An outbreak of psittacosis in a bird park in Japan

Matsui, Takeshi; Nakashima, Kazutoshi; Ohyama, Takaaki; Kobayashi, John M.; Arima, Yuzo; Kishimoto, Tadamitsu; Ogawa, Motohiko; Cai, Yong-rong; Shiga, Sadashi; Ando, Shuji; Kurane, Ichiro; Tabara, Kenji; Itagaki, Asao; Nitta, N; Fukushi, Hideto; Matsumoto, Akira; Okabe, Nobuhiko

doi:10.1017/s0950268807008783

Cited by 38 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…C. pneumoniae tested by MIF. Birds PCR positive.Matsui et al, 2008 [18]2001–2002, JapanStaff, students and visitors of bird park with hothousesNoCFT 3/3 and MIF 14/14 symptomatic cases; MIF 8/91 non-symptomatic staff membersNo13/17 Hospitalized cases. Cross-reactions C. pneumoniae and C. trachomatis excluded by MIF.Verminnen et al, 2008 [36]2005–2006, BelgiumTurkey farmer and 2 scientists at turkey farmNested PCR 3/3 (sputum, pharyngeal, nasal swabs)MIF 0/3 r-ELISA 3/33/3Environmental monitoring study, not strictly an outbreak study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPsittacosis 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.MethodA 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionPCR 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3317-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of the literature found only a small number of published outbreak investigation reports worldwide. Matsui and colleagues (12) reported an outbreak of psittacosis associated with an indoor bird park in Japan, resulting in 17 human cases. Schlossberg and colleagues (13) described 13 human cases of psittacosis attributed to an aviary in a church basement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation and management of psittacosis in a public aviary: A One Health approach

Hopkins¹,

Alsop²,

Varga³

et al. 2016

Can Commun Dis Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, antimicrobials employed empirically for the therapy of community-acquired pneumonia may prevent an accurate diagnosis (CDC, 1992). This disease is becoming a more significant public health concern because of the popularity of pet birds and the placement of birds in childcare facilities, garden centres and rest homes (Matsui et al, 2008;Harkinezhad et al, 2009). In this report, we present mild and severe cases of psittacosis in members of a family who owned pet birds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Psittacosis associated with pet bird ownership: a concern for public health

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Psittacosis is a zoonotic infectious disease caused by Chlamydia psittaci and most cases involve avian contact history. In humans, psittacosis induces symptoms ranging from mild ‘flu-like’ symptoms to serious atypical pneumonia. Unless specifically thought of, the diagnosis of psittacosis can be missed and the disease is usually treated as atypical pneumonia. Here, we detail cases of psittacosis related to pet birds. Case presentation: A 16-year-old male was admitted with fever and persistent cough. The patient reported previous treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics that led to limited improvement of his condition, and owning pet birds; thus, psittacosis was suspected. Serum samples from the patient were obtained and tested using a microimmunofluorescence assay, revealing an IgG titre of 64. An epidemiological investigation was conducted in five family members related to the patient; two possessed anti-C. psittaci antibodies (IgG titre = 64 and IgM titre = 20; IgG titre = 128 and IgA titre = 20). Additionally, C. psittaci DNA was detected by PCR carried out on the family's pet birds. Conclusion: Psittacosis probably occurs more often than reported. Individuals with milder cases may not seek medical attention, and physicians may not inquire about bird exposure. There is a need for awareness campaigns directed at health workers and birds owners.

show abstract

An outbreak of psittacosis in a bird park in Japan

Cited by 38 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Investigation and management of psittacosis in a public aviary: A One Health approach

Psittacosis associated with pet bird ownership: a concern for public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About