4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Non-O157 shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections in the United States, 1983-2002

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 192, 期 8, 页码 1422-1429

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/466536

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157:H7 is a well-recognized cause of bloody diarrhea and hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS). Non-O157 STEC contribute to this burden of illness but have been underrecognized as a result of diagnostic limitations and inadequate surveillance. Methods. Between 1983 and 2002, 43 state public health laboratories submitted 940 human non-O157 STEC isolates from persons with sporadic illnesses to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention reference laboratory for confirmation and serotyping. Results. The most common serogroups were O26 (22%), O111 (16%), O103 (12%), O121 (8%), O45 (7%), and O145 (5%). Non-O157 STEC infections were most frequent during the summer and among young persons ( median age, 12 years; interquartile range, 3 - 37 years). Virulence gene profiles were as follows: 61% stx(1) but not stx(2); 22% stx(2) but not stx(1); 17% both stx(1) and stx(2); 84% intimin (eae); and 86% enterohemolysin (E-hly). stx(2) was strongly associated with an increased risk of HUS, and eae was strongly associated with an increased risk of bloody diarrhea. STEC O111 accounted for most cases of HUS and was also the cause of 3 of 7 non-O157 STEC outbreaks reported in the United States. Conclusions. Non-O157 STEC can cause severe illness that is comparable to the illness caused by STEC O157. Strains that produce Shiga toxin 2 are much more likely to cause HUS than are those that produce Shiga toxin 1 alone. Improving surveillance will more fully elucidate the incidence and pathological spectrum of these emerging agents. These efforts require increased clinical suspicion, improved clinical laboratory isolation, and continued serotyping of isolates in public health laboratories.

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

4.7
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