Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Advances in detecting and responding to threats from bioterrorism and emerging infectious disease

Nature Medicine volume 10, pages S130–S136 (2004)Cite this article

Much progress has been made in recent years to strengthen local, state, national and international capacities to detect and respond to bioterrorism events and naturally occurring outbreaks of disease. New tools and systems are available to estimate the potential impact of a biological event and predict resource needs for effective response, enable earlier detection of an attack or outbreak, enhance diagnostic capacity and facilitate rapid intervention to mitigate the impact of an event on a community. These advances have required new approaches to preparedness, planning and surveillance, as well as new partnerships and collaborations across a range of disciplines. We examine some of these developments, discuss potential uses and limitations of these approaches, and identify priorities for the future.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

References

  1. Meltzer, M.I., Damon, I., LeDuc, J.W. & Millar, J.D. Modeling potential responses to smallpox as a bioterrorist weapon. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7, 959–969 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein, R.W., Dittus, R.S., Roberts, S.D. & Wilson, J.R. Simulation modeling and health-care decision making. Med. Decis. Making 13, 347–354 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufmann, A.F., Meltzer, M.I. & Schmid, G.P. The economic impact of a bioterrorist attack: are prevention and postattack intervention programs justifiable? Emerg. Infect. Dis. 3, 83–94 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Walden, J. & Kaplan, E.H. Estimating time and size of bioterror attack. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 1202–1205 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brookmeyer, R., Johnson, E. & Bollinger, R. Modeling the optimum duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in an anthrax outbreak. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 10129–10132 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gani, R. & Leach, S. Epidemiologic determinants for modeling pneumonic plague outbreaks. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 608–614 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wein, L.M., Craft, D.L. & Kaplan, E.H. Emergency response to an anthrax attack. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 4346–4351 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Community-based mass prophylaxis: a planning guide for public health preparedness (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA, 2004). http://www.ahrq.gov/research/cbmprophyl/cbmpro.htm

  9. Andress, K. A postevent smallpox mass vaccination clinic exercise. Disaster Manag. Response 1, 54–58 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. O'Toole, T., Mair, M. & Inglesby, T.V. Shining light on “Dark Winter”. Clin. Infect. Dis. 34, 972–983 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buehler, J.W., Berkelman, R.L., Hartley, D.M. & Peters, C.J. Syndromic surveillance and bioterrorism-related epidemics. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9, 1197–1204 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pavlin, J.A. & Kelley, P.W. ESSENCE: Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (U. S. Department of Defense, Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lombardo, J. et al. A systems overview of the Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics (ESSENCE II). J. Urban Health 80, i32–i42 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lober, W.B. et al. Syndromic surveillance using automated collection of computerized discharge diagnoses. J. Urban Health 80, i97–i106 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Takahashi, H., Fujii, H., Shindo, N. & Taniguchi, K. Evaluation of the Japanese school health surveillance system for influenza. Jpn. J. Infect. Dis. 54, 27–30 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Quenel, P. & Dab, W. Influenza A and B epidemic criteria based on time-series analysis of health services surveillance data. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 14, 275–285 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bravata, D.M. et al. Systematic review: surveillance systems for early detection of bioterrorism-related diseases. Ann. Intern. Med. 140, 910–922 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 50, 1–35 (2001).

  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 53, 1–11 (2004).

  20. Reingold, A. If syndromic surveillance is the answer, what is the question? Biosecur. Bioterror. 1, 77–81 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syndromic Surveillance: Reports from a National Conference, 2003. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 53 (2004).

  22. Mostashari, F., Fine, A., Das, D., Adams, J. & Layton, M. Use of ambulance dispatch data as an early warning system for communitywide influenzalike illness, New York City. J. Urban Health 80, i43–i49 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reis, B.Y. & Mandl, K.D. Syndromic surveillance: the effects of syndrome grouping on model accuracy and outbreak detection. Ann. Emerg. Med. 44, 235–241 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fleischauer, A.T. & Silk, B.J. The validity of chief complaint and discharge diagnosis in emergency department-based syndromic surveillance. Acad. Emergency Med. (in the press).

  25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state of statistical process control as we proceed into the 21st century. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 95, 992–998 (2000).

  26. Hutwagner, L., Thompson, W., Seeman, G.M. & Treadwell, T. The bioterrorism preparedness and response Early Aberration Reporting System (EARS). J. Urban Health 80, i89–i96 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Das, D. et al. Enhanced drop-in syndromic surveillance in New York City following September 11, 2001. J. Urban Health 80, i76–i88 (2003).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Heffernan, R. et al. Syndromic surveillance in public health practice, New York City. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 858–864 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bravata, D.M. et al. Bioterrorism preparedness and response: use of information technologies and decision support systems. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. 1–8 (2002).

  30. Tsui, F.C. et al. Technical description of RODS: a real-time public health surveillance system. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10, 399–408 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heymann, D.L. & Rodier, G.R. Hot spots in a wired world: WHO surveillance of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Lancet Infect. Dis. 1, 345–353 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Heymann, D.L. & Rodier, G. Global surveillance, national surveillance, and SARS. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 173–175 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fitch, J.P. et al. Rapid development of nucleic acid diagnostics. Proc. IEEE 90, 1780–1721 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fitch, J.P., Raber, E. & Imbro, D.R. Technology challenges in responding to biological or chemical attacks in the civilian sector. Science 302, 1350–1354 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Responding to detection of aerosolized Bacillus anthracis by autonomous detection systems in the workplace. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 53, 1–12 (2004).

  36. McBride, M.T. et al. Multiplexed liquid arrays for simultaneous detection of simulants of biological warfare agents. Anal. Chem. 75, 1924–1930 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Houston Department of Health and Human Services & Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services. Officials following up on bacteria detection (press release) October 9 (2004). http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/departme/health/bacteria%20detection.htm.

  38. Berger, E. Suspicious bacteria detected; Security monitors spot germ; terrorism discounted. The Houston (TX) Chronicle, 10 Oct (2003).

  39. Morse, S.A. et al. Detecting biothreat agents: the Laboratory Response Network. ASM News 69, 433–437 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rotz, L.D., Khan, A.S., Lillibridge, S.R., Ostroff, S.M. & Hughes, J.M. Public health assessment of potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8, 225–230 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoffmaster, A.R. et al. Evaluation and validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid identification of Bacillus anthracis. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8, 1178–1182 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Golub, T.R. et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286, 531–537 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Gerhold, D.L., Jensen, R.V. & Gullans, S.R. Better therapeutics through microarrays. Nat. Genet. 32, 547–551 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Langlois, R.G. et al. Development of an autonomous pathogen detection system in the Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Point Detection for Chemical and Biological Defense (Williamsburg, Virginia, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rao, R.S. et al. Comparison of multiplexed techniques for detection of bacterial and viral proteins. J. Proteome. Res. 3, 736–742 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Zubieta, J.C., Skinner, R. & Dean, A.G. Initiating informatics and GIS support for a field investigation of bioterrorism: the New Jersey anthrax experience. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2, 8 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Reissman, D.B., Steinberg, E.B., Magri, J.M. & Jernigan, D.B. The anthrax epidemiologic tool kit: an instrument for public health preparedness. Biosecur. Bioterror. 1, 111–116 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Torok, T.J. et al. A large community outbreak of salmonellosis caused by intentional contamination of restaurant salad bars. JAMA 278, 389–395 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Steyn, B. in Scientific and Technical Means of Distinguishing Between Natural and Other Outbreaks of Disease (eds. Dando, M., Pearson, G. S. & Kriz, B.) 87–92 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Noah, D.L., Sobel, A.L., Ostroff, S.M. & Kildew, J.A. Biological warfare training: infectious disease outbreak differentiation criteria. Mil. Med. 163, 198–201 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Treadwell, T.A., Koo, D., Kuker, K. & Khan, A.S. Epidemiologic clues to bioterrorism. Public Health Rep. 118, 92–98 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. LeDuc, J.W., Ostroff, S.M., McDade, J.E., Lillibridge, S. & Hughes, J.M. in Emerging Infections (eds. Scheld, W.M., Craig, W.A. & Hughes, J.M.) 219–230 (ASM Press, Washington, DC, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Grunow, R. & Finke, E.J. A procedure for differentiating between the intentional release of biological warfare agents and natural outbreaks of disease: its use in analyzing the tularemia outbreak in Kosovo in 1999 and 2000. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 8, 510–521 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Bravata, D.M. et al. A conceptual framework for evaluating information technologies and decision support systems for bioterrorism preparedness and response. Med. Decis. Making 24, 192–206 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schuler, A. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005. Biosecur. Bioterror. 2, 86–96 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gilfillan, L. et al. Taking the measure of countermeasures: leaders' views on the nation's capacity to develop biodefense countermeasures. Biosecur. Bioterror. 2, 1–8 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank A. Fleischauer, B. Garza, M. Meltzer, R. Meyer, R. Moseley, D. Nichelson, M. Taylor, A. Greenspan, M. Miller and T. Treadwell for their assistance in preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 30333, Georgia, USA

    Lisa D Rotz & James M Hughes

Authors
  1. Lisa D Rotz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M Hughes
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa D Rotz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rotz, L., Hughes, J. Advances in detecting and responding to threats from bioterrorism and emerging infectious disease. Nat Med 10 (Suppl 12), S130–S136 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1152

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1152

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing