Cornelia C H Wielders1, Joris A F van Loenhout2, Gabriëlla Morroy3, Ariene Rietveld4, Daan W Notermans5, Peter C Wever6, Nicole H M Renders6, Alexander C A P Leenders6, Wim van der Hoek5, Peter M Schneeberger1. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands; Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 2. Academic Collaborative Centre AMPHI, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc), Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Academic Collaborative Centre AMPHI, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc), Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Infectious Disease Control, Municipal Health Service (GGD) Hart voor Brabant, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Infectious Disease Control, Municipal Health Service (GGD) Hart voor Brabant, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. 5. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serological follow-up of acute Q-fever patients is important for detection of chronic infection but there is no consensus on its frequency and duration. The 2007-2009 Q-fever epidemic in the Netherlands allowed for long-term follow-up of a large cohort of acute Q-fever patients. The aim of this study was to validate the current follow-up strategy targeted to identify patients with chronic Q-fever. METHODS: A cohort of adult acute Q-fever patients, diagnosed between 2007 and 2009, for whom a twelve-month follow-up sample was available, was invited to complete a questionnaire and provide a blood sample, four years after the acute episode. Antibody profiles, determined by immunofluorescence assay in serum, were investigated with a special focus on high titres of IgG antibodies against phase I of Coxiella burnetii, as these are considered indicative for possible chronic Q-fever. RESULTS: Of the invited 1,907 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria, 1,289 (67.6%) were included in the analysis. At any time during the four-year follow-up period, 58 (4.5%) patients were classified as possible, probable, or proven chronic Q-fever according to the Dutch Q-fever Consensus Group criteria (which uses IgG phase I ≥1:1,024 to as serologic criterion for chronic Q-fever). Fifty-two (89.7%) of these were identified within the first year after the acute episode. Of the six patients that were detected for the first time at four-year follow-up, five had an IgG phase I titre of 1:512 at twelve months. CONCLUSIONS: A twelve-month follow-up check after acute Q-fever is recommended as it adequately detects chronic Q-fever in patients without known risk factors. Additional serological and clinical follow-up is recommended for patients with IgG phase I ≥1:512, as they showed the highest risk to progress to chronic Q-fever.
BACKGROUND: Serological follow-up of acute Q-feverpatients is important for detection of chronic infection but there is no consensus on its frequency and duration. The 2007-2009 Q-fever epidemic in the Netherlands allowed for long-term follow-up of a large cohort of acute Q-feverpatients. The aim of this study was to validate the current follow-up strategy targeted to identify patients with chronic Q-fever. METHODS: A cohort of adult acute Q-feverpatients, diagnosed between 2007 and 2009, for whom a twelve-month follow-up sample was available, was invited to complete a questionnaire and provide a blood sample, four years after the acute episode. Antibody profiles, determined by immunofluorescence assay in serum, were investigated with a special focus on high titres of IgG antibodies against phase I of Coxiella burnetii, as these are considered indicative for possible chronic Q-fever. RESULTS: Of the invited 1,907 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria, 1,289 (67.6%) were included in the analysis. At any time during the four-year follow-up period, 58 (4.5%) patients were classified as possible, probable, or proven chronic Q-fever according to the Dutch Q-fever Consensus Group criteria (which uses IgG phase I ≥1:1,024 to as serologic criterion for chronic Q-fever). Fifty-two (89.7%) of these were identified within the first year after the acute episode. Of the six patients that were detected for the first time at four-year follow-up, five had an IgG phase I titre of 1:512 at twelve months. CONCLUSIONS: A twelve-month follow-up check after acute Q-fever is recommended as it adequately detects chronic Q-fever in patients without known risk factors. Additional serological and clinical follow-up is recommended for patients with IgG phase I ≥1:512, as they showed the highest risk to progress to chronic Q-fever.
Authors: J S Li; D J Sexton; N Mick; R Nettles; V G Fowler; T Ryan; T Bashore; G R Corey Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2000-04-03 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M C A Wegdam-Blans; C C H Wielders; J Meekelenkamp; J M Korbeeck; T Herremans; H T Tjhie; H A Bijlmer; M P G Koopmans; P M Schneeberger Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2012-05-23
Authors: G Jaramillo-Gutierrez; M C Wegdam-Blans; R ter Schegget; J M Korbeeck; R van Aken; H A Bijlmer; J H Tjhie; M P Koopmans Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2013-10-10
Authors: D Raoult; H Tissot-Dupont; C Foucault; J Gouvernet; P E Fournier; E Bernit; A Stein; M Nesri; J R Harle; P J Weiller Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: J C J P Hagenaars; N H M Renders; A S van Petersen; S O A Shamelian; M G L de Jager-Leclercq; F L Moll; P C Wever; O H J Koning Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Dennis G Barten; Corine E Delsing; Stephan P Keijmel; Tom Sprong; Janneke Timmermans; Wim J G Oyen; Marrigje H Nabuurs-Franssen; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Gabriëlla Morroy; Cornelia C H Wielders; Mandy J B Kruisbergen; Wim van der Hoek; Jan H Marcelis; Marjolijn C A Wegdam-Blans; Clementine J Wijkmans; Peter M Schneeberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabeth Maria den Boogert; Marit M A de Lange; Cornelia C H Wielders; Ariene Rietveld; Mirjam J Knol; Arianne B van Gageldonk-Lafeber Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 4.434
Authors: Marit M A de Lange; Laura E V Gijsen; Cornelia C H Wielders; Wim van der Hoek; Arko Scheepmaker; Peter M Schneeberger Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Saugata Mahapatra; Brandi Gallaher; Sydni Caet Smith; Joseph G Graham; Daniel E Voth; Edward I Shaw Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Sherry A M Johnson; John B Kaneene; Kweku Asare-Dompreh; William Tasiame; Ivy G Mensah; Kofi Afakye; Shirley V Simpson; Kwasi Addo Journal: Vet Med Sci Date: 2019-03-11
Authors: Marit M A de Lange; Arko Scheepmaker; Wim van der Hoek; Monique Leclercq; Peter M Schneeberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pieter T de Boer; Marit M A de Lange; Cornelia C H Wielders; Frederika Dijkstra; Sonja E van Roeden; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; Jan Jelrik Oosterheert; Peter M Schneeberger; Wim van der Hoek Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 6.883