BACKGROUND: The epidemiology over time of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is unknown. Since 1999, increasing numbers of laboratories in Connecticut have been testing for ST rather than culturing for O157, enabling identification of non-O157 STEC. METHODS: Beginning in 2000, Connecticut laboratories were required to submit ST-positive broths to the State Laboratory for isolation and typing of STEC. The ratio of non-O157:O157 from laboratories conducting ST testing was used to determine state-level estimates for non-O157 STEC. Patients with STEC were interviewed for exposure factors in the 7 days preceding illness. Incidence trends, clinical features, and epidemiology of non-O157 and O157 STEC infections were compared. RESULTS: From 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2009, ST testing detected 392 (59%) of 663 reported STEC infections; 229 (58%) of the isolates were non-O157. The estimated incidence of STEC infection decreased by 34%. O157 and the top 4 non-O157 serogroups, O111, O103, O26, and O45, were a stable percentage of all STEC isolates over the 10-year period. Bloody diarrhea, hospitalization, and hemolytic uremic syndrome were more common in patients with O157 STEC than in patients with non-O157 STEC infection. Exposure risks of patients with non-O157 STEC infection differed from those of patients with O157 STEC infection primarily in international travel (15.3% vs 2.5%; P < .01). Non-O157 types differed from each other with respect to several epidemiologic and exposure features. CONCLUSIONS: Both O157 and non-O157 STEC infection incidence decreased from 2000 through 2009. Although infection due to O157 is the most common and clinically severe STEC infection, it accounts for a minority of all clinically significant STEC infections. STEC appear to be a diverse group of organisms that have some differences as well as many epidemiologic and exposure features in common.
BACKGROUND: The epidemiology over time of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is unknown. Since 1999, increasing numbers of laboratories in Connecticut have been testing for ST rather than culturing for O157, enabling identification of non-O157 STEC. METHODS: Beginning in 2000, Connecticut laboratories were required to submit ST-positive broths to the State Laboratory for isolation and typing of STEC. The ratio of non-O157:O157 from laboratories conducting ST testing was used to determine state-level estimates for non-O157 STEC. Patients with STEC were interviewed for exposure factors in the 7 days preceding illness. Incidence trends, clinical features, and epidemiology of non-O157 and O157 STEC infections were compared. RESULTS: From 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2009, ST testing detected 392 (59%) of 663 reported STEC infections; 229 (58%) of the isolates were non-O157. The estimated incidence of STEC infection decreased by 34%. O157 and the top 4 non-O157 serogroups, O111, O103, O26, and O45, were a stable percentage of all STEC isolates over the 10-year period. Bloody diarrhea, hospitalization, and hemolytic uremic syndrome were more common in patients with O157 STEC than in patients with non-O157 STEC infection. Exposure risks of patients with non-O157 STEC infection differed from those of patients with O157 STEC infection primarily in international travel (15.3% vs 2.5%; P < .01). Non-O157 types differed from each other with respect to several epidemiologic and exposure features. CONCLUSIONS: Both O157 and non-O157 STEC infection incidence decreased from 2000 through 2009. Although infection due to O157 is the most common and clinically severe STEC infection, it accounts for a minority of all clinically significant STEC infections. STEC appear to be a diverse group of organisms that have some differences as well as many epidemiologic and exposure features in common.
Authors: Xuetao Wang; Marsha Taylor; Linda Hoang; Judi Ekkert; Craig Nowakowski; Jason Stone; Greg Tone; Steven Trerise; Ana Paccagnella; Titus Wong; Eleni Galanis Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Sarah E Pierce; Rebecca L Bell; Rosalee S Hellberg; Chorng-Ming Cheng; Kai-Shun Chen; Donna M Williams-Hill; William B Martin; Marc W Allard Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: James L Hadler; Paula Clogher; Jennifer Huang; Tanya Libby; Alicia Cronquist; Siri Wilson; Patricia Ryan; Amy Saupe; Cyndy Nicholson; Suzanne McGuire; Beletshachew Shiferaw; John Dunn; Sharon Hurd Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Deborah V Hoyle; Marianne Keith; Helen Williamson; Kareen Macleod; Heather Mathie; Ian Handel; Carol Currie; Anne Holmes; Lesley Allison; Rebecca McLean; Rebecca Callaby; Thibaud Porphyre; Sue C Tongue; Madeleine K Henry; Judith Evans; George J Gunn; David L Gally; Nuno Silva; Margo E Chase-Topping Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: David C Alexander; Weilong Hao; Matthew W Gilmour; Sandra Zittermann; Alicia Sarabia; Roberto G Melano; Analyn Peralta; Marina Lombos; Keisha Warren; Yuri Amatnieks; Evangeline Virey; Jennifer H Ma; Frances B Jamieson; Donald E Low; Vanessa G Allen Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.883