in bats or of strain mutation as the likelihood of mutation increases with each spillover event.

Clinical features

The incubation period of NiV varies from 4 to 21 days. NiV primarily causes acute encephalitis and respiratory illness and is highly fatal. A small percentage of infected people are asymptomatic [Reference Parashar10].

A short incubation period is followed by prodromal signs and symptoms such as a fever headache and myalgia [Reference Abdullah and Tan30]. Features of encephalitis develop within a week, with the most common symptoms being altered mental status, areflexia, hypotonia, segmental myoclonus, gaze palsy and limb weakness. Patients deteriorate rapidly and coma and death follow within a few days.

Residual neurological deficits are seen in 20% of survivors and range from fatigue to focal neurological deficits and depression [Reference Siva, Chong and Tan31]. Some cases of relapsing or late-onset NiV encephalitis have been described [Reference Sejvar32].

There are some differences in clinical features seen in the Malaysian and Indian outbreaks. A higher mortality rate has been seen in India and Bangladesh (70%) as opposed to Malaysia (40%). Respiratory illness is seen in 70% of patients in India and Bangladesh [Reference Chadha27, Reference Hossain33], whereas no significant respiratory involvement was seen in Malaysia [Reference Goh34]. Respiratory involvement may present as a cough, respiratory distress and atypical pneumonia [Reference Paton9,Reference Hossain33].

Risk factors for poor prognosis include old age, comorbidities, thrombocytopenia and raised aminotransferases on admission, brainstem involvement and seizures [Reference Goh34].

Pathogenesis

The Henipaviruses are the only zoonotic paramyxoviruses. They are also exceptional in their broad host range and high case fatality rates. They have a nonsegmented negative-stranded RNA genome consisting of helical nucleocapsids encased in an envelope forming spherical to filamentous, pleomorphic virus particles. Both HeV and NiV have a significantly larger genome than other paramyxoviruses [Reference Harcourt35]. The genome encodes six structural proteins, the nucleocapsid protein (N), phosphoprotein (P), matrix protein (M), fusion protein (F), glycoprotein (G) and large protein (L) or RNA polymerase, in the order 3′-N-P-M-F-G-L-5′. There are three predicted non-structural proteins, C, V and W which are all encoded by the P gene [Reference Lo36].

The virus enters its host through the oro-nasal route and causes infection. Since human tissues have only been studied from the terminal stages of the disease, the site of initial replication is unknown. However, high concentrations of antigen found in lymphoid and respiratory tissues indicate these tissues as probable sites of initial replication [Reference Wong37]. Early viraemia leads to the spread of the virus and is followed by secondary replication in the endothelium. The glycoprotein G of NiV binds to the cellular receptor Ephrin-B2 (alternate receptor Ephrin-B3) which is expressed on endothelium and smooth muscle cells in high levels in the brain, followed by lungs, placenta and prostate, along with blood vessels in various other tissues [Reference Liebl38]. This receptor distribution explains the clinical and pathological features seen in this disease. Ephrin-B2 plays a critical role in the migration of neuron precursors during embryogenesis [Reference Zimmer39]. Therefore, it is highly conserved between different classes of animals and receptor similarity with bats and pigs approaches 95–96% [Reference Bossart40]. This leads to the wide host range seen with NiV. The central nervous system is invaded primarily by the haematogenous route, though evidence of direct invasion through olfactory nerves has been seen in a porcine model [Reference Weingartl41]. The high lethality of NiV is attributed to its evasion of the innate immune response. The P gene products have been shown to inhibit interferon activity [Reference Park42]. Another study has demonstrated inhibition of interferon production, with little effect on interferon signaling due to NiV infection [Reference Virtue, Marsh and Wang43].

In Malaysia, two major strains of NiV were found circulating in pigs, one in the northern part of the country and the other in the south and at least two introductions of the virus into pigs are thought to have occurred [Reference AbuBakar44]. The NiV strain circulating in Bangladesh and India is different from the Malaysian strains and has a genome six nucleotides longer [Reference Harcourt23, Reference Arankalle28]. These different strains are likely to have coevolved separately with their reservoir hosts, the bats [Reference Hughes45]. This may explain the differences observed in clinical and epidemiological features.

Diagnosis

Specimens for virus detection may be collected from symptomatic patients or at post-mortem examination. Specimens for serological testing should be collected late in the course of infection, 10–14 days after onset. The NCDC, India, recommends throat swabs (in viral transport medium), urine, blood and/or CSF for diagnosis. Samples must be collected safely and transported in triple container packing at 2–8 °C. Storage at −20 °C is recommended beyond 48 h of collection. Processing of the clinical samples requires a BSL 4 facility. However, virus inactivation by sample irradiation may be an effective technique to make the samples safe to use in a BSL-2 laboratory [Reference Chadha27, Reference Hume46].

Direct detection of the agent

The best test for direct detection is polymerase chain reaction (PCR) due to its high sensitivity, specificity and the rapidity with which results can be reported. Specimens that may be used include tissue samples, swabs, CSF and urine. Diagnosis by direct detection in animals may be difficult, as virus detection has low sensitivity.

PCR

Conventional PCR targeting the N (nucleocapsid protein) gene has been developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [Reference Chua20]. NiV RNA can be identified by Real-Time PCR (RT-PCR) from respiratory secretions, urine or cerebrospinal fluid. These tests are highly sensitive and specific and are used commonly for diagnosis. A TaqMan probe-based assay developed in 2004 [Reference Guillaume47] detects the N gene and has a very high sensitivity of ~1 pfu. It is specific for NiV RNA and can be used for diagnosis during an outbreak. A SYBR Green-based assay targeting a different region of the N gene [Reference Chang48] has also been developed. It has lower sensitivity (~100 pfu) and detects HeV as well.

Immunohistochemistry

Formalin-fixed tissue may be used for immunohistochemistry. Since the site of viral replication is vascular endothelium, a wide range of tissues may be used including brain, lung, spleen, kidney and lymph nodes. Uterus, placenta and products of conception are also analysed in pregnant animals. Previously, convalescent human serum was used for immunohistochemistry. This has now been replaced by rabbit serum against NiV [Reference Daniels, Ksiazek and Eaton49].

Virus Isolation

Virus isolation from respiratory secretions, urine, cerebrospinal fluid or other tissue specimens must be done in a BSL-4 laboratory. The cell line of choice for both NiV and HeV is the Vero cell line. Pteroid bat cell lines have also been developed [Reference Crameri50]. Cytopathic effects can be observed within 3 days. The cells form syncytia and subsequently, there is the formation of punctate holes in the monolayer as the syncytia lift from the surface [Reference Daniels, Ksiazek and Eaton49]. NiV forms larger syncytia than HeV and the differences in nucleus distribution in the syncytia can be used to differentiate the two [Reference Hyatt51]. Definitive identification of the virus from cell culture can be done by PCR or immunohistochemistry.

Other tests that may be used include sequencing, which is used for virus characterisation and electron microscopy. However, they are infrequently available and are inappropriate for primary diagnosis.

Antibody detection

IgM antibody in serum or CSF is used for diagnosis. Detection of IgG antibodies is a good test for surveillance in humans and for the identification in reservoir animals during epidemiological investigations. It has also been used for diagnosis in humans during outbreaks.

ELISA

It is the most commonly used test for serological diagnosis due to its high sensitivity, rapidity, ease and safety of use. ELISAs for the detection of IgG and IgM developed by the CDC were used in the confirmation of diagnosis in Malaysia [Reference Daniels, Ksiazek and Eaton49]. It has since been used for surveillance in Bangladesh during NiV outbreaks [Reference Homaira22]. Other tests based on recombinant proteins have been developed using the more conserved N antigen [Reference Kulkarni52, Reference Fischer53]. IgM antibodies have been found to be detectable in 50% patients on day 1 of illness, while 100% of patients show IgG positivity after day 18. IgG positivity persists for several months [Reference Ramasundram54].

Serum Neutralisation Test

This is considered the gold standard test but requires the use of a BSL-4 laboratory. In this test, test sera are incubated with the virus and then allowed to infect Vero cells. Positive sera block the development of cytopathic effects and tests can be read at 3 days. A modified neutralisation test which can be read at 24 h has been developed [Reference Crameri55]. Here, the virus-serum mixture is removed after a period of adsorption and immunostaining is used for virus detection.

Pseudo typed viruses can be used to perform a surrogate neutralisation test. A pseudo typed virus is an enveloped virus with one or more foreign envelope proteins. These viruses can be handled safely in the BSL-2 laboratory but contain NiV envelope proteins capable of being neutralised by positive sera [Reference Kaku56].

In non-endemic areas where NiV outbreaks have not occurred, a high index of suspicion is required for rapid identification and containment of an outbreak. The NCDC, India has issued guidelines on the definitions of a Suspected, Probable and Confirmed case of NiV infection (Table 1) which have been used effectively to control known outbreaks in India.

Table 1. Surveillance case definitions for Nipah virus infection as defined by the National Centre for Disease Control, India

Management and control

Patients must be isolated and rigorous infection control practices implemented. Treatment of NiV infection is primarily supportive- maintenance of airway, breathing and circulation. Fluid and electrolyte balance is maintained. Patients with severe pneumonia and acute respiratory failure must be supported by mechanical ventilation. Invasive mechanical ventilation is preferred.

Antiviral Chemotherapy

Ribavirin, which is effective against other Paramyxoviruses (such as Respiratory Syncytial Virus) was used to treat infected patients in Malaysia. Chong et al. [Reference Chong57] reported a decrease in mortality while Goh et al. [Reference Goh34] found no decrease during the same outbreak. Ribavirin has since been tested in animal models and found to be ineffective [Reference Georges-Courbot58]. However, in the absence of effective antivirals, the NCDC recommends the use of oral or parenteral Ribavirin for all confirmed cases. Ribavirin is not recommended for chemoprophylaxis [26]. Acyclovir was used in Singapore but whether it was effective is unclear [Reference Paton9]. Chloroquine was reported to be effective in cell culture but failed to prevent death in a hamster model in isolation or in combination with Ribavirin [Reference Freiberg59]. The natural ligands of Ephrin-B2, as well as soluble Ephrin-B2, have been shown to be effective in vitro [Reference Negrete60]. Favipiravir, a drug licensed in Japan for treatment of Influenza, has been shown to be effective in a hamster model [Reference Dawes61]. Neutralizing human monoclonal antibody has been found to be effective in a non-human primate model [Reference Geisbert62]. Use of anti-G and anti-F monoclonal antibodies in an emergency setting is approved in India. Patients are discharged only after a negative RT-PCR result on throat swab/blood is obtained. Period of communicability is unknown but presumed to be 21 days. Therefore, discharged patients are also advised to remain in isolation until 21 days after confirmation of infection [26].

Surveillance

Disease surveillance is carried out regularly in the Nipah belt in Bangladesh. Surveillance activities consist of event-based and sentinel surveillance. Print and electronic media surveillance is carried out in 10 national newspapers and eight national news channels and hotlines have been set up for healthcare personnel to report outbreaks. Suspected outbreaks and deaths due to unknown causes are rapidly identified through these methods. Under sentinel surveillance clusters of encephalitis are investigated. Clusters are defined as two or more cases within 21 days and half an hour's walk from each other [Reference Rahman and Chakraborty16]. A team of epidemiologists from the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, Bangladesh investigates any identified clusters. The team identifies suspected human cases, potential animal sources of infection, behavioural factors contributing to infection and environmental contamination. Surveillance is an important part of disease management and should be instituted in areas that have seen outbreaks like India and other countries in the region.

Prevention

Efforts towards prevention have primarily focussed on the prevention of contamination of date palm sap, increasing awareness about the dangers of consuming date palm sap and prevention of person-to-person spread. The use of skirts to cover the sap producing areas of date palm trees has been found to effectively prevent contact with bats [Reference Khan63]. In 2015, a study assessing the behaviour of people consuming raw date palm sap, found that awareness of NiV was very low among them and even people who were aware of it were just as likely to consume it as people who did not [Reference Nahar64]. A randomised controlled trial assessing behaviour change communication intervention conducted in 2017 found that disseminating a message encouraging consumption of safe sap reduced exposure to potentially contaminated sap while a message discouraging consumption of sap at all did not [Reference Nahar65]. The WHO advisory during an ongoing outbreak includes avoiding exposure to pigs and bats and consumption of bat-bitten fruits or raw date palm sap/toddy/juice. In order to reduce the risk of animal- to- human transmission gloves and other protective clothing should be worn while handling sick animals or their tissues and during slaughtering and culling procedures.

Prevention of person-to-person transmission includes the implementation of infection control practices such as isolation of patients, use of personal protective equipment and good hand hygiene practices. Contacts identified through contact tracing are tested and kept under observation until they test negative. Hospital surfaces have been found to be contaminated by NiV around patients [Reference Hassan66]. Healthcare facilities must institute and ensure compliance to standard infection prevention and control measures when caring for suspected or confirmed cases of NiV infection. Health care workers exposed to a suspected NiV patient should inform the authorities and undergo testing for NiV [3]. Contacts of infected patients are counseled to avoid prolonged close personal contact with patients. Funeral practices requiring direct contact with the remains are discouraged.

Vaccines

A number of vaccine strategies have been developed for NiV, several of which have been tested in animal models. The most studied approach has been a subunit vaccine based on G glycoprotein (sG) of NiV and HeV. HeV-sG elicits a cross-protective immune response against both HeV and NiV [Reference Pallister67]. It has now been developed into a horse vaccine against HeV called Equivac which is registered in Australia. Virus vector-based recombinant vaccines have also been developed. These recombinant viruses express the F or G glycoproteins on their surface [Reference Yoneda68, Reference Mire69]. A mammalian cell-derived virus-like particle vaccine has also been produced [Reference Walpita70]. All these approaches have produced complete protection against oro-nasal NiV challenge after a single dose in various animal models. The success of the sG vaccine in horses and of the VSV vectored Ebola vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV) make these two approaches attractive for eventual use in humans.

Conclusion

NiV has emerged as a deadly zoonotic disease. Bats, the natural reservoir of the virus, are effective at virus dissemination and human outbreaks continue to be reported regularly. Due to the worldwide distribution of bats, outbreaks in new areas are likely to occur. The high case fatality rate and acute course of disease make the infection difficult to diagnose. This is further compounded by the lack of easily available low-cost diagnostic tests and facilities equipped to handle viral samples. Effective treatment and prophylaxis are unavailable due to a lack of studies in human subjects because the overall case burden is small and the course of infection is acute. The recent outbreak in India highlights the possibility of potential spillover events in areas where currently known risk factors do not exist. Establishment of surveillance systems for NiV is necessary, particularly in South and Southeast Asia. There is an urgent need for countries in South and Southeast Asia to work together to strengthen surveillance systems in order to monitor spillover events and prevent transmission. A better understanding of bat ecology and the causes of spill-over events, the development of effective treatment and prophylaxis for humans and animals and strengthening of surveillance systems to prevent outbreaks is required to curb the threat posed by NiV.

Author ORCIDs

Aditi, 0000-0002-2010-462X.

M. Shariff, 0000-0003-2226-8529.

Acknowledgement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

1.Clayton, BA, Wang, LF and Marsh, GA (2013) Henipaviruses: an updated review focusing on the pteropid reservoir and features of transmission. Zoonoses and Public Health 60, 6983.Google Scholar
2.Marsh, GA et al. (2012) Cedar virus: a novel henipavirus isolated from Australian bats. PLoS Pathogens 8, e1002836.Google Scholar
3.WHO (2018) WHO | Nipah Virus Infection. World Health Organization. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/disease/nipah/en/ (Accessed 17 June 2018).Google Scholar
4.Luby, SP (2013) The pandemic potential of Nipah virus. Antiviral Research 100, 3843.Google Scholar
5.Chatterjee, P (2018) Nipah virus outbreak in India. The Lancet 391, 2200.Google Scholar
6.Chua, KB (2003) Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia. Journal of Clinical Virology 26, 265275.Google Scholar
7.Luby, SP and Gurley, ES (2012) Epidemiology of henipavirus disease in humans. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 359, 2540.Google Scholar
8.Chua, KB et al. (1999) Fatal encephalitis due to Nipah virus among pig-farmers in Malaysia. The Lancet 354, 12571259.Google Scholar
9.Paton, NI et al. (1999) Outbreak of Nipah-virus infection among abattoir workers in Singapore. The Lancet 354, 12531256.Google Scholar
10.Parashar, UD et al. (2000) Case-control study of risk factors for human infection with a new zoonotic Paramyxovirus, Nipah virus, during a 1998–1999 outbreak of severe encephalitis in Malaysia. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 181, 17551759.Google Scholar
11.Uppal, PK (2006) Emergence of Nipah virus in Malaysia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 916, 354357.Google Scholar
12.Field, H et al. (2001) The natural history of Hendra and Nipah viruses. Microbes and Infection 3, 307314.Google Scholar
13.Rahman, SA et al. (2010) Characterization of Nipah virus from naturally infected Pteropus vampyrus bats, Malaysia. Emerging Infectious Diseases 16, 19901993.Google Scholar
14.Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR). Available at http://www.iedcr.org/ (Accessed 8 October 2018).Google Scholar
15.Yadav, PD et al. (2012) Detection of Nipah virus RNA in fruit Bat (Pteropus giganteus) from India. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 87, 576578.Google Scholar
16.Rahman, M and Chakraborty, A (2012) Nipah virus outbreaks in Bangladesh: a deadly infectious disease. WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health 1, 208212.Google Scholar
17.Luby, SP et al. (2006) Foodborne transmission of Nipah virus, Bangladesh. Emerging Infectious Diseases 12, 18881894.Google Scholar
18.Salah Uddin Khan, M et al. (2010) Use of infrared camera to understand bats’ access to date palm Sap: implications for preventing Nipah virus transmission. EcoHealth, 7, 517525.Google Scholar
19.Chowdhury, S et al. (2014) Serological evidence of henipavirus exposure in cattle, goats, and pigs in Bangladesh. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 8, e3302.Google Scholar
20.Chua, KB et al. (2000) Nipah virus: a recently emergent deadly paramyxovirus. Science (New York, N.Y.) 288, 14321435.Google Scholar
21.Gurley, ES et al. (2007) Person-to-person transmission of Nipah virus in a Bangladeshi community. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13, 10311037.Google Scholar
22.Homaira, N et al. (2010) Nipah virus outbreak with person-to-person transmission in a district of Bangladesh, 2007. Epidemiology and Infection 138, 16301636.Google Scholar
23.Harcourt, BH et al. (2005) Genetic characterization of Nipah virus, Bangladesh, 2004. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11, 15941597.Google Scholar
24.Luby, SP et al. (2009) Transmission of human infection with Nipah virus. Clinical Infectious Diseases 49, 17431748.Google Scholar
25.Hegde, ST et al. (2016) Investigating rare risk factors for Nipah virus in Bangladesh: 2001–2012. EcoHealth 13, 720728.Google Scholar
26.NIPAH Virus Disease Guidelines:: National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Available at http://www.ncdc.gov.in/index4.php?lang=1&level=0&linkid=113&lid=228 (Accessed 17 June 2018).Google Scholar
27.Chadha, MS et al. (2006) Nipah virus-associated encephalitis outbreak, Siliguri, India. Emerging Infectious Diseases 12, 235240.Google Scholar
28.Arankalle, VA et al. (2011) Genomic characterization of Nipah virus, West Bengal, India. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17, 907909.Google Scholar
29.Ching, PKG et al. (2015) Outbreak of henipavirus infection, Philippines, 2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases 21, 328331.Google Scholar
30.Abdullah, S and Tan, CT (2014) Henipavirus encephalitis. Handbook of Clinical Neurology 123, 663670.Google Scholar
31.Siva, S, Chong, H and Tan, C (2009) Ten year clinical and serological outcomes of Nipah virus infection. Neurology Asia 14, 5358.Google Scholar
32.Sejvar, JJ et al. (2007) Long-term neurological and functional outcome in Nipah virus infection. Annals of Neurology 62, 235242.Google Scholar
33.Hossain, MJ et al. (2008) Clinical presentation of Nipah virus infection in Bangladesh. Clinical Infectious Diseases 46, 977984.Google Scholar
34.Goh, KJ et al. (2000) Clinical features of Nipah virus encephalitis among pig farmers in Malaysia. New England Journal of Medicine 342, 12291235.Google Scholar
35.Harcourt, BH et al. (2001) Molecular characterization of the polymerase gene and genomic termini of Nipah virus. Virology 287, 192201.Google Scholar
36.Lo, MK et al. (2012) Distinct and overlapping roles of Nipah virus P gene products in modulating the human endothelial cell antiviral response. PloS ONE 7, e47790.Google Scholar
37.Wong, KT et al. (2002) Nipah virus infection: pathology and pathogenesis of an emerging paramyxoviral zoonosis. The American Journal of Pathology 161, 21532167.Google Scholar
38.Liebl, DJ et al. (2003) mRNA expression of ephrins and Eph receptor tyrosine kinases in the neonatal and adult mouse central nervous system. Journal of Neuroscience Research 71, 722.Google Scholar
39.Zimmer, M et al. (2003) Ephb–ephrinB bi-directional endocytosis terminates adhesion allowing contact-mediated repulsion. Nature Cell Biology 5, 869878.Google Scholar
40.Bossart, KN et al. (2008) Functional studies of host-specific ephrin-B ligands as Henipavirus receptors. Virology 372, 357371.Google Scholar
41.Weingartl, H et al. (2005) Invasion of the central nervous system in a porcine host by Nipah virus. Journal of Virology 79, 75287534.Google Scholar
42.Park, M-S et al. (2003) Newcastle disease virus (NDV)-based assay demonstrates interferon-antagonist activity for the NDV V protein and the Nipah virus V, W, and C proteins. Journal of Virology 77, 15011511.Google Scholar
43.Virtue, ER, Marsh, GA and Wang, L-F (2011) Interferon signaling remains functional during henipavirus infection of human cell lines. Journal of Virology 85, 40314034.Google Scholar
44.AbuBakar, S et al. (2004) Isolation and molecular identification of Nipah virus from pigs. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10, 22282230.Google Scholar
45.Hughes, JM et al. (2007) Emerging viruses: coming in on a wrinkled wing and a prayer. Clinical Infectious Diseases 44, 711717.Google Scholar
46.Hume, AJ et al. (2016) Inactivation of RNA viruses by gamma irradiation: a study on mitigating factors. Viruses 8, 204.Google Scholar
47.Guillaume, V et al. (2004) Specific detection of Nipah virus using real-time RT-PCR (TaqMan). Journal of Virological Methods 120, 229237.Google Scholar
48.Chang, L-Y et al. (2006) Quantitative estimation of Nipah virus replication kinetics in vitro. Virology Journal 3, 47.Google Scholar
49.Daniels, P, Ksiazek, T and Eaton, BT (2001) Laboratory diagnosis of Nipah and Hendra virus infections. Microbes and Infection 3, 289295.Google Scholar
50.Crameri, G et al. (2009) Establishment, immortalisation and characterisation of pteropid bat cell lines. PLoS ONE 4, e8266.Google Scholar
51.Hyatt, AD et al. (2001) Ultrastructure of Hendra virus and Nipah virus within cultured cells and host animals. Microbes and Infection 3, 297306.Google Scholar
52.Kulkarni, DD et al. (2016) Development and evaluation of recombinant nucleocapsid protein-based diagnostic ELISA for detection of nipah virus infection in pigs. Journal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry 37, 154166.Google Scholar
53.Fischer, K et al. (2018) Indirect ELISA based on Hendra and Nipah virus proteins for the detection of henipavirus specific antibodies in pigs. PLoS ONE 13, e0194385.Google Scholar
54.Ramasundram, V et al. (2000) Kinetics of IgM and IgG seroconversion in Nipah virus infection. Neurol J Southeast Asia 5, 2328.Google Scholar
55.Crameri, G et al. (2002) A rapid immune plaque assay for the detection of Hendra and Nipah viruses and anti-virus antibodies. Journal of Virological Methods 99, 4151.Google Scholar
56.Kaku, Y et al. (2009) A neutralization test for specific detection of Nipah virus antibodies using pseudotyped vesicular stomatitis virus expressing green fluorescent protein. Journal of Virological Methods 160, 713.Google Scholar
57.Chong, HT et al. (2001) Treatment of acute Nipah encephalitis with ribavirin. Annals of Neurology 49, 810813.Google Scholar
58.Georges-Courbot, MC et al. (2006) Poly(I)-poly(C12U) but not ribavirin prevents death in a hamster model of Nipah virus infection. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 50, 17681772.Google Scholar
59.Freiberg, AN et al. (2010) Combined chloroquine and ribavirin treatment does not prevent death in a hamster model of Nipah and Hendra virus infection. Journal of General Virology 91, 765772.Google Scholar
60.Negrete, OA et al. (2005) Ephrinb2 is the entry receptor for Nipah virus, an emergent deadly paramyxovirus. Nature 2005 436:7049, 436, 401.Google Scholar
61.Dawes, BE et al. (2018) Favipiravir (T-705) protects against Nipah virus infection in the hamster model. Scientific Reports 8, 7604.Google Scholar
62.Geisbert, TW et al. (2014) Therapeutic treatment of Nipah virus infection in nonhuman primates with a neutralizing human monoclonal antibody. Science Translational Medicine 6, 242ra82242ra82.Google Scholar
63.Khan, SU et al. (2012) A randomized controlled trial of interventions to impede date palm sap contamination by bats to prevent Nipah virus transmission in Bangladesh. PloS ONE 7, e42689.Google Scholar
64.Nahar, N et al. (2015) Raw sap consumption habits and its association with knowledge of Nipah virus in two endemic districts in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 10, e0142292.Google Scholar
65.Nahar, N et al. (2017) A controlled trial to reduce the risk of human nipah virus exposure in Bangladesh. EcoHealth 14, 501517.Google Scholar
66.Hassan, MZ et al. (2018) Nipah virus contamination of hospital surfaces during outbreaks, Bangladesh, 2013–2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases 24, 1521.Google Scholar
67.Pallister, JA et al. (2013) Vaccination of ferrets with a recombinant G glycoprotein subunit vaccine provides protection against Nipah virus disease for over 12 months. Virology Journal 10, 237.Google Scholar
68.Yoneda, M et al. (2013) Recombinant measles virus vaccine expressing the Nipah virus glycoprotein protects against lethal Nipah virus challenge. PLoS ONE 8, e58414.Google Scholar
69.Mire, CE et al. (2013) Single injection recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccines protect ferrets against lethal Nipah virus disease. Virology Journal 10, 353.Google Scholar
70.Walpita, P et al. (2017) A VLP-based vaccine provides complete protection against Nipah virus challenge following multiple-dose or single-dose vaccination schedules in a hamster model. Vaccines 2, 21.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Surveillance case definitions for Nipah virus infection as defined by the National Centre for Disease Control, India