Epidemiological survey of tick-borne encephalitis virus and Anaplasma phagocytophilum co-infections in patients from regions of the Czech Republic endemic for tick-borne diseases
Jazyk angličtina Země Rakousko Médium print
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- Anaplasma phagocytophilum * genetika MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- DNA bakterií analýza MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- ehrlichióza komplikace diagnóza epidemiologie imunologie MeSH
- fluorescenční protilátková technika nepřímá MeSH
- imunoglobulin G krev imunologie MeSH
- klíšťová encefalitida komplikace diagnóza epidemiologie imunologie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- polymerázová řetězová reakce MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- protilátky bakteriální krev imunologie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- studie případů a kontrol MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- western blotting MeSH
- zkřížené reakce MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika epidemiologie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- DNA bakterií MeSH
- imunoglobulin G MeSH
- protilátky bakteriální MeSH
During the period 2000-2003, patients hospitalized for suspected tick-borne encephalitis in the Czech Republic were screened for possible A. phagocytophilum co-infection. Blood samples taken at admission were tested for the presence of A. phagocytophilum DNA by nested PCR using a modified target sequence as an internal control, and sera were tested for the presence of antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and western blotting methods using cell-culture-derived antigens. To verify the assay specificity, a set of 45 sera of Patagonian residents served as a non-tick-exposed control group, and a set of 14 B. henselae-positive sera was used to check cross-reactivity. Of 809 patients hospitalized, 80 (9.9%) showed IgG antibodies reactive to A. phagocytophilum at > or =80 (reciprocal dilution factor) and 50 (6.2%) at > or =160; two (0.2%) patients showed elevated IgM titers of 40. No full blood obtained from 162 patients tested positive in PCR when false negativity was excluded. During hospitalization, the diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis was confirmed in 536 patients, 57 (10.6%) of whom had anti-A. phagocytophilum IgG antibodies reactive at > or =80 and 41 (7.6%) at > or =160, which did not differ significantly from the whole set (P = 0.66/0.30), the maximum IgG titer registered was 5120, and no IgM titer reached the 40 cut-off. Available paired sera from 189 tick-borne encephalitis patients showed no significant shifts, but one case of slight seroconversion (IgG shift from < 80 to 320) was detected in one of the non-tick-borne encephalitis patients. The sex of the patient showed no significance for the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum antibodies; however, the seropositive patients were older on average than those who were seronegative (43.5 +/- 15.9 vs. 37.9 +/- 18.3 years, P = 0.05). Clinical manifestation of the disease did not differ noticeably between patients with and without A. phagocytophilumreactive antibodies, except for fever duration, which was significantly longer in patients with titers > or =1280. Overall, A. phagocytophilum co-infection did not seem to be a frequent and/or significant complication of tick-borne encephalitis acquired in the Czech Republic.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2002 Dec;8(12):763-72 PubMed
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1986 May 30;111(22):861-4 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2004 Apr;293 Suppl 37:48-54 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2004 Apr;293 Suppl 37:69-79 PubMed
Parasitology. 2004;129 Suppl:S301-27 PubMed
Rocz Akad Med Bialymst. 1996;41(1):40-3 PubMed
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2002 Jul 31;114(13-14):620-2 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Oct;11(10):894-900 PubMed
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Mar;10(3):533-4 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Oct;40(10):3802-4 PubMed
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2004;11(2):351-4 PubMed
Acta Leiden. 1992;60(2):15-7 PubMed
Acta Leiden. 1992;60(2):1-14 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Aug 15;33(4):503-10 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Apr;36(4):1090-5 PubMed
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2004;11(1):155-7 PubMed
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2001 Jan;8(1):199-202 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001 Mar;20(3):173-8 PubMed
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;12(2):353-5 PubMed
Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 2000 Oct 14;130(41):1462-70 PubMed
Infection. 1988 Sep-Oct;16(5):269-72 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Mar 15;32(6):897-928 PubMed
Infection. 2005 Jun;33(3):158-9 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998 Mar;17(3):207-9 PubMed
Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Mar;11(3):485-8 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Jul;37(7):2215-22 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Feb;41(2):717-22 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Nov;37(11):3448-51 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Nov;41(11):5033-40 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Mar;16(3):392-6 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2004 Apr;293 Suppl 37:104-8 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2002 Jun;291 Suppl 33:190-3 PubMed
Lancet. 2001 Jul 7;358(9275):16-8 PubMed
Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1996 Nov 30;126(48):2072-7 PubMed
Infection. 2001 Oct;29(5):271-3 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2004 Apr;293 Suppl 37:27-35 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;19(6):427-32 PubMed
