Absence of serological evidence of Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp., Ehrlichia spp. and Coxiella burnetii infections in American Samoa

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Page 1 of 10 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t Absence of Serological Evidence of Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp., Ehrlichia spp. and 1 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t Coxiella burnetii Infections in American Samoa Abstract: 21Little is known about the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in American Samoa (Pacific

Q fever seroprevalence in Australia suggests one in twenty people have been exposed

“…Our estimate of 5.6% is higher, but of a similar magnitude, to that reported for the US (3.1%; n = 4437) [10], and in the Netherlands prior to a large outbreak (2.4%; n = 5654) [14], but lower than a study of comparable size in Northern Ireland (12.8%; n = 2394) [12]. Smaller national serosurveys in Cyprus, Bhutan and American Samoa are even more varied with reported seroprevalence estimates of 52.7% ( n = 583), 6.9% ( n = 864) and 0% ( n = 197), respectively [111315]. This magnitude of variation highlights the need for country specific serosurveys, although variations in population sampling (geographical and age-related), and laboratory test methods may account for some of the observed differences.…”

“…Several countries including Australia have conducted Q fever serosurveys in specific geographic regions [4][5][6][7] and high risk populations [8 9]. However, there have only been a handful of national serosurveys [10][11][12][13][14][15], especially across all ages [14] or in highly urbanised countries [10 12 14]. The aim of this study was to measure C. burnetii seroprevalence in a representative sample of the Australian population.…”

Coxiella burnetii Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors in Cattle, Sheep, and Goats in Estonia

“…Q fever (QF) is a zoonosis caused by the intracellular bacterium Coxiella burnetii (CB). The bacteria are considered to be globally distributed but may be overlooked in some countries due to the irregular or absence of investigations [1,2]. The main transmission routes of CB are via the inhalation of spore-like stages transported in aerosols or via contact with excretions (urine, feces, vaginal mucus, semen, and milk) from infected animals or contaminated materials [3].…”

Coxiella burnetii Antibody Prevalence and Risk Factors of Infection in the Human Population of Estonia

“…Q fever is a widespread zoonosis with pandemic potential caused by the intracellular bacterial pathogen Coxiella burnetii (C. burnetii) [1]. In some regions of the world, especially in islands such as American Samoa and Tahiti, the bacteria have not yet been detected, either because of its absence or its sporadic presence [1][2][3]. The estimates for C. burnetii antibody-positive humans in Europe varies between geographical regions and population groups, ranging from 2.4% in the Netherlands (2006)(2007) [4] and 5.35% in France (1995) [5] to 38% in Bulgaria (1995) [6].…”

“…Results suggest that C. burnetii is present in Estonia and the increased risk of infection in humans is associated with farm animal contact.Microorganisms 2019, 7, 629 2 of 12 estimates should be compared with caution as different approaches to determine seropositivity for Coxiella burnetii infection have been used in these studies. In most studies, indirect immunofluorescent assay (IFA) [2,3,7,11] or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [4,13] has been used, and less frequently the complement fixation test (CFT) [13]. The IFA has been shown to be the most sensitive and specific test for C. burnetii antibody detection, but since IFA testing is more laborious, combining ELISA as a primary screening test and IFA as a confirmatory test has been suggested for large-scale population studies [14].Domestic ruminants are considered one of the main infection sources for humans [13,[15][16][17][18][19][20].…”