4.7 Article

Geoclimatic Influences on Invasive Aspergillosis after Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 50, 期 12, 页码 1588-1597

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/652761

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI51468, AI54736, CA 18029, CA15704, UL1 RR024140]
  2. Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland [P30CA069533]
  3. Schering-Plough
  4. Pfizer
  5. Astellas
  6. Enzon
  7. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Aspergillus species are ubiquitous. We hypothesized that climatic variables that affect airborne mold counts affect the incidence of invasive aspergillosis (IA). Methods. Patients who received hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) in geographically and climatically diverse regions (Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX) were examined. Cumulative incidence function, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed to examine the association between IA and season. Poisson regression analysis was performed to evaluate the seasonal patterns in IA rates and association with spore counts and climate. Results. In Seattle, the 3-month incidence of IA was 4.6% (5.7% in allograft recipients and 0.8% in autograft recipients). During the 10-year study period, there was a decrease in the incidence of IA among allogeneic HSCT recipients, corresponding to decreased risks during the nonsummer months; receipt of HSCTs during the summer months was associated with an increased hazard for IA (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.81) after adjustment for other known risks. The person-month IA rate in Seattle was positively associated with environmental spore counts, which increased with high temperature and low precipitation. No seasonal effect on IA was observed in Houston, where total spore counts were lower and not variable by climate. Conclusions. Climatic variables differentially affect airborne spore counts and IA risk in geographically disparate centers.

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