4.5 Article

Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii antibodies and chronic Q fever among post-mortal and living donors of tissues and cells from 2010 to 2015 in the Netherlands

Journal

EUROSURVEILLANCE
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 19-27

Publisher

EUR CENTRE DIS PREVENTION & CONTROL
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.9.17-00384

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: After a large Q fever outbreak in the Netherlands in the period from 2007 to 2010, the risk of Q fever transmission through tissue and cell transplantation from undiagnosed chronic Q fever cases became a potential issue. Aim: We aimed to evaluate the risk of Q fever transmission through tissue and cell transplantation. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study among 15,133 Dutch donors of tissues and stem cells from 2010 to 2015 to assess seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii antibodies, to identify factors associated with presence of C. burnetii antibodies, and to assess the proportion of undiagnosed chronic Q fever cases. Results: The study population consisted of 9,478 (63%) femoral head donors, 5,090 (34%) post-mortal tissue donors and 565 (4%) cord blood donors. Seroprevalence of C. burnetii antibodies gradually decreased after the outbreak, from 2.1% in 2010 to 1.4% in 2015, with a significant trend in time (p < 0.001). Of 301 seropositive donors, seven (2.3%) were newly detected with chronic Q fever (0.05% of all screened donors). Conclusion: This study shows that seroprevalence of C. burnetii antibodies among donors of tissues and cells in the Netherlands after 2014 was similar to pre-outbreak levels in the general population. The proportion of newly detected chronic Q fever patients among donors of tissues and cells was smaller than 0.1%. This study may prompt discussion on when to terminate the screening programme for chronic Q fever in donors of tissues and cells in the Netherlands.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available