4.4 Review

Human anisakiasis in Italy: a retrospective epidemiological study over two decades

Journal

PARASITE
Volume 25, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2018034

Keywords

Anisakis sp.; Anisakis pegreffii; zoonosis; diagnosis; anchovies; seafood safety

Categories

Funding

  1. Istituto Pasteur Italia- Fondazione Cenci Bolognetti

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A retrospective analysis on human anisakiasis in Italy since its first description in 1996 was performed by conducting a literature search. Inclusion criteria based on the presence of a larva and on parasite identification were applied. Epidemiological data and clinical features were analysed. Particular attention was paid to the source of infection. In total, 73 cases were included in the analysis, while 34 were excluded. Cases were reported from eight Italian regions, most frequently Abruzzo, Apulia and Latium. The parasite was detected by endoscopy (51.4%) or laparotomy (48.6%). The site of infection was intestinal (42.5%), gastric (43.8%), oesophageal (1.4%) or ectopic (12.3%). Most of the parasites (71.0%) were identified as Anisakis sp. or A. simplex (s.l.). However, when molecular methods were used (21 cases), A. pegreffii was always identified. In most of the patients (65.7%), the source of infection was raw or undercooked anchovies, followed by anchovies or sardines'' (15.1%), generic raw seafood'' (15.1%), and sardines (1.4%). In only 2 cases (2.7%), the source was not available. This is the first systematic analysis of Italian cases of anisakiasis. The main conclusions derived from the results are: i) attention should be given to the history, in particular when raw marinated anchovies, proven to be the main source of human anisakiasis in Italy, are consumed; ii) in order to assess correct epidemiological data, a confirmed and specific etiological identification should always be sought.'

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available