Abstract

IntroductionSources of infection of most cases of community-acquired Legionnaires’ disease (CALD) are unknown.ObjectiveIdentification of sources of infection of CALD.SettingBerlin; December 2016–May 2019.ParticipantsAdult cases of CALD reported to district health authorities and consenting to the study; age and hospital matched controls.Main outcome measurePercentage of cases of CALD with attributed source of infection.MethodsAnalysis of secondary patient samples for monoclonal antibody (MAb) type (and sequence type); questionnaire-based interviews, analysis of standard household water samples for Legionella concentration followed by MAb (and sequence) typing of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1) isolates; among cases taking of additional water samples to identify the infectious source as appropriate; recruitment of control persons for comparison of exposure history and Legionella in standard household water samples. For each case an appraisal matrix was filled in to attribute any of three source types (external (non-residence) source, residential non-drinking water (RnDW) source (not directly from drinking water outlet), residential drinking water (RDW) as source) using three evidence types (microbiological results, cluster evidence, analytical-comparative evidence (using added information from controls)).ResultsInclusion of 111 study cases and 202 controls. Median age of cases was 67 years (range 25–93 years), 74 (67%) were male. Among 65 patients with urine typable for MAb type we found a MAb 3/1-positive strain in all of them. Compared to controls being a case was not associated with a higher Legionella concentration in standard household water samples, however, the presence of a MAb 3/1-positive strain was significantly associated (odds ratio (OR) = 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 11). Thus, a source was attributed by microbiological evidence if it contained a MAb 3/1-positive strain. A source was attributed by cluster evidence if at least two cases were exposed to the same source. Statistically significant general source types were attributed by calculating the population attributable risk (analytical-comparative evidence). We identified an external source in 16 (14%) cases, and RDW as source in 28 (25%). Wearing inadequately disinfected dentures was the only RnDW source significantly associated with cases (OR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.8) and led to an additional 8% of cases with source attribution, for a total of 48% of cases attributed.ConclusionUsing the appraisal matrix we attributed almost half of all cases of CALD to an infectious source, predominantly RDW. Risk for LD seems to be conferred primarily by the type of Legionella rather than the amount. Dentures as a new infectious source needs further, in particular, integrated microbiological, molecular and epidemiological confirmation.

Highlights

  • Sources of infection of most cases of community-acquired Legionnaires’ disease (CALD) are unknown

  • Analysis of secondary patient samples for monoclonal antibody (MAb) type; questionnaire-based interviews, analysis of standard household water samples for Legionella concentration followed by MAb typing of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1) isolates; among cases taking of additional water samples to identify the infectious source as appropriate; recruitment of control persons for comparison of exposure history and Legionella in standard household water samples

  • Compared to controls being a case was not associated with a higher Legionella concentration in standard household water samples, the presence of a MAb 3/1-positive strain was significantly associated (odds ratio (OR) = 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 11)

Read more

Summary

Methods

Analysis of secondary patient samples for monoclonal antibody (MAb) type (and sequence type); questionnaire-based interviews, analysis of standard household water samples for Legionella concentration followed by MAb (and sequence) typing of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1) isolates; among cases taking of additional water samples to identify the infectious source as appropriate; recruitment of control persons for comparison of exposure history and Legionella in standard household water samples. A person’s illness is defined as Legionnaires’ disease if it combines a clinical picture and laboratory confirmed Legionella infection. Laboratory confirmation includes any of the following: (1) positive urinary antigen test; (2) positive Legionella culture from a patient sample; (3) positive nucleic acid test; (4) significant rise of antibody titer in a paired test; (5) single significantly elevated antibody titer for Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1). Cases of LD are reportable to the German public health surveillance system

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call