4.5 Article

Epidemiological investigation of recurrent outbreaks of haemolytic uraemic syndrome caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotype O55:H7 in England, 2014-2018

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268821000844

关键词

Food-borne zoonoses; gastrointestinal infections; outbreaks; public health emerging infections; Shiga-like toxin-producing E; coli

资金

  1. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrent outbreaks of haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serotype O55:H7 occurred in England between 2014 and 2018. The cases were predominantly female and over half developed HUS, resulting in two fatal cases, although no common exposure sources were identified.
Recurrent outbreaks of haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serotype O55:H7 occurred in England between 2014 and 2018. We reviewed the epidemiological evidence to identify potential source(s) and transmission routes of the pathogen, and to assess the on-going risk to public health. Over the 5-year period, there were 43 confirmed and three probable cases of STEC O55:H7. The median age of cases was 4 years old (range 6 months to 69 years old) and over half of all cases were female (28/46, 61%). There were 36/46 (78.3%) symptomatic cases, and over half of all cases developed HUS (25/46, 54%), including two fatal cases. No common food or environmental exposures were identified, although the majority of cases lived in rural or semi-rural environments and reported contact with both wild and domestic animals. This investigation informed policy on the clinical and public health management of HUS caused by STEC other than serotype O157:H7 (non-O157 STEC) in England, including comprehensive testing of all household contacts and household pets and more widespread use of polymerase chain reaction assays for the rapid diagnosis of STEC-HUS.

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

4.5
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