4.7 Article

Lyme Disease and Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis Coinfection: Impact of Case Definition on Coinfection Rates and Illness Severity

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 93-99

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis852

关键词

Lyme; HGA; anaplasmosis; co-infection

资金

  1. Westchester County Department of Health [47-182, HLT-28017, 28018]
  2. New York State Department of Health [CMC-2502]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  4. National Institutes of Health
  5. Immunetics
  6. Bio-Rad
  7. DiaSorin
  8. bioMerieux

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Lyme disease is transmitted by the bite of the Ixodes scapularis tick, which can also transmit Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA). Conflicting data exist on the frequency of coinfection and on whether Lyme-HGA coinfected patients have more symptoms than patients with Lyme disease alone. Methods. Blood culture and serology were used to detect HGA infection in patients with early Lyme disease who presented with erythema migrans. The rate of coinfection was determined using different definitions. The clinical and laboratory features of Lyme-HGA coinfection were compared with that of the individual infections. Results. Among 311 patients with erythema migrans, the frequency of coinfection with HGA varied from 2.3% to 10.0%, depending on the definition used (P<.001). Only 1 of 4 groups with presumed coinfection had significantly more symptoms than patients with Lyme disease alone P<.05. High fever and cytopenia were less common in Lyme-HGA coinfection than in patients with HGA alone. Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that how HGA is defined in patients with early Lyme disease has an impact on the apparent rate of coinfection and the severity of illness. The findings also suggest that HGA may be less severe than is usually believed, suggesting the existence of referral bias in testing patients preferentially who present with high fever or cytopenia.

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