4.7 Article

Epidemiology of bacterial meningitis in the North American Arctic, 2000-2010

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 71, Issue 2, Pages 179-187

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.04.001

Keywords

Bacterial meningitis; Epidemiology; Haemophilus influenzae; Neisseria meningitidis; Streptococcus pneumoniae

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the incidence of meningitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae in the North American Arctic during 2000-2010. Methods: Surveillance data were obtained from the International Circumpolar Surveillance network. We defined a case of bacterial meningitis caused by H. influenzae, N. meningitidis, or S. pneumoniae as a culture-positive isolate obtained from a normally sterile site in a resident with a meningitis diagnosis. Results: The annual incidence/100,000 persons for meningitis caused by H. influenzae, N. meningitidis, and S. pneumoniae among all North American Arctic residents was: 0.6, 0.5, and 1.5, respectively; the meningitis incidence among indigenous persons in Alaska and Canada (indigenous status not recorded in Greenland) for those three bacteria was: 2.1, 0.8, and 2.4, respectively. The percentage of pneumococcal isolates belonging to a 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine serotype declined from 2000-2004 to 2005-2010 (31%-2%, p-value <0.01). During 2005-2010, serotype a caused 55% of H. influenzae meningitis and serogroup B caused 86% of meningococcal meningitis. Conclusions: Compared with all North American Arctic residents, indigenous people suffer disproportionately from bacterial meningitis. Arctic residents could benefit from the development of an H. influenzae serotype a vaccine and implementation of a meningococcal serogroup B vaccine. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available