4.6 Article

Diagnosis of Whooping Cough in Switzerland: Differentiating Bordetella pertussis from Bordetella holmesii by Polymerase Chain Reaction

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088936

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genomic Research Laboratory (Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals)
  2. Centre for Vaccinology and Neonatal Immunology (Geneva University Hospitals)
  3. Centre for Vaccinology and Neonatal Immunology (Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bordetella holmesii, an emerging pathogen, can be misidentified as Bordetella pertussis by routine polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In some reports, up to 29% of the patients diagnosed with pertussis have in fact B. holmesii infection and invasive, non-respiratory B. holmesii infections have been reported worldwide. This misdiagnosis undermines the knowledge of pertussis' epidemiology, and may lead to misconceptions on pertussis vaccine's efficacy. Recently, the number of whooping cough cases has increased significantly in several countries. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether B. holmesii was contributing to the increase in laboratory-confirmed cases of B. pertussis in Switzerland. A multiplex species-specific quantitative PCR assay was performed on 196 nasopharyngeal samples from Swiss patients with PCR-confirmed Bordetella infection (median age: 6 years-old, minimum 21 days-old, maximum 86 years-old), formerly diagnosed as Bordetella pertussis (IS481+). No B. holmesii (IS481+, IS10012, hIS1001+) was identified. We discuss whether laboratories should implement specific PCR to recognize different Bordetella species. We conclude that in Switzerland B. holmesii seems to be circulating less than in neighboring countries and that specific diagnostic procedures are not necessary routinely. However, as the epidemiological situation may change rapidly, periodic reevaluation is suggested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据