4.5 Article

Seroepidemiology of Burkholderia pseudomallei, Etiologic Agent of Melioidosis, in the Ouest and Sud-Est Departments of Haiti

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0352

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense (DOD) Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS) [C0607_12_UN]
  2. Infectious Disease Society of America's Medical Scholars Program
  3. University of Florida pre-eminence initiative start-up fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burkholderia pseudomallei, the etiological agent of melioidosis, has been hypothesized to be endemic throughout the Caribbean, including the impoverished nation of Haiti. However, because of the protean clinical manifestations, presence of asymptomatic infections, and limited medical diagnostic capacity, the identification of active melioidosis cases remains challenging. A seroepidemiological study was conducted using a novel enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect antibodies toward B. pseudomallei in the native population. The performance of an indirect ELISA with purified lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from B. pseudomallei was evaluated using serum collected from rhesus macaques exposed to aerosolized B. pseudomallei. After optimization, serum collected from asymptomatic population members (n = 756) was screened for polyvalent (immunoglobulin M [IgM]/immunoglobulin G [IgG]/immunoglobulin A) and monoclonal (IgG or IgM) immunoglobulins against B. pseudomallei LPS. The population seroprevalence was 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2, 13.8) for polyvalent immunoglobulins, 9.8% (95% CI: 7.7, 11.9) for IgG, and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.8, 2.6%) for IgM. The seroprevalence was not significantly different by gender (P = 0.16), but increased significantly (P < 0.001) with age, yielding an estimated annual seroconversion rate of 1.05% (95% CI: 0.81, 1.3). The detection of both recent (IgM+) and previous (IgG+) exposure to B. pseudomallei provides serological evidence that melioidosis is endemic in Haiti.

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