Surveillance for West Nile Virus Disease — United States, 2009–2018

Surveillance Summaries / March 5, 2021 / 70(1);1–15

Print
Related Pages

Emily McDonald, MD1,2; Sarabeth Mathis, MPH1; Stacey W. Martin, MSc1; J. Erin Staples, MD, PhD1; Marc Fischer, MD1; Nicole P. Lindsey, MS1 (View author affiliations)

View suggested citation
Article Metrics
Altmetric:
Citations:
Views:

Views equals page views plus PDF downloads

Metric Details
On This Page
Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Related Materials

Abstract

Problem/Condition: West Nile virus (WNV) is an arthropodborne virus (arbovirus) in the family Flaviviridae and is the leading cause of domestically acquired arboviral disease in the contiguous United States. An estimated 70%–80% of WNV infections are asymptomatic. Symptomatic persons usually develop an acute systemic febrile illness. Less than 1% of infected persons develop neuroinvasive disease, which typically presents as encephalitis, meningitis, or acute flaccid paralysis.

Reporting Period: 2009–2018.

Description of System: WNV disease is a nationally notifiable condition with standard surveillance case definitions. State health departments report WNV cases to CDC through ArboNET, an electronic passive surveillance system. Variables collected include patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, county and state of residence, date of illness onset, clinical syndrome, hospitalization, and death.

Results: During 2009–2018, a total of 21,869 confirmed or probable cases of WNV disease, including 12,835 (59%) WNV neuroinvasive disease cases, were reported to CDC from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A total of 89% of all WNV patients had illness onset during July–September. Neuroinvasive disease incidence and case-fatalities increased with increasing age, with the highest incidence (1.22 cases per 100,000 population) occurring among persons aged ≥70 years. Among neuroinvasive cases, hospitalization rates were >85% in all age groups but were highest among patients aged ≥70 years (98%). The national incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease peaked in 2012 (0.92 cases per 100,000 population). Although national incidence was relatively stable during 2013–2018 (average annual incidence: 0.44; range: 0.40–0.51), state level incidence varied from year to year. During 2009–2018, the highest average annual incidence of neuroinvasive disease occurred in North Dakota (3.16 cases per 100,000 population), South Dakota (3.06), Nebraska (1.95), and Mississippi (1.17), and the largest number of total cases occurred in California (2,819), Texas (2,043), Illinois (728), and Arizona (632). Six counties located within the four states with the highest case counts accounted for 23% of all neuroinvasive disease cases nationally.

Interpretation: Despite the recent stability in annual national incidence of neuroinvasive disease, peaks in activity were reported in different years for different regions of the country. Variations in vectors, avian amplifying hosts, human activity, and environmental factors make it difficult to predict future WNV disease incidence and outbreak locations.

Public Health Action: WNV disease surveillance is important for detecting and monitoring seasonal epidemics and for identifying persons at increased risk for severe disease. Surveillance data can be used to inform prevention and control activities. Health care providers should consider WNV infection in the differential diagnosis of aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, obtain appropriate specimens for testing, and promptly report cases to public health authorities. Public health education programs should focus prevention messaging on older persons, because they are at increased risk for severe neurologic disease and death. In the absence of a human vaccine, WNV disease prevention depends on community-level mosquito control and household and personal protective measures. Understanding the geographic distribution of cases, particularly at the county level, appears to provide the best opportunity for directing finite resources toward effective prevention and control activities. Additional work to further develop and improve predictive models that can foreshadow areas most likely to be impacted in a given year by WNV outbreaks could allow for proactive targeting of interventions and ultimately lowering of WNV disease morbidity and mortality.

Top

Introduction

West Nile virus (WNV) is an arthropodborne virus (i.e., arbovirus) in the Flaviviridae family (1,2). The virus is maintained in nature by a mosquito-bird-mosquito transmission cycle that primarily involves Culex species mosquitoes, particularly Cx. pipiens, Cx. tarsalis, and Cx. quinquefasciatus (3,4). Birds are the natural reservoir and amplifying hosts for WNV with many avian species developing transient levels of viremia sufficient to infect feeding mosquitoes (5,6). Humans are considered incidental or dead-end hosts for WNV because they do not develop high enough levels of viremia to allow for transmission when bitten by feeding mosquitoes (7).

An estimated 70%–80% of WNV infections are asymptomatic (8,9). Symptomatic persons typically experience an acute febrile illness after an incubation period of 2–6 days. Common presenting symptoms include headache, myalgia, arthralgia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and a transient maculopapular rash (3,10–13). Neuroinvasive disease occurs in <1% of infected persons and typically presents as meningitis, encephalitis, or poliomyelitis-like acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) (7,8,10,12). Risk factors for developing neuroinvasive disease from WNV infection include older age, history of solid organ transplantation, and possibly other immunosuppressive conditions (1,7,14–20).

WNV was first detected in the Americas in 1999 and has since become the leading cause of arboviral disease in the contiguous United States (1). Following the identification of the first human cases, CDC collaborated with state and local health departments to establish ArboNET, an electronic passive surveillance system to monitor WNV infections in humans, mosquitoes, birds, and other animals. The national surveillance case definition for neuroinvasive arboviral disease was first developed in 1990 and has subsequently been revised multiple times, most recently in 2015 (21–27). WNV neuroinvasive disease became explicitly nationally notifiable in 2001 and WNV nonneuroinvasive arboviral disease (i.e., febrile illness) in 2004 (23,24). Human surveillance initially focused on reporting of neuroinvasive disease cases because they are considered the most accurate and comparable indicator of WNV activity.

The objectives of national surveillance for WNV disease are to 1) define the public health impact of the disease, including morbidity and mortality; 2) identify risk factors for developing neuroinvasive disease; 3) assess the need for public health intervention programs; and 4) identify geographic areas that would benefit from targeted interventions (28). The previous summary of WNV disease surveillance included data from the first 10 years of WNV in the United States and included data reported to CDC during 1999–2008 (29). This report updates information on the epidemiology of WNV disease using surveillance data during 2009–2018, including demographic characteristics, clinical presentation and outcome, seasonal patterns, and geographic distribution of reported disease cases. Public health authorities and health care providers can use the findings in this report to improve detection and prevention of WNV disease.

Top

Methods

Surveillance Case Definitions

The cases included in this report were classified using case definitions for neuroinvasive and nonneuroinvasive domestic arboviral diseases initially approved by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) in 2004 and most recently revised in 2015 (24,27). The current case definitions require at least one of the clinical criteria and at least one of the laboratory criteria.

Clinical Criteria for Reporting

Neuroinvasive disease requires the presence of physician-documented meningitis, encephalitis, AFP, or other acute sign of central or peripheral neurologic dysfunction (e.g., paresis or paralysis, nerve palsies, sensory deficits, abnormal reflexes, generalized convulsions, or abnormal movements) in the absence of a more likely clinical explanation (27). Nonneuroinvasive disease requires, at a minimum, the presence of fever as reported by the patient or clinician, the absence of neuroinvasive disease, and the absence of a more likely clinical explanation for the illness.

Laboratory Criteria for Reporting

For a case to be considered confirmed, at least one of the following laboratory criteria should be met: 1) isolation of virus from or detection of specific viral antigen or nucleic acid in tissue, blood, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or other body fluid; 2) fourfold or greater change in serum virus-specific antibody titers in paired sera; 3) virus-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies in serum with virus-specific neutralizing antibodies in the same or a later specimen; or 4) virus-specific IgM antibodies in CSF and a negative result for other IgM antibodies in CSF for arboviruses endemic to the region where exposure occurred (27). Probable cases have virus-specific IgM antibodies in CSF or serum, but with no further testing performed.

Data Source

State and local health departments report WNV disease cases to CDC through ArboNET, the national arboviral diseases surveillance system. Health departments are responsible for ensuring reported cases meet the national case definition. Variables collected in ArboNET include patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, county and state of residence, date of illness onset, case status (i.e., confirmed, probable, suspected, or not a case), clinical syndrome (e.g., encephalitis, meningitis, or uncomplicated fever), and whether illness resulted in hospitalization or death. Asymptomatic WNV infections, which are typically identified through blood donation screening, also are reported to ArboNET but are not included in this report.

Data Analysis

Analysis of cases is restricted to those meeting the CSTE case definition for WNV confirmed or probable disease with illness onset during 2009–2018. Cases reported as AFP, encephalitis (including meningoencephalitis), meningitis, or an unspecified neurologic presentation are collectively referred to as neuroinvasive disease; cases with more than one neuroinvasive presentation are only counted once and are classified according to the order specified above. Other clinical presentations are considered nonneuroinvasive disease. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize reported WNV disease cases using counts and percentages for categorical variables and medians and quartile ranges for continuous variables. Because of variability in completeness of reporting of nonneuroinvasive disease cases (30), descriptions of age- and sex-specific incidences and visual representations of geographic distribution are limited to neuroinvasive disease cases. Annual U.S. incidence rates per 100,000 population and rates by state, county, age group, and sex are calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1 of each year during 2009–2018 (31). Average annual and cumulative incidence rates are calculated using July 1, 2014, population estimates.

Top

Results

During 2009–2018, a total of 21,869 cases of WNV disease, including 7,192 (33%) confirmed and 14,677 (67%) probable, were reported from 1,883 (60%) counties in all 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico. Cases from Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico all were reported as travel associated with the likely location of exposure being in the contiguous United States. Although patients with WNV disease reported illness onset dates in nearly every week of the year, most (89%) had illness onset during July–September (Figure 1). Of reported cases, 12,835 (59%) were classified as neuroinvasive disease and 9,034 (41%) as nonneuroinvasive disease (Table 1); 1,199 (5%) were fatal. Forty-four percent of neuroinvasive disease cases and 17% of nonneuroinvasive disease cases were classified as confirmed. The proportion of reported cases classified as confirmed decreased over time, ranging from 23% to 56% during the reporting period. Overall, 50% of cases resulting in death were reported as confirmed compared with 32% of nonfatal cases. Demographic characteristics such as sex, age group, race, and ethnicity did not vary considerably by case status. Because confirmed and probable cases meet national case definitions and have laboratory evidence of WNV infection, these cases are combined for the remainder of the analysis.

Nonneuroinvasive Disease

During 2009–2018, a total of 9,034 nonneuroinvasive WNV disease cases were reported, with an annual median of 780 (range: 226–2,801) (Table 1). The median age was 53 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 39–64 years), and males accounted for 56% of cases (Table 2). Among 6,971 patients for whom race was reported, 91% were White. Among 6,295 patients for whom ethnicity was reported, 91% were non-Hispanic. Ninety-one percent of nonneuroinvasive disease cases had illness onset during July–September. Of nonneuroinvasive disease cases reported, 2,581 (29%) resulted in hospitalization and 45 (<1%) were fatal. Among the 45 patients who died, 38 (84%) were aged ≥70 years.

Neuroinvasive Disease

During 2009–2018, a total of 12,835 neuroinvasive disease cases were reported, with an annual median of 1,328 cases (range: 386–2,873) (Table 1). Although the total number of neuroinvasive disease cases reported nationally was relatively stable during 2013–2018 (median: 1,386; range: 1,267–1,658), peaks in activity were reported in different years for different regions of the country (e.g., southcentral and upper Midwest in 2012, California in 2014 and 2015, Arizona in 2017, and northeastern United States in 2018) (Table 3).

The median age of neuroinvasive disease case patients was 60 years (IQR: 48–72 years) and males accounted for 62% of cases (Table 2). Among 10,406 patients for whom race was reported, 85% were White, and among 9,460 patients for whom ethnicity was reported, 83% were non-Hispanic. Most (88%) neuroinvasive disease cases had illness onset during July–September. Ninety-four percent of persons with neuroinvasive disease were hospitalized. Hospitalization rates were >85% in all age groups but were highest among patients aged ≥70 years (98%). Overall, 1,154 (9%) of neuroinvasive disease cases were fatal. The case-fatality ratio increased considerably with increasing age; 2% of cases among patients aged <50 years were fatal, compared with 6% of cases among those aged 50–69 years and 21% of those aged ≥70 years (Figure 2).

Among neuroinvasive disease cases, 6,744 (53%) were reported as encephalitis, 4,781 (37%) as meningitis, 937 (7%) as AFP, and 373 (3%) as an unspecified neurologic presentation (Table 4). The median age of patients with encephalitis (66 years; IQR: 54–75 years), AFP (60 years; IQR: 51–70 years), or an unspecified neurologic presentation (64 years IQR: 53–74 years) was higher than that of patients with meningitis (52 years; IQR: 38–64 years). The proportion of male patients was similar (range: 59%–66%) among all syndromes. Hospitalization rates were similar among patients with illness classified as encephalitis (96%), AFP (96%), or meningitis (92%) but were lower for patients with an unspecified neurologic presentation (82%). Case-fatality ratios were higher among patients with encephalitis (14%) or AFP (13%) compared with those with an unspecified neurologic presentation (5%) or meningitis (2%).

During 2009–2018, the national average annual incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease was 0.40 per 100,000 population, ranging from 0.13 in 2009 to 0.92 in 2012 (Figure 3). The average annual incidence of neuroinvasive disease increased steadily with increasing age, ranging from 0.02 per 100,000 among persons aged <10 years to 1.22 among those aged ≥70 years (Figure 4). Neuroinvasive disease incidence was higher among males (0.51 per 100,000 population) than among females (0.30), particularly among persons aged ≥70 years, for whom the incidence in men (1.83) was more than twice that in women (0.78). Similar differences by age and sex were observed among the various neuroinvasive disease syndromes.

Case Counts and Incidence by State and Year

Neuroinvasive disease cases were reported from all states except Hawaii; the one case reported from Alaska was classified as travel associated with the likely location of exposure being in the contiguous United States (Table 3). The largest numbers of cases were reported from California (2,819), Texas (2,043), Illinois (728), and Arizona (632), which together accounted for nearly half (48%) of all neuroinvasive disease cases (Table 5). States reporting the lowest numbers of cumulative cases were located mostly in New England and northern Pacific and Mountain regions (Figure 5). Texas reported the largest numbers of cases in a single year with 844 neuroinvasive disease cases reported in 2012 (Table 3).

The average annual incidence for all states ranged from 0.01 per 100,000 population in Alaska to 3.16 in North Dakota (Table 6). States with consistently high incidence were in the West North Central region, where Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota all had an average annual incidence of ≥1 case per 100,000 population (Table 6). States in the West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific divisions experienced high incidence during outbreak years, but had considerable year-to-year variability, particularly in high-burden states such as Arizona, California, and Texas (Table 6). States in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and South Atlantic (excepting DC) regions had consistently low incidence over the 10-year time frame.

Case Counts and Incidence by County

Of the 3,142 counties in the 50 states and DC, 1,580 (50%) reported ≥1 neuroinvasive disease case during 2009–2018. In the 10 states reporting the highest numbers of cases, most counties (66%, range: 46%–93%) reported ≥1 WNV neuroinvasive disease case (Table 5). However, ≥50% of cases were reported from <10% of counties in the ten highest burden states.

The largest numbers of neuroinvasive disease cases were among residents of Los Angeles County, California (1,092); Maricopa County, Arizona (468); Cook County, Illinois (432); Orange County, California (375); Harris County, Texas (304); and Dallas County, Texas (281) (Table 7). Together, these six counties accounted for nearly one fourth (23%) of all neuroinvasive disease cases reported nationally. Clusters of counties with high case counts occurred in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas (Figure 6).

Counties with the highest cumulative incidences were clustered in the West North Central, West South Central, and Mountain states (Figure 6). Twenty-four counties located in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas had a cumulative incidence of >100 cases per 100,000 population; however, all these counties also had a population of <10,000 and few total cases (Table 8).

Top

Discussion

During 2009–2018, approximately 20,000 WNV disease cases were reported from all states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The national incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease peaked in 2012 because of a large outbreak in Texas (32) but has remained relatively stable during 2013–2018. Although the highest incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease continues to occur in states in the North Central region of the United States, approximately one fourth of all neuroinvasive disease cases during 2009–2018 were reported from four states (Arizona, California, Illinois, and Texas). Compared with the previous decade, the demographic characteristics and hospitalization and death rates among cases, particularly neuroinvasive disease cases, have remained relatively consistent.

During the first 10 years after WNV was first detected in the United States in 1999, the annual incidence of neuroinvasive disease fluctuated considerably. However, during more recent years, the national incidence of neuroinvasive disease has been relatively stable. Despite this stability, the occurrence of WNV disease cases continues to be focal and sporadic in nature when assessed at the state and county levels. The complex biology of vectors and avian amplifying hosts, as well as variations in human activity and environmental factors, make predicting future WNV disease incidence and outbreak locations difficult. However, national surveillance for WNV has provided needed data for monitoring potential changes in disease transmission patterns and developing targeted prevention and control strategies.

Although states in the West North Central region (e.g., Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) experience consistently high WNV neuroinvasive disease incidence, they have relatively small populations dispersed over large geographic areas. Thus, prevention and control efforts are challenging in these locations and are unlikely to substantially impact the overall number of cases even when effective. Some high-burden states, such as Arizona, California, and Texas, experience high incidence during seasonal WNV outbreaks but have considerably more variability in their case counts over time. This pattern poses challenges for planning surveillance and control programs because it is difficult to distinguish whether an intervention was effective in reducing cases or whether environmental conditions were not conducive to producing an outbreak during that season. Understanding the geographic distribution of cases at the county level appears to provide the best opportunity for directing finite resources toward effective prevention and control activities, especially because six counties accounted for nearly one fourth of all neuroinvasive disease cases reported nationally during 2009–2018.

Neuroinvasive disease occurs in all age groups and both sexes but more often impacts older persons and males, particularly older men. The association between increasing age and increasing neuroinvasive disease incidence has been well described and is likely the result of differences in immunity that occur with aging (1,18,33,34). The reason for the higher incidence of neuroinvasive disease among males is unknown but could be related to either reporting bias or the presence of medical comorbidities that might be risk factors for developing neuroinvasive disease following WNV infection (1,7,14–20). Although WNV neuroinvasive disease occurs more frequently among males, the risk for initial infection has not been found to be significantly higher among males on the basis of serosurveys and studies among blood donors (30,35–37). Hospitalization rates for patients with neuroinvasive disease are high (>85%) in all age groups, but case-fatality ratios increase exponentially with increasing age. Because older adults are at higher risk for severe disease and death due to WNV infection, education programs and messages should be tailored to this group. Public health officials could consider collaborating with organizations that have established relations with this group, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, senior centers, and programs for adult learners, to distribute materials focusing on older adults and activities that might increase their risk for exposure to mosquito bites (e.g., walking, golf, and gardening).

The proportion of total cases reported to ArboNET as neuroinvasive disease is likely higher than the actual proportion because severe cases are more likely to be diagnosed and reported than milder cases (i.e., nonneuroinvasive disease cases). Thus, detection and reporting of neuroinvasive disease cases are considered more consistent and complete than that of nonneuroinvasive disease cases. Previous studies have estimated that 30–70 nonneuroinvasive disease cases occur for every case of WNV neuroinvasive disease reported (38). On the basis of the number of neuroinvasive disease cases reported (N = 12,835) and the assumption that all neuroinvasive disease cases were reported, 385,050–898,450 nonneuroinvasive disease cases would have been expected to occur. However, only 9,034 were reported to ArboNET, which is 1%–2% of the number of nonneuroinvasive cases estimated to have occurred. Because of the high number of unreported nonneuroinvasive cases, the overall case-fatality ratio for all WNV disease cases is likely lower than the percentage (5%) calculated in this report.

Health care providers should consider WNV infections in patients with aseptic meningitis or encephalitis, perform appropriate diagnostic testing, and report cases to public health authorities. In the absence of a licensed human vaccine, the cornerstones of WNV disease prevention depends on 1) community efforts to reduce mosquito populations (larviciding, adulticiding, and breeding-site reduction); 2) household and personal protective measures to decrease mosquito exposures (repairing and installing door and window screens, using air conditioning, reducing breeding sites, using repellents and protective clothing, and avoiding outdoor exposure when mosquitoes are most active); and 3) blood donation screening to minimize alternative routes of transmission. WNV surveillance continues to be important for monitoring seasonal WNV activity and informing prevention and control activities.

Top

Limitations

The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, ArboNET is a passive surveillance system that depends on persons seeking care and clinicians considering arboviral disease in their differential diagnosis and obtaining appropriate diagnostic specimens for testing. Therefore, not all arboviral disease cases will be diagnosed and the incidence of WNV disease likely is underestimated, particularly for less severe disease cases. In addition, race and ethnicity are not often reported, limiting interpretation of these data.

Second, ArboNET does not require reporting of clinical signs and symptoms or clinical laboratory findings (e.g., cerebrospinal fluid results), and cases might be misclassified as nonneuroinvasive or neuroinvasive. Misclassification also might occur within specific neurologic syndromes (i.e., encephalitis, meningitis, and AFP) because these syndromes can be difficult to distinguish clinically and could impact the representativeness of demographic features and outcomes for these syndromes. ArboNET also does not collect information regarding the specific diagnostic testing method or assay used to confirm each case. Laboratory diagnosis of WNV is typically accomplished by testing of serum or cerebrospinal fluid to detect WNV-specific IgM antibodies. Although these assays are relatively specific, false-positive results and cross-reactivity between WNV and other flaviviruses (e.g., St. Louis encephalitis and dengue viruses) can occur (39,40). Positive IgM results would ideally be confirmed by plaque-reduction neutralization tests; however, such confirmatory testing often is not performed. This lack of confirmatory testing is evidenced by the percentage of cases classified as confirmed (approximately 33%) in the current analysis.

Finally, ArboNET data might not accurately represent differences in WNV disease incidence over time or by jurisdiction because reporting is dependent on disease awareness and laboratory testing capacity, which might vary annually and by county, state, or region. Furthermore, changes to the case definition during this reporting period, which altered the laboratory criteria necessary to consider a case confirmed or probable, might have impacted the number and type of cases reported to ArboNET. Reported cases of neuroinvasive disease are considered the most accurate indicator of WNV activity in humans because of the substantial associated morbidity. The severity of neuroinvasive disease increases the likelihood that a patient will seek medical care, receive appropriate diagnostic testing, and have the illness reported to public health authorities. In contrast, reported cases of nonneuroinvasive disease are more likely to be influenced by factors such as disease awareness, health care seeking behaviors in different communities, and availability and specificity of laboratory tests performed. Thus, surveillance data for nonneuroinvasive disease should be interpreted with caution and should not be used to make comparisons between geographic areas or over time.

Top

Conclusion

WNV has become endemic in the United States and has ongoing potential for seasonal epidemics at the local, regional, or national level. The occurrence of WNV is both focal and sporadic in nature, making it difficult to predict future disease incidence and underscoring the need for ongoing mosquito and human surveillance. However, surveillance data during 2009–2018 indicate that approximately one fourth of all neuroinvasive cases occurred in just four states or six counties. These findings suggest that interventions could be targeted to high-burden regions to notably decrease the overall number of WNV cases. Ongoing WNV disease surveillance is needed to continue to identify areas most at risk and tailor WNV prevention and control activities.

Top

Acknowledgments

ArboNET surveillance coordinators in state and local health departments.

Top

Corresponding author: Nicole P. Lindsey, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, CDC. Telephone: 970-221-6400; E-mail: nplindsey@cdc.gov.

Top

1Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC; 2Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC.

Top

Conflict of Interest

All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Top

References

  1. Nash D, Mostashari F, Fine A, et al. The outbreak of West Nile virus infection in the New York City area in 1999. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1807–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200106143442401 PMID:11407341
  2. Petersen LR, Brault AC, Nasci RS. West Nile virus: Review of the literature. JAMA 2013;310:308–15. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.8042 PMID:23860989
  3. Hayes CG. West Nile fever. In: Monath TP, ed. The arboviruses: epidemiology and ecology, vol. V. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press;1989:59–88.
  4. Turell MJ, Dohm DJ, Sardelis MR, Oguinn ML, Andreadis TG, Blow JA. An update on the potential of north American mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit West Nile virus. J Med Entomol 2005;42:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/42.1.57 PMID:15691009
  5. Work TH, Hurlbut HS, Taylor RM. Indigenous wild birds of the Nile delta as potential West Nile virus circulating reservoirs. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1955;4:872–88. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1955.4.872 PMID:13259011
  6. Komar N, Panella NA, Burns JE, Dusza SW, Mascarenhas TM, Talbot TO. Serologic evidence for West Nile virus infection in birds in the New York City vicinity during an outbreak in 1999. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:621–5. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0704.017403 PMID:11585522
  7. Hayes EB, Komar N, Nasci RS, Montgomery SP, O’Leary DR, Campbell GL. Epidemiology and transmission dynamics of West Nile virus disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:1167–73. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1108.050289a PMID:16102302
  8. Mostashari F, Bunning ML, Kitsutani PT, et al. Epidemic West Nile encephalitis, New York, 1999: results of a household-based seroepidemiological survey. Lancet 2001;358:261–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05480-0 PMID:11498211
  9. Zou S, Foster GA, Dodd RY, Petersen LR, Stramer SL. West Nile fever characteristics among viremic persons identified through blood donor screening. J Infect Dis 2010;202:1354–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/656602 PMID:20874087
  10. Campbell GL, Marfin AA, Lanciotti RS, Gubler DJ. West Nile virus. Lancet Infect Dis 2002;2:519–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(02)00368-7 PMID:12206968
  11. Watson JT, Pertel PE, Jones RC, et al. Clinical characteristics and functional outcomes of West Nile Fever. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:360–5. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-5-200409070-00010 PMID:15353427
  12. Sejvar JJ, Marfin AA. Manifestations of West Nile neuroinvasive disease. Rev Med Virol 2006;16:209–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.501 PMID:16906589
  13. Hayes EB, Sejvar JJ, Zaki SR, Lanciotti RS, Bode AV, Campbell GL. Virology, pathology, and clinical manifestations of West Nile virus disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:1174–9. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1108.050289b PMID:16102303
  14. Kumar D, Prasad GV, Zaltzman J, Levy GA, Humar A. Community-acquired West Nile virus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. Transplantation 2004;77:399–402. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TP.0000101435.91619.31 PMID:14966414
  15. Han LL, Popovici F, Alexander JP, et al. Risk factors for West Nile virus infection and meningoencephalitis, Romania, 1996. J Infect Dis 1999;179:230–3. https://doi.org/10.1086/314566 PMID:9841844
  16. Jean CM, Honarmand S, Louie JK, Glaser CA. Risk factors for West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, California, 2005. Emerg Infect Dis 2007;13:1918–20. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1312.061265 PMID:18258047
  17. Murray K, Baraniuk S, Resnick M, et al. Risk factors for encephalitis and death from West Nile virus infection. Epidemiol Infect 2006;134:1325–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268806006339 PMID:16672108
  18. O’Leary DR, Marfin AA, Montgomery SP, et al. The epidemic of West Nile virus in the United States, 2002. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2004;4:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1089/153036604773083004 PMID:15018774
  19. Patnaik JL, Harmon H, Vogt RL. Follow-up of 2003 human West Nile virus infections, Denver, Colorado. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:1129–31. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1207.051399 PMID:16836833
  20. Bode AV, Sejvar JJ, Pape WJ, Campbell GL, Marfin AA. West Nile virus disease: a descriptive study of 228 patients hospitalized in a 4-county region of Colorado in 2003. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:1234–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/503038 PMID:16586381
  21. Wharton M, Chorba TL, Vogt RL, Morse DL, Buehler JW. Case definitions for public health surveillance. MMWR Recomm Rep 1990;39(No. RR-13). PMID:2122225
  22. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance. MMWR Recomm Rep 1997;46(No. RR-10). PMID:9148133
  23. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance: encephalitis or meningitis, arboviral. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2001. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/arboviral-encephalitis-or-meningitis/case-definition/2001
  24. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance: neuroinvasive and non-neuroinvasive domestic arboviral diseases. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/arboviral-diseases-neuroinvasive-and-non-neuroinvasive/case-definition/2004
  25. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance: neuroinvasive and non-neuroinvasive domestic arboviral diseases. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2011. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/arboviral-diseases-neuroinvasive-and-non-neuroinvasive/case-definition/2011
  26. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance: neuroinvasive and non-neuroinvasive domestic arboviral diseases. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/arboviral-diseases-neuroinvasive-and-non-neuroinvasive/case-definition/2014
  27. CDC. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance: neuroinvasive and non-neuroinvasive domestic arboviral diseases. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/arboviral-diseases-neuroinvasive-and-non-neuroinvasive/case-definition/2015
  28. CDC. Epidemic/epizootic West Nile virus in the United States: Guidelines for surveillance, prevention, and control. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/resources/pdfs/wnvGuidelines.pdf
  29. Lindsey NP, Staples JE, Lehman JA, Fischer M. Surveillance for human West Nile virus disease—United States, 1999-2008. MMWR Surveill Summ 2010;59(No. SS-2). PMID:20360671
  30. Lindsey NP, Kuhn S, Campbell GL, Hayes EB. West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease incidence in the United States, 2002-2006. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2008;8:35–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2007.0137 PMID:18237264
  31. US Census Bureau. Population and Housing Unit Estimates Tables: United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau; 2020. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html
  32. Murray KO, Ruktanonchai D, Hesalroad D, Fonken E, Nolan MS. West Nile virus, Texas USA, 2012. Emerg Infect Dis 2013;19:1836–8. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1911.130768 PMID:24210089
  33. Tsai TF, Popovici F, Cernescu C, Campbell GL, Nedelcu NI. West Nile encephalitis epidemic in southeastern Romania. Lancet 1998;352:767–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03538-7 PMID:9737281
  34. Platonov AE, Shipulin GA, Shipulina OY, et al. Outbreak of West Nile virus infection, Volgograd Region, Russia, 1999. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:128–32. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0701.010118 PMID:11266303
  35. Brown JA, Factor DL, Tkachenko N, et al. West Nile viremic blood donors and risk factors for subsequent West Nile fever. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2007;7:479–88. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2006.0611 PMID:17979539
  36. Murphy TD, Grandpre J, Novick SL, Seys SA, Harris RW, Musgrave K. West Nile virus infection among health-fair participants, Wyoming 2003: assessment of symptoms and risk factors. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2005;5:246–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2005.5.246 PMID:16187893
  37. CDC. Serosurveys for West Nile virus infection—New York and Connecticut counties, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50:37–9. PMID:11215880
  38. Petersen LR, Carson PJ, Biggerstaff BJ, Custer B, Borchardt SM, Busch MP. Estimated cumulative incidence of West Nile virus infection in US adults, 1999-2010. Epidemiol Infect 2013;141:591–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268812001070 PMID:22640592
  39. Martin DA, Muth DA, Brown T, Johnson AJ, Karabatsos N, Roehrig JT. Standardization of immunoglobulin M capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for routine diagnosis of arboviral infections. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:1823–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.38.5.1823-1826.2000 PMID:10790107
  40. Johnson AJ, Cheshier RC, Cosentino G, et al. Validation of a microsphere-based immunoassay for detection of anti-West Nile virus and anti-St. Louis encephalitis virus immunoglobulin m antibodies. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2007;14:1084–93. https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00115-07 PMID:17609393

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 1. Percentage of West Nile virus disease cases,* by week of illness onset — United States, 2009–2018
The figure is a bar chart presenting the percentage of West Nile Virus disease cases by week of illness onset during 2009-2018.

* N = 21,869.

Top

TABLE 1. West Nile virus nonneuroinvasive and neuroinvasive disease cases, deaths, and case-fatality ratio, by year — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
Year Nonneuroinvasive Neuroinvasive Total
Cases Deaths Cases Deaths Cases Deaths
No. No. (CFR) No. No. (CFR) No. No. (CFR)
2009 334 0 (0%) 386 32 (8%) 720 32 (4%)
2010 392 3 (<1%) 629 54 (9%) 1,021 57 (6%)
2011 226 1 (<1%) 486 42 (9%) 712 43 (6%)
2012 2,801 16 (<1%) 2,873 270 (9%) 5,674 286 (5%)
2013 1,202 8 (<1%) 1,267 111 (9%) 2,469 119 (5%)
2014 858 10 (1%) 1,347 87 (6%) 2,205 97 (4%)
2015 720 4 (<1%) 1,455 142 (10%) 2,175 146 (7%)
2016 840 1 (<1%) 1,309 105 (8%) 2,149 106 (5%)
2017 672 0 (0%) 1,425 146 (10%) 2,097 146 (7%)
2018 989 2 (<1%) 1,658 165 (10%) 2,647 167 (6%)
Total 9,034 45 (<1%) 12,835 1,154 (9%) 21,869 1,199 (5%)

Abbreviation: CFR = case-fatality ratio.

Top

TABLE 2. Number and percentage of persons with West Nile virus nonneuroinvasive and neuroinvasive disease, by selected demographic characteristics, onset of illness, hospitalization, and death — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
Characteristic Nonneuroinvasive
disease
(N = 9,034)		 Neuroinvasive
disease
(N = 12,835)		 Total
(N = 21,869)
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Sex
Female 4,004 (44) 4,888 (38) 8,892 (41)
Male 5,029 (56) 7,947 (62) 12,976 (59)
Unknown 1 (<1) 0 (0) 1 (<1)
Age group (yrs)
0–9 99 (1) 99 (1) 198 (1)
10–19 366 (4) 325 (3) 691 (3)
20–29 628 (7) 597 (5) 1,225 (6)
30–39 1,236 (14) 1,027 (8) 2,263 (10)
40–49 1,548 (17) 1,552 (12) 3,100 (14)
50–59 2,168 (24) 2,605 (20) 4,773 (22)
60–69 1,681 (19) 2,852 (22) 4,533 (21)
≥70 1,308 (14) 3,777 (29) 5,085 (23)
Unknown 0 (0) 1 (<1) 1 (<1)
Race
White 6,338 (70) 8,814 (69) 15,152 (69)
Black 286 (3) 904 (7) 1,190 (5)
American Indian/Alaska Native 86 (1) 123 (1) 209 (1)
Asian/Pacific Islander 76 (1) 138 (1) 214 (1)
Multiple/Other 185 (2) 427 (3) 612 (3)
Unknown 2,063 (23) 2,429 (19) 4,492 (21)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 570 (6) 1,651 (13) 2,221 (10)
Non-Hispanic 5,725 (63) 7,809 (61) 13,534 (62)
Unknown 2,739 (30) 3,375 (26) 6,114 (28)
Month of illness onset
January–March 13 (<1) 16 (<1) 29 (<1)
April–June 290 (3) 302 (2) 592 (3)
July–September 8,184 (91) 11,293 (88) 19,477 (89)
October–December 547 (6) 1,222 (10) 1,769 (8)
Unknown 0 (0) 2 (<1) 2 (<1)
Hospitalization
Yes 2,581 (29) 12,111 (94) 14,692 (67)
No 6,265 (69) 654 (5) 6,919 (32)
Unknown 188 (2) 70 (<1) 258 (1)
Death
Yes 45 (<1) 1,154 (9) 1,199 (5)
No 8,579 (95) 11,165 (87) 19,744 (90)
Unknown 410 (5) 516 (4) 926 (4)

Top

TABLE 3. Annual number of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases, by year and state — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
Region/State 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average Median
United States 386 629 486 2,873 1,267 1,347 1,455 1,309 1,425 1,658 1,284 1,328
New England 0 14 15 42 11 8 16 15 10 62 19 15
   Connecticut 0 7 8 12 1 3 8 1 2 18 6 5
   Maine 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 <1 0
   Massachusetts 0 6 5 25 7 5 7 10 5 42 11 7
   New Hampshire 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0
   Rhode Island 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1
   Vermont 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1
Middle Atlantic 9 123 35 116 34 36 82 43 66 216 76 55
   New Jersey 3 15 2 22 10 6 23 11 6 44 14 11
   New York 6 89 28 61 18 19 42 20 45 77 41 35
   Pennsylvania 0 19 5 33 6 11 17 12 15 95 21 14
East North Central 9 80 73 494 167 59 112 177 192 306 167 140
   Illinois 5 45 22 187 86 36 51 98 72 126 73 62
   Indiana 2 6 7 46 19 9 16 15 18 26 16 16
   Michigan 1 25 32 141 24 1 16 42 32 80 39 29
   Ohio 0 4 10 76 21 10 23 12 23 45 22 17
   Wisconsin 1 0 2 44 17 3 6 10 47 29 16 8
West North Central 26 32 31 225 288 104 82 175 118 364 145 111
   Iowa 0 5 5 11 24 5 4 16 10 59 14 8
   Kansas 4 4 4 20 34 18 12 18 12 23 15 15
   Minnesota 1 4 1 34 31 6 3 38 13 34 17 10
   Missouri 4 3 6 17 24 10 23 9 17 17 13 14
   Nebraska 11 10 14 42 54 41 19 35 19 124 37 27
   North Dakota 0 2 1 39 64 12 10 24 20 60 23 16
   South Dakota 6 4 0 62 57 12 11 35 27 47 26 20
South Atlantic 16 38 67 185 36 38 76 31 91 172 75 53
   Delaware 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 8 1 0
   District of Columbia 2 3 10 8 0 1 3 1 1 7 4 3
   Florida 2 9 20 52 5 12 12 6 4 30 15 11
   Georgia 4 4 14 46 4 11 13 4 44 30 17 12
   Maryland 0 17 10 25 11 6 31 6 5 35 15 11
   North Carolina 0 0 2 7 3 0 4 2 8 10 4 3
   South Carolina 3 1 0 20 3 3 0 6 16 12 6 3
   Virginia 5 4 8 20 6 5 13 6 12 38 12 7
   West Virginia 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1
East South Central 38 8 56 173 48 38 36 48 117 67 63 48
   Alabama 0 1 5 38 3 0 5 13 40 16 12 5
   Kentucky 3 2 4 13 1 0 1 5 9 9 5 4
   Mississippi 31 3 31 103 27 26 25 27 46 31 35 29
   Tennessee 4 2 16 19 17 12 5 3 22 11 11 12
West South Central 117 104 28 1,146 223 332 302 319 174 182 293 203
   Arkansas 6 6 1 44 16 9 16 8 15 6 13 9
   Louisiana 10 20 6 155 34 61 41 38 38 56 46 38
   Oklahoma 8 1 1 103 60 9 49 21 34 12 30 17
   Texas 93 77 20 844 113 253 196 252 87 108 204 111
Mountain 77 157 71 190 216 157 156 156 243 130 155 157
   Arizona 12 107 49 87 50 80 67 57 98 25 63 62
   Colorado 36 26 2 62 90 46 57 59 29 52 46 49
   Idaho 9 0 1 5 14 6 5 3 16 10 7 6
   Montana 2 0 1 1 10 2 3 3 3 25 5 3
   Nevada 7 0 12 5 8 3 4 13 31 3 9 6
   New Mexico 6 21 4 24 24 19 12 6 23 5 14 16
   Utah 1 1 1 3 4 1 5 7 39 7 7 4
   Wyoming 4 2 1 3 16 0 3 8 4 3 4 3
Pacific 94 73 110 301 244 575 593 345 414 159 291 273
   Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1 0
   California 67 72 110 297 237 561 585 335 401 154 282 267
   Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   Oregon 1 0 0 0 7 7 0 2 3 2 2 2
   Washington 26 1 0 4 0 7 8 8 10 2 7 6

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 2. West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease case-fatality ratios, by age group — United States, 2009–2018*
The figure is a bar chart presenting the West Nile Virus disease case ratios by age groups 0-9 years, 10-19 years, 20-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and >70 years.

* N = 12,835.

Top

TABLE 4. Number and percentage of persons with West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, by demographic characteristics, clinical outcomes, and clinical syndrome* — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
Characteristic Encephalitis
(N = 6,744)		 Meningitis
(N = 4,781)		 Acute flaccid paralysis
(N = 937)		 Unspecified
(N = 373)
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Age group (yrs)
<20 166 (2) 237 (5) 12 (1) 9 (2)
20–39 456 (7) 1,044 (22) 96 (10) 28 (8)
40–59 1,805 (27) 1,889 (40) 345 (37) 118 (32)
≥60 4,316 (64) 1,611 (34) 484 (52) 218 (58)
Unknown 1 (<1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Sex
Female 2485 (37) 1,941 (41) 318 (34) 144 (39)
Male 4,259 (63) 2,840 (59) 619 (66) 229 (61)
Hospitalization
Yes 6,505 (96) 4,398 (92) 903 (96) 305 (82)
No 210 (3) 348 (7) 33 (4) 63 (17)
Unknown 29 (1) 35 (1) 1 (<1) 5 (1)
Death
Yes 913 (14) 101 (2) 121 (13) 19 (5)
No 5,535 (82) 4,517 (94) 778 (83) 335 (90)
Unknown 293 (4) 163 (3) 38 (4) 19 (5)

*N = 12,835. Clinical syndrome categories are mutually exclusive. Percentages might not sum to 100% because of rounding.

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 3. Annual incidence* of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, by year — United States, 2009–2018.
The figure is a bar chart presenting the incidence of West Nile Virus neuroinvasive disease by year during 2009-2018.

* Per 100,000 population. Incidence calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1 of each year of the reporting period. N = 12,835.

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 4. Average annual incidence* of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, by age group — United States, 2009–2018
The figure is a bar chart presenting the average annual incidence of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease by age groups 0-9 years, 10-19 years, 20-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and >70 years.

*Per 100,000 population. Average annual incidence rates calculated using U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2014, population estimates. N = 12,835.

Top

TABLE 5. Number and proportion of counties with West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases for the 10 states with the most reported cases — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
State No. counties Neuroinvasive disease cases No. and proportion of counties reporting neuroinvasive disease cases
≥1 case ≥75% of all state’s cases ≥50% of all
state’s cases
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
California 58 2,819 44 (76) 7 (12) 2 (3)
Texas 254 2,043 167 (66) 24 (9) 6 (2)
Illinois 102 728 59 (58) 4 (4) 1 (1)
Arizona 15 632 14 (93) 2 (13) 1 (7)
Louisiana 64 459 54 (84) 13 (20) 6 (9)
Colorado 64 459 36 (56) 10 (16) 5 (8)
New York 62 405 32 (51) 7 (11) 3 (5)
Michigan 83 394 38 (46) 4 (5) 2 (2)
Nebraska 93 369 63 (68) 20 (22) 7 (8)
Mississippi 82 350 52 (63) 15 (18) 5 (6)

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 5. Total number and cumulative incidence of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases, by state of residence — United States, 2009–2018*
The figure presents a pair of U.S. maps displaying the total number and cumulative incidence of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases by state of residence during 2009-2018.

*Per 100,000 population. Incidence calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2014. Cutpoints determined by Jenks natural breaks classification method, then rounded for ease of display.

Top

TABLE 6. Annual incidence* of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease, by year and state — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
Region/State 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average Median
United States 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.92 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.44 0.51 0.40 0.42
New England —† 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.42 0.13 0.10
   Connecticut — 0.20 0.22 0.33 0.03 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.06 0.50 0.17 0.14
   Maine — — — 0.08 — — 0.08 — — 0.07 0.02 0.00
   Massachusetts — 0.09 0.08 0.38 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.07 0.61 0.17 0.10
   New Hampshire — 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — 0.02 0.00
   Rhode Island — — 0.09 0.19 0.09 — — 0.19 0.09 — 0.07 0.05
   Vermont — — 0.16 0.16 0.16 — — 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.13 0.16
Middle Atlantic 0.02 0.30 0.09 0.28 0.08 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.16 0.52 0.18 0.13
   New Jersey 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.25 0.11 0.07 0.26 0.12 0.07 0.49 0.16 0.12
   New York 0.03 0.46 0.14 0.31 0.09 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.23 0.39 0.21 0.18
   Pennsylvania — 0.15 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.74 0.17 0.11
East North Central 0.02 0.17 0.16 1.06 0.36 0.13 0.24 0.38 0.41 0.65 0.36 0.30
   Illinois 0.04 0.35 0.17 1.45 0.67 0.28 0.40 0.76 0.56 0.99 0.57 0.48
   Indiana 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.70 0.29 0.14 0.24 0.23 0.27 0.39 0.25 0.24
   Michigan 0.01 0.25 0.32 1.42 0.24 0.01 0.16 0.42 0.32 0.80 0.40 0.29
   Ohio — 0.03 0.09 0.66 0.18 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.38 0.19 0.14
   Wisconsin 0.02 — 0.04 0.77 0.30 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.81 0.50 0.28 0.14
West North Central 0.13 0.16 0.15 1.08 1.38 0.50 0.39 0.83 0.55 1.70 0.69 0.53
   Iowa — 0.16 0.16 0.36 0.78 0.16 0.13 0.51 0.32 1.87 0.45 0.24
   Kansas 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.69 1.18 0.62 0.41 0.62 0.41 0.79 0.51 0.52
   Minnesota 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.63 0.57 0.11 0.05 0.69 0.23 0.61 0.30 0.17
   Missouri 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.28 0.40 0.17 0.38 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.23
   Nebraska 0.61 0.55 0.76 2.27 2.89 2.18 1.00 1.84 0.99 6.43 1.95 1.42
   North Dakota — 0.30 0.15 5.56 8.86 1.63 1.33 3.18 2.65 7.89 3.16 2.14
   South Dakota 0.74 0.49 — 7.44 6.77 1.41 1.29 4.06 3.09 5.33 3.06 2.25
South Atlantic 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.26 0.12 0.09
   Delaware — — 0.11 0.22 0.32 — — — — 0.83 0.15 0.00
   District of Columbia 0.34 0.50 1.61 1.26 — 0.15 0.44 0.15 0.14 1.00 0.56 0.39
   Florida 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.27 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.06
   Georgia 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.46 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.29 0.17 0.12
   Maryland — 0.29 0.17 0.42 0.19 0.10 0.52 0.10 0.08 0.58 0.25 0.18
   North Carolina — — 0.02 0.07 0.03 — 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.03
   South Carolina 0.07 0.02 — 0.42 0.06 0.06 — 0.12 0.32 0.24 0.13 0.07
   Virginia 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.45 0.14 0.09
   West Virginia — — 0.11 0.27 0.05 — — — 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.03
East South Central 0.21 0.04 0.30 0.93 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.25 0.61 0.35 0.33 0.26
   Alabama — 0.02 0.10 0.79 0.06 — 0.10 0.27 0.82 0.33 0.25 0.10
   Kentucky 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.30 0.02 — 0.02 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.08
   Mississippi 1.05 0.10 1.04 3.45 0.90 0.87 0.84 0.90 1.54 1.04 1.17 0.97
   Tennessee 0.06 0.03 0.25 0.29 0.26 0.18 0.08 0.05 0.33 0.16 0.17 0.17
West South Central 0.33 0.29 0.08 3.06 0.59 0.86 0.77 0.81 0.44 0.45 0.77 0.52
   Arkansas 0.21 0.21 0.03 1.49 0.54 0.30 0.54 0.27 0.50 0.20 0.43 0.29
   Louisiana 0.22 0.44 0.13 3.37 0.74 1.31 0.88 0.81 0.81 1.20 0.99 0.81
   Oklahoma 0.22 0.03 0.03 2.70 1.56 0.23 1.25 0.53 0.86 0.30 0.77 0.42
   Texas 0.37 0.31 0.08 3.24 0.43 0.94 0.71 0.90 0.31 0.38 0.77 0.41
Mountain 0.35 0.71 0.32 0.84 0.94 0.68 0.66 0.65 1.00 0.53 0.67 0.67
   Arizona 0.19 1.67 0.76 1.33 0.75 1.19 0.98 0.82 1.39 0.35 0.94 0.90
   Colorado 0.72 0.52 0.04 1.19 1.71 0.86 1.05 1.06 0.52 0.91 0.86 0.89
   Idaho 0.58 — 0.06 0.31 0.87 0.37 0.30 0.18 0.93 0.57 0.42 0.34
   Montana 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 0.99 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.28 2.35 0.48 0.24
   Nevada 0.26 — 0.44 0.18 0.29 0.11 0.14 0.45 1.04 0.10 0.30 0.22
   New Mexico 0.29 1.02 0.19 1.15 1.15 0.91 0.57 0.29 1.10 0.24 0.69 0.74
   Utah 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.17 0.23 1.26 0.22 0.23 0.13
   Wyoming 0.71 0.35 0.18 0.52 2.75 — 0.51 1.37 0.69 0.52 0.76 0.52
Pacific 0.19 0.15 0.22 0.59 0.48 1.11 1.13 0.65 0.78 0.30 0.56 0.54
   Alaska — — — — — — — — — 0.14 0.01 0.00
   California 0.18 0.19 0.29 0.78 0.62 1.45 1.50 0.85 1.02 0.39 0.73 0.70
   Hawaii — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
   Oregon 0.03 — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04
   Washington 0.39 0.01 — 0.06 — 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.03 0.09 0.08

*Per 100,000 population, calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1 for each year of the reporting period.
† No reported cases during this year.

Top

TABLE 7. Number and proportion of U.S. total of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases* among counties with the highest number of cases — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
County State Neuroinvasive disease cases
No. (% of U.S. total) Annual median (Range)
Los Angeles California 1,092 (8.5) 112 (3–239)
Maricopa Arizona 468 (3.6) 45 (12–81)
Cook Illinois 432 (3.4) 32 (1–121)
Orange California 375 (2.9) 17 (1–197)
Harris Texas 304 (2.4) 20 (6–103)
Dallas Texas 281 (2.2) 11 (0–175)
Tarrant Texas 215 (1.7) 12 (0–105)
Riverside California 189 (1.5) 11 (0–91)
San Bernardino California 165 (1.3) 10 (2–47)
Wayne Michigan 155 (1.2) 11 (0–67)
Stanislaus California 120 (0.9) 10 (7–22)
El Paso Texas 119 (0.9) 13 (3–22)
Kern California 109 (0.8) 11 (4–18)
Nassau New York 88 (0.7) 6 (0–38)
Denton Texas 87 (0.7) 4 (0–54)
Fresno California 87 (0.7) 10 (3–14)
Pima Arizona 85 (0.7) 5 (0–26)
Tulare California 81 (0.6) 8 (2–15)
Oklahoma Oklahoma 79 (0.6) 4 (0–33)
Sacramento California 79 (0.6) 7 (0–22)
DuPage Illinois 74 (0.6) 5 (0–27)
Butte California 71 (0.6) 6 (0–23)
Hinds Mississippi 70 (0.5) 8 (0–12)
East Baton Rouge Louisiana 70 (0.5) 5 (0–21)

* N = 12,835 U.S. cases.

Top

Return to your place in the textFIGURE 6. Total number and cumulative incidence of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases, by county of residence — United States, 2009–2018*
The figure presents a pair of U.S. maps displaying the total number and cumulative incidence of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases by county of residence during 2009-2018.

*Per 100,000 population. Incidence calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2014. Cutpoints determined by Jenks natural breaks classification method, then rounded for ease of display.

Top

TABLE 8. Number and cumulative incidence* of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases among counties with the highest incidence — United States, 2009–2018Return to your place in the text
County State Neuroinvasive
disease cases		 County
population		 Cumulative incidence
Banner Nebraska 2 670 299
Glasscock Texas 3 1,327 226
Roberts Texas 2 914 219
McLean North Dakota 15 9,550 157
Foard Texas 2 1,276 157
Treasure Montana 1 689 145
Sully South Dakota 2 1,405 142
Dewey South Dakota 8 5,659 141
Hooker Nebraska 1 722 139
Sedgwick Colorado 3 2,333 129
McPherson South Dakota 3 2,418 124
Floyd Texas 7 5,947 118
McCone Montana 2 1,714 117
Baylor Texas 4 3,567 112
Aurora South Dakota 3 2,743 109
Billings North Dakota 1 920 109
Cheyenne Colorado 2 1,846 108
Dundy Nebraska 2 1,865 107
Washington Colorado 5 4,732 106
Steele North Dakota 2 1,912 105
Armstrong Texas 2 1,913 105
Logan North Dakota 2 1,941 103
Douglas South Dakota 3 2,928 102
Sargent North Dakota 4 3,919 102

*Per 100,000 population, calculated using U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2014.

Top


Suggested citation for this article: McDonald E, Mathis S, Martin SW, Staples JE, Fischer M, Lindsey NP. Surveillance for West Nile Virus Disease — United States, 2009–2018. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021;70(No. SS-1):1–15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7001a1.

MMWR and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.

All HTML versions of MMWR articles are generated from final proofs through an automated process. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables.

Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

View Page In: PDF [2M]