Marburg Virus Essay

Marburg virus belongs to the genus Marburgvirus in the family Filoviridae, and causes a grave hemorrhagic fever, known as Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF), in twain humans and nonhuman primates. Basic Safety measures for medical personnel and others who are taking care of presumed individuals who may be contaminated with Marburg disease. Marburg Virus, Akin to the more widely known Ebola hemorrhagic fever, MHF is portrayed by systemic viral replication, lowering the body’s normal immune response to invasion by foreign substances and abnormal inflammatory responses. Ebola and Marburg Virus are very similar in many ways Marburg virus was introduced first in the 1960’s. These pathological features of the disease subsidize to a numerous of systemic dysfunctions including

hemorrhages, edema, coagulation abnormalities and, ultimately, multi-organ failure and shock, often resulting in death.

Marburg Virus is an acute and fatal strand of Filoviridae, there should be a heightened awareness of this virus since it is the predecessor of Ebola and devastated the world first with hemorrhaging. There is no cure and it’s believed to be transferred from primate to human contact. While there has only been one case in the United States of America, this virus devastated Europe and Africa over the years.

Marburg Disease

Marburg hemorrhagic fever (Marburg HF) is a rare but acute hemorrhagic fever that affects both humans and primates. Transmission is mainly human-to-human, resulting from close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected persons. Illness caused by Marburg virus begins abruptly, with high fever, severe headache and severe malaise. The individuals at the highest risk of transmission include family members and hospital staff who care for patients infected with Marburg virus. Individuals who have close interaction with African fruit bat, human patients, or non-human primates disease-ridden with Marburg Virus are at risk. The variance diagnoses usually consist of malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, cholera,

leptospirosis, plague, rickettsiosis, relapsing fever, meningitis, hepatitis and other viral hemorrhagic fevers. Severe cases require intensive supportive care, as patients are frequently in need of intravenous fluids or oral rehydration with solutions that incorporate electrolytes. No specific treatment or vaccine is yet presented for MHF. In Africa, the fruit bats of the family Pteropodidae, particularly species belonging to the genus Rousettus aegyptiacus are cogitated the natural hosts for Marburg virus. African green monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) imported from Uganda was the source of infection for humans throughout the first Marburg outbreak. Preventive measures are needed in pig farms in Africa to circumvent pigs becoming infected through exchange with fruit bats. In the deficiency of effective treatment and human vaccine, raising awareness of the risk factors for Marburg infection and the protective measures individuals can take to decrease human exposure to the virus are the only ways to reduce human infections and deaths. Human-to-human transmission of Marburg virus is primarily linked with direct contact with blood and body fluids, and Marburg virus transmission associated with the endowment of health care has been reported when appropriate infection control measures have not been perceived.
History
Marburg hemorrhagic fever (Marburg HF) is a rare but acute hemorrhagic fever that effects both humans and primates. Marburg HF is caused by Marburg Virus (MARV), a genetically unique Zoonotic (or, animal-borne) RNA virus of the filovirus family which also contains the five other species of Ebola as the remaining occupants of the filovirus family.
The first identification of MARV and the associated Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF) occurred during an 'outbreak' in Germany and Serbia in the year of1967, almost a decade before the discovery of Ebola virus (EBOV).The leading source of infection during this outbreak was exposure to tissues, feces and blood of African green monkeys imported from Uganda for use in the pharmaceutical industry. Thirty-one people became sick, initially it was laboratory workers followed by several medical employees and family members who had cared for them.as a result seven deaths were reported. Although the first outbreak occurred in Europe, since that time almost all MHF cases have been sited from eastern Africa, with the sources of primary infection presumed to be positioned within 500 miles of Lake Victoria. The exceptions to this are the minimal cluster of cases in 1975 in Zimbabwe/South Africa and the contemporary outbreak in Uíge, Angola, in 2004–2005, which is the earliest MHF outbreak reported from western Africa. While the arrival of MARV in western Africa and Zimbabwe appears initially surprising, ecological niche modeling has demonstrated that these areas are part of a bulky region with similar ecological surroundings to those found in the previously known MARV endemic area.

In contrast to Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF), for which outbreaks have been reported frequently within the endemic region since its sighting, there have only been three major outbreaks and a few intermittent cases of MARV reported to date. Notably, however, one of these outbreaks, in the Durba-Watsa region of the DRC, was concomitant with multiple independent introductions of genetically distinct virus strains from an uninhibited gold mine.
As a result, infections continued unremitting from 1998 to 2000 until flooding of the mine. In total, the number of identified MHF cases is circa 450; however, the observation that this number is almost exclusively made up of cases from only two large outbreak highlights MARV's potential as a serious public health hazard. In addition, MARV has the dubious dissimilarity of being the only human pathogenic filovirus to have been introduced into western countries. This takes into justification not only the original MHF outbreak in Europe, but also two latest imported cases in The Netherlands and USA, respectively. These recent importations accentuate not only the necessity for increased attentiveness when treating returning travelers, but also the obligation of developing effective countermeasures against this pathogen. In addition to these naturally attained infections, to date, three cases, including one fatal case, as a result of laboratory exposure have been reported in Russia.
Transmission
The transmission of the virus from its animal host to humans is unidentified. After the primary crossover of virus from animal to humans, transmission occurs through person-to-person interaction. This may occur in several ways: direct contact with droplets of body fluids of infected persons, or interaction with equipment and other objects contaminated with infectious blood or tissues.
Modern outbreaks have shown that Marburg virus (MARV) is capable of causing much more serious outbreaks than once understood. These large outbreaks not only had an unprecedentedly high case–fatality rates but also validated that MARV affects a much larger geographical region than was previously respected. This, together with two recently imported MHF cases into Europe and the USA, underlines the potential role of MARV as a serious public health threat, not just in Africa, and makes clear the need to better be familiar with the pathogenesis of MARV and develop therapeutic and/or prophylactic involvements. At present, much of our existing appreciation of MARV pathogenesis is based on early case reports together with similarities to EBOV. However, inquiries in this area has begun to identify an increasing number of alterations between EBOV and MARV in terms of their pathogenesis, both at the scientific and molecular levels.
Signs and Symptoms
Signs & symptoms of Marburg Virus has a gestation period that varies from 2-21 days, the onset of symptoms is Illness produced by Marburg virus begins hastily, with high fever, severe headache and stern malaise. Muscle aches and discomforts are a shared feature. Severe squelchy diarrhea, abdominal pain and cramping, nausea and vomiting can commence on the third day. Diarrhea can persevere for a week. The manifestation of patients at this phase has been described as showing “ghost-like” drawn characteristics, deep-set eyes, lifeless faces, and extreme fatigue. In the 1967 European outbreak, non-itchy rash was a feature noted in most patients amid 2 and 7 days after onset of symptoms.
Countless patients develop severe hemorrhagic manifestations between 5 and 7 days, and fatal cases usually have some configuration of bleeding, often from various areas. Fresh blood in vomitus and feces is often complemented by bleeding from the nose, gums, and vagina. Unconstrained bleeding at venipuncture sites (where intravenous admission is acquired to give fluids or obtain blood samples) can be particularly problematic. During the severe segment of illness, patients have sustained high fever. Immersion of the central nervous system can result in misperception, irritability, and aggression. Inflammation of one or both of the testicles have been reported infrequently in the late phase of disease (15 days).In fatal cases, death occurs most often between 8 and 9 days after symptom onset, usually preceded by severe blood loss and shock.
Risk of Exposure
Individuals who have close interaction with African fruit bat, human patients, or non-human primates disease-ridden with Marburg Virus are at risk. Collectively, the individuals at the highest risk include family members and hospital personnel who care for patients infected with Marburg virus and have not used proper obstruction nursing techniques. Particular occupations, such as veterinarians and laboratory or quarantine facility workers who handle non-human primates from Africa, may also be at augmented risk of exposure to Marburg Virus. Exposure risk can be higher for travelers visiting endemic boondocks in Africa, including Uganda and other parts of central Africa, including Uganda and other portions of central Africa.
Diagnosis
The variance diagnoses usually consist of malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, cholera, leptospirosis, plague, rickettsiosis, relapsing fever, meningitis, hepatitis and other viral hemorrhagic fevers. Marburg virus infections can be diagnosed definitively only in laboratories, by a quantity of different experiments: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); Antigen detection tests; Serum neutralization test; Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay; and Virus isolation by cell culture. Tests on clinical samples present an extreme Biohazard risk and are conducted only under maximum biological containment conditions.
Treatment and vaccine
Severe cases require intensive supportive care, as patients are frequently in need of intravenous fluids or oral rehydration with solutions that incorporate electrolytes. No specific treatment or vaccine is yet presented for MHF. Several vaccine candidates are being tested, but it could be several years before any are obtainable. New drug therapies have shown promising results in laboratory studies and are currently being assessed.
Natural hosts of Marburg virus
In Africa, the fruit bats of the family Pteropodidae, particularly species belonging to the genus Rousettus aegyptiacus are cogitated the natural hosts for Marburg virus. There is no evident disease in the fruit bats. As a result, the geographic spreading of Marburg virus may overlap with the range of Rousettus bats.

Marburg virus in animals
African green monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) imported from Uganda was the source of infection for humans throughout the first Marburg outbreak. Experimental injections in pigs with different Ebola viruses have been reported and show that pigs are susceptible to filovirus infection and shed the virus. Therefore pigs should be measured as a potential amplifier host for the duration of MHF outbreaks. Although no other domestic animals have yet been validated as having an association with filovirus outbreaks, as a precautionary measure they should be considered as possible amplifier hosts until proven otherwise.
Prevention
Precautionary measures for pig farms in endemic zones. Preventive measures are needed in pig farms in Africa to circumvent pigs becoming infected through exchange with fruit bats. Such infection could theoretically amplify the virus and cause or aid to MHF outbreaks.
Reducing the risk of infection in people
In the deficiency of effective treatment and human vaccine, raising awareness of the risk factors for Marburg infection and the protective measures individuals can take to decrease human exposure to the virus are the only ways to reduce human infections and deaths. During MHF outbreaks in Africa, public health education messages for risk reduction should focus on: Reducing the risk of bat-to-human transmission ascending from prolonged exposure to mines or caves colonized by fruit bats colonies. During work or research activities or tourist visits in mines or caves inhabited by fruit bat colonies, people should wear gloves and other proper protective clothing (including masks).
Plummeting the risk of human-to-human transmission in the community arising from direct or close contact with infected patients, particularly with their body fluids. Close physical interaction with Marburg patients should be avoided. Gloves and appropriate personal protective tackle should be worn when taking care of ill patients at home. Regular hand washing should be implemented after visiting sick relatives in hospital, as well as after taking care of ill patients at home.
Communities affected by Marburg should make efforts to guarantee that the population is well educated, both about the nature of the disease itself and about vital outbreak containment procedures, including burial of the dead. People who have died from Marburg should be punctually and safely buried.
Controlling infection in health-care settings
Human-to-human transmission of Marburg virus is primarily linked with direct contact with blood and body fluids, and Marburg virus transmission associated with the endowment of health care has been reported when appropriate infection control measures have not been perceived. Health-care workers caring for patients with alleged or confirmed Marburg virus should apply infection control safety measures to avoid any exposure to blood and body fluids and to direct defenseless contact with possibly contaminated setting. Therefore, provision of health care for presumed or confirmed Marburg patients entails specific control measures and fortification of standard safety measures, particularly hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), safe injection practices, and safe burial practices.