Dataset Information

Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Psittacosis outbreak investigations require rapid identification of cases in order to trace possible sources and perform public health risk assessments. In recent outbreaks in the Netherlands, such investigations were hampered by the non-specificity of laboratory testing methods to identify human Chlamydia psittaci infections.

Method

A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases of literature published between 01 January, 1986 and 03 July, 2017 was done to find best practices of laboratory-testing methods used in psittacosis outbreaks of two or more human cases. Reference lists of included articles were hand searched to identify additional articles.

Results

Thirty-seven eligible articles were identified, describing 44 human psittacosis outbreaks in 12 countries. Laboratory tests performed were PCR (with various targets), serologic tests (complement binding reactions, ELISA's, immunofluorescence tests and immuno-peroxidase tests) and culture, in various combinations. The literature provided no 'gold standard' laboratory testing strategy to identify recent human C. psittaci infections. In most psittacosis outbreaks, for a considerable number of cases (or tested individuals in an exposed cohort), C. psittaci infection could not be confirmed, nor excluded as causative pathogen. None of the testing strategies was found to be suitable for (nearly) full case finding.

Conclusion

PCR enables rapid identification of human psittacosis patients and helps source finding by genotyping but has the disadvantage that sensitivity is high only in the acute phase. In outbreak situations, there is often a time delay and therefore, there is a need for new serologic testing methods next to PCR, with good specificity and sensitivity. Moreover, serum is easier to collect than the preferred diagnostic materials for PCR. A serologic test that can reliably confirm infection status without the necessity of convalescent serum sampling would enhance case finding, source tracing, identification of risk factors and assessment of burden of disease in various settings.

SUBMITTER: Nieuwenhuizen AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6118005 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.

Nieuwenhuizen Annelies A AA Dijkstra Frederika F Notermans Daan W DW van der Hoek Wim W

BMC infectious diseases 20180830 1

<h4>Background</h4>Psittacosis outbreak investigations require rapid identification of cases in order to trace possible sources and perform public health risk assessments. In recent outbreaks in the Netherlands, such investigations were hampered by the non-specificity of laboratory testing methods to identify human Chlamydia psittaci infections.<h4>Method</h4>A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases of literature published between 01 January, 1986 and 03 July, 2017 was done to find bes ...[more]

PMID: 30165831

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Chlamydia psittaci is a gram-negative, obligate intracellular organism. Birds are the main reservoir, but also non-avian domestic animals and humans can be infected. In humans it mostly causes respiratory infections due to occupational exposure with varying severity. Sensitive and specific diagnostic tests are needed to define psittacosis in humans as these tests also allow rapid tracing of the animal source. However, diagnosis in humans is often based on time-consuming culture techniques and antibody detection assays as in many countries, the existing molecular diagnostic tests for psittacosis are not reimbursed by the public health insurance. Case presentation:An 82-year old female was referred to the hospital with a non-productive cough since four weeks and since one week fever up to 39?°C, myalgia, generalized skin rash, acral edema and generalized weakness under treatment with moxifloxacin. Blood analysis showed signs of inflammation with mild eosinophilia. Chest CT showed multiple peripheral ground glass opacities with consolidation in both lungs. Pulmonary function testing only showed a mild decrease in diffusion capacity. Viral and bacterial serology were negative. As the patient kept a pet parakeet for over ten years, a nested PCR for C. psittaci was performed on a nasopharyngeal swab of the patient and on feces of the parakeet. Both returned positive for the same genotype. Genotyping was performed by a genotype-specific real-time PCR. The patient fully recovered after a ten-day course of azithromycin. Conclusion:Due to non-specific signs during psittacosis, early detection of the infection and differentiation from hypersensitivity pneumonitis can be challenging. Culture and antibody titers for C. psittaci have a lower sensitivity than PCR-testing due to several factors. We present a case of human psittacosis (presenting as pneumonia) with diagnosis based on clinical findings confirmed by means of nested PCR. This case suggests the added value of PCR in suspect cases despite negative serology. Our current paper underlines the need for a broader implementation of PCR for early diagnosis of human psittacosis and thus early initiation of correct antibiotic treatment with reduction of morbidity and mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Human psittacosis, caused by Chlamydia (C.) psittaci, is likely underdiagnosed and underreported, since tests for C. psittaci are often not included in routine microbiological diagnostics. Source tracing traditionally focuses on psittacine pet birds, but recently other animal species have been gaining more attention as possible sources for human psittacosis. This review aims to provide an overview of all suspected animal sources of human psittacosis cases reported in the international literature. In addition, for each animal species the strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission was estimated. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted using four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Proquest). Articles were included when there was mention of at least one human case of psittacosis and a possible animal source. Investigators independently extracted data from the included articles and estimated strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission, based on a self-developed scoring system taking into account number of human cases, epidemiological evidence and laboratory test results in human, animals, and the environment. RESULTS:Eighty articles were included, which provided information on 136 different situations of possible zoonotic transmission. The maximum score for zoonotic transmission was highest for turkeys, followed by ducks, owls, and the category 'other poultry'. Articles reporting about zoonotic transmission from unspecified birds, psittaciformes and columbiformes provided a relatively low strength of evidence. A genotypical match between human and animal samples was reported twenty-eight times, including transmission from chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, peafowl, pigeons, ducks, geese, songbirds, parrot-like birds and owls. CONCLUSIONS:Strong evidence exists for zoonotic transmission from turkeys, chickens and ducks, in addition to the more traditionally reported parrot-like animal sources. Based on our scoring system, the evidence was generally stronger for poultry than for parrot-like birds. Psittaciformes should not be disregarded as an important source of human psittacosis, still clinicians and public health officials should include poultry and birds species other than parrots in medical history and source tracing.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-based active case-finding interventions might identify and treat more people with tuberculosis disease than standard case detection. We aimed to assess whether active case-finding interventions can affect tuberculosis epidemiology in the wider community.MethodsWe did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies that compared tuberculosis case notification rates, tuberculosis disease prevalence, or tuberculosis infection prevalence or incidence in children, between populations exposed and unexposed to active case-finding interventions. We included studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and April 13, 2020. Studies of active case-finding in the general population, in populations perceived to be at high risk for tuberculosis, and in closed settings were included, whereas studies of tuberculosis screening at health-care facilities, among household contacts, or among children only, and studies that screened fewer than 1000 people were excluded. To estimate effectiveness, we extracted or calculated case notification rates, prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children, and compared ratios of these outcomes between groups that were exposed or not exposed to active case-finding interventions.Results27 883 abstracts were screened and 988 articles underwent full text review. 28 studies contributed data for analysis of tuberculosis case notifications, nine for prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and two for incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children. In one cluster-randomised trial in South Africa and Zambia, an active case-finding intervention based on community mobilisation and sputum drop-off did not affect tuberculosis prevalence, whereas, in a cluster-randomised trial in Vietnam, an active case-finding intervention based on sputum tuberculosis tests for everyone reduced tuberculosis prevalence in the community. We found inconsistent, low-quality evidence that active case-finding might increase the number of cases of tuberculosis notified in populations with structural risk factors for tuberculosis.InterpretationCommunity-based active case-finding for tuberculosis might be effective in changing tuberculosis epidemiology and thereby improving population health if delivered with high coverage and intensity. If possible, active case-finding projects should incorporate a well designed, robust evaluation to contribute to the evidence base and help elucidate which delivery methods and diagnostic strategies are most effective.FundingWHO Global TB Programme.

Project description:BackgroundActive case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is the cornerstone case-finding strategy in India's national TB policy. However, ACF strategies are highly diverse and pose implementation challenges in routine programming. We reviewed the literature to characterise ACF in India; assess the yield of ACF for different risk groups, screening locations, and screening criteria; and estimate losses to follow-up (LTFU) in screening and diagnosis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library to identify studies with ACF for TB in India from November 2010 to December 2020. We calculated 1) weighted mean number needed to screen (NNS) stratified by risk group, screening location, and screening strategy; and 2) the proportion of screening and pre-diagnostic LTFU. We assessed risk of bias using the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies.FindingsOf 27,416 abstracts screened, we included 45 studies conducted in India. Most studies were from southern and western India and aimed to diagnose pulmonary TB at the primary health level in the public sector after screening. There was considerable heterogeneity in risk groups screened and ACF methodology across studies. Of the 17 risk groups identified, the lowest weighted mean NNS was seen in people with HIV (21, range 3-89, n=5), tribal populations (50, range 40-286, n=3), household contacts of people with TB (50, range 3-undefined, n=12), people with diabetes (65, range 21-undefined, n=3), and rural populations (131, range 23-737, n=5). ACF at facility-based screening (60, range 3-undefined, n=19) had lower weighted mean NNS than at other screening locations. Using the WHO symptom screen (135, 3-undefined, n=20) had lower weighted mean NNS than using criteria of abnormal chest x-ray or any symptom. Median screening and pre-diagnosis loss-to-follow-up was 6% (IQR 4.1%, 11.3%, range 0-32.5%, n=12) and 9.5% (IQR 2.4%, 34.4%, range 0-86.9%, n=27), respectively.InterpretationFor ACF to be impactful in India, its design must be based on contextual understanding. The narrow evidence base available currently is insufficient for effectively targeting ACF programming in a large and diverse country. Achieving case-finding targets in India requires evidence-based ACF implementation.FundingWHO Global TB Programme.

Dataset Information

Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets