Cargando…

Trends in Q fever serologic testing by immunofluorescence from four large reference laboratories in the United States, 2012–2016

Laboratory testing for Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) is essential for a differential diagnosis, yet little is known about Q fever diagnostic testing practices in the United States. We retrospectively analyzed Q fever immunoglobulin G (IgG) indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) testing data between 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miller, Halie K., Binder, Alison M., Peterson, Amy, Theel, Elitza S., Volpe, Joseph M., Couturier, Marc Roger, Cherry, Cara C., Kersh, Gilbert J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232148/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30420599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34702-2
Descripción
Sumario:Laboratory testing for Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) is essential for a differential diagnosis, yet little is known about Q fever diagnostic testing practices in the United States. We retrospectively analyzed Q fever immunoglobulin G (IgG) indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) testing data between 1/1/2012–10/31/2016 from ARUP, LabCorp, Mayo Medical Laboratories, and Quest Diagnostics. Data included IgG phase I and phase II titers, patient age and sex, and state and date of specimen collection. On average, 12,821 specimens were tested for Q fever annually by the participating laboratories. Of 64,106 total specimens, 84.1% tested negative for C. burnetii-specific antibodies. Positive titers ranged from 16 to 262,144 against both phase I and phase II antigens. Submission of specimens peaked during the summer months, and more specimens were submitted from the West North Central division. Testing occurred more frequently in males (53%) and increased with age. In conclusion, few U.S. Q fever cases are reported, despite large volumes of diagnostic specimens tested. Review of commercial laboratory data revealed a lack of paired serology samples and patterns of serology titers that differ from case reporting diagnostic criteria.