Surveillance study of apparent life-threatening events (ALTE) in the Netherlands

SIDS and ALTE are different entities that somehow show some similarities. Both constitute heterogeneous conditions. The Netherlands is a low-incidence country for SIDS. To study whether the same would hold for ALTE, we studied the incidence, etiology, and current treatment of ALTE in The Netherlands. Using the Dutch Pediatric Surveillance Unit, pediatricians working in second- and third-level hospitals in the Netherlands were asked to report any case of ALTE presented in their hospital from January 2002 to January 2003. A questionnaire was subsequently sent to collect personal data, data on pregnancy and birth, condition preceding the incident, the incident itself, condition after the incident, investigations performed, monitoring or treatment initiated during admission, any diagnosis made at discharge, and treatment or parental support offered after discharge. A total of 115 cases of ALTE were reported, of which 110 questionnaires were filled in and returned (response rate 97%). Based on the national birth rate of 200,000, the incidence of ALTE amounted 0.58/1,000 live born infants. No deaths occurred. Clinical diagnoses could be assessed in 58.2%. Most frequent diagnoses were (percentages of the total of 110 cases) gastro-esophageal reflux and respiratory tract infection (37.3% and 8.2%, respectively); main symptoms were change of color and muscle tone, choking, and gagging. The differences in diagnoses are heterogeneous. In 34%, parents shook their infants, which is alarmingly high. Pre- and postmature infants were overrepresented in this survey (29.5% and 8.2%, respectively). Ten percent had recurrent ALTE. In total, 15.5% of the infants were discharged with a home monitor. In conclusion, ALTE has a low incidence in second- and third-level hospitals in the Netherlands. Parents should be systematically informed about the possible devastating effects of shaking an infant. Careful history taking and targeted additional investigations are of utmost importance

Chronic Q fever diagnosis—consensus guideline versus expert opinion

Chronic Q fever, caused by Coxiella burnetii, has high mortality and morbidity rates if left untreated. Controversy about the diagnosis of this complex disease has emerged recently. We applied the guideline from the Dutch Q Fe­ver Consensus Group and a set of diagnostic criteria pro­posed by Didier Raoult to all 284 chronic Q fever patients included in the Dutch National Chronic Q Fever Database during 2006–2012. Of the patients who had proven cas­es of chronic Q fever by the Dutch guideline, 46 (30.5%) would not have received a diagnosis by the alternative cri­teria designed by Raoult, and 14 (4.9%) would have been considered to have possible chronic Q fever. Six patients with proven chronic Q fever died of related causes. Until results from future studies are available, by which current guidelines can be modified, we believe that the Dutch lit­erature-based consensus guideline is more sensitive and easier to use in clinical practice

A Dutch nationwide evaluation of serological assays for detection of Borrelia antibodies in clinically well-defined patients

Numerous tests for the detection of antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi are commercially available. Manufacturer-derived data invariably report a high sensitivity and specificity, but comparative studies demonstrate large differences in clinical practice, especially with regard to specificity. We retrospectively collected data from validation studies for B. burgdorferi antibody assays from 8 laboratories in the Netherlands. The total number of samples was 809. Samples were selected based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We included samples from patients with erythema migrans, acrodermatitis chronicum atrophicans, and neuroborreliosis; cross-reactivity controls; and healthy controls. Data are presented from 10 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and 5 immunoblots. For manifestations of B. burgdorferi infection with short disease duration, the positivity rate of the assays varied significantly. In patients with long disease duration, the positivity rate differed only marginally. In cross-reactivity controls, there was significant variation in the reactivity rate. The majority of false-positive reactions are of the IgM isotype. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.

BMC Infect. Dis.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. METHODS: We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50 % (95 % CI 40 % to 61 %); neuroborreliosis 77 % (95 % CI 67 % to 85 %); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97 % (95 % CI 94 % to 99 %); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73 % (95 % CI 53 % to 87 %). Specificity was around 95 % in studies with healthy controls, but around 80 % in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice

The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for Lyme borreliosis in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Methods: We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy. Results: Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50 % (95 % CI 40 % to 61 %); neuroborreliosis 77 % (95 % CI 67 % to 85 %); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97 % (95 % CI 94 % to 99 %); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73 % (95 % CI 53 % to 87 %). Specificity was around 95 % in studies with healthy controls, but around 80 % in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches. Conclusions: The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice