<i>Strongyloides stercoralis</i>: A Neglected but Fatal Parasite

Strongyloidiasis is a disease caused by Strongyloides stercoralis and remains a neglected tropical infection despite significant public health concerns. Challenges in the management of strongyloidiasis arise from wide ranging clinical presentations, lack of practical high sensitivity diagnostic tests, and a fatal outcome in immunocompromised hosts. Migration, globalization, and increased administration of immunomodulators, particularly during the COVID-19 era, have amplified the global impact of strongyloidiasis. Here, we comprehensively review the diagnostic tests, clinical manifestations, and treatment of strongyloidiasis. The review additionally focuses on complicated strongyloidiasis in immunocompromised patients and critical screening strategies. Diagnosis of strongyloidiasis is challenging because of non-specific presentations and low parasite load. In contrast, treatment is simple: administration of single dosage ivermectin or moxidectin, a recent anthelmintic drug. Undiagnosed infections result in hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease when patients become immunocompromised. Thus, disease manifestation awareness among clinicians is crucial. Furthermore, active surveillance and advanced diagnostic tests are essential for fundamental management

Data from: Clinical and laboratory predictors of influenza infection among individuals with influenza-like illness presenting to an urban Thai hospital over a five-year period

Early diagnosis of influenza infection maximizes the effectiveness of antiviral medicines. Here, we assess the ability for clinical characteristics and rapid influenza tests to predict PCR-confirmed influenza infection in a sentinel, cross-sectional study for influenza-like illness (ILI) in Thailand. Participants meeting criteria for acute ILI (fever > 38°C and cough or sore throat) were recruited from inpatient and outpatient departments in Bangkok, Thailand, from 2009-2014. The primary endpoint for the study was the occurrence of virologically-confirmed influenza infection (based upon detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR) among individuals presenting for care with ILI. Nasal and throat swabs were tested by rapid influenza test (QuickVue) and by RT-PCR. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated using the case test-negative method. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to predict influenza RT-PCR positivity based upon symptoms reported. We enrolled 4572 individuals with ILI; 32.7% had detectable influenza RNA by RT-PCR. Influenza cases were attributable to influenza B (38.6%), A(H1N1)pdm09 (35.1%), and A(H3N2) (26.3%) viruses. VE was highest against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus and among adults. The most important symptoms for predicting influenza PCR-positivity among patients with ILI were cough, runny nose, chills, and body aches. The accuracy of the CART predictive model was 72.8%, with an NPV of 78.1% and a PPV of 59.7%. During epidemic periods, PPV improved to 68.5%. The PPV of the QuickVue assay relative to RT-PCR was 93.0% overall, with peak performance during epidemic periods and in the absence of oseltamivir treatment. Clinical criteria demonstrated poor predictive capability outside of epidemic periods while rapid tests were reasonably accurate and may provide an acceptable alternative to RT-PCR testing in resource-limited areas

Clinical and laboratory predictors of influenza infection among individuals with influenza-like illness presenting to an urban Thai hospital over a five-year period

<div><p>Early diagnosis of influenza infection maximizes the effectiveness of antiviral medicines. Here, we assess the ability for clinical characteristics and rapid influenza tests to predict PCR-confirmed influenza infection in a sentinel, cross-sectional study for influenza-like illness (ILI) in Thailand. Participants meeting criteria for acute ILI (fever > 38°C and cough or sore throat) were recruited from inpatient and outpatient departments in Bangkok, Thailand, from 2009–2014. The primary endpoint for the study was the occurrence of virologically-confirmed influenza infection (based upon detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR) among individuals presenting for care with ILI. Nasal and throat swabs were tested by rapid influenza test (QuickVue) and by RT-PCR. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated using the case test-negative method. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to predict influenza RT-PCR positivity based upon symptoms reported. We enrolled 4572 individuals with ILI; 32.7% had detectable influenza RNA by RT-PCR. Influenza cases were attributable to influenza B (38.6%), A(H1N1)pdm09 (35.1%), and A(H3N2) (26.3%) viruses. VE was highest against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus and among adults. The most important symptoms for predicting influenza PCR-positivity among patients with ILI were cough, runny nose, chills, and body aches. The accuracy of the CART predictive model was 72.8%, with an NPV of 78.1% and a PPV of 59.7%. During epidemic periods, PPV improved to 68.5%. The PPV of the QuickVue assay relative to RT-PCR was 93.0% overall, with peak performance during epidemic periods and in the absence of oseltamivir treatment. Clinical criteria demonstrated poor predictive capability outside of epidemic periods while rapid tests were reasonably accurate and may provide an acceptable alternative to RT-PCR testing in resource-limited areas.</p></div

Predictors of clinical severity and receipt of antimicrobial medications among those with PCR-confirmed influenza infection.

<p>Predictors of clinical severity and receipt of antimicrobial medications among those with PCR-confirmed influenza infection.</p

CART analysis to predict influenza RT-PCR positivity on the basis of clinical symptoms.

<p>CART analysis to predict influenza RT-PCR positivity on the basis of clinical symptoms.</p

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for (Fig 3A) CART analysis and (Fig 3B) QuickVue, compared to RT-PCR for identifying influenza infection among individuals with ILI.

<p>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0193050#pone.0193050.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3A</a>) CART analysis and (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0193050#pone.0193050.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3B</a>) QuickVue, compared to RT-PCR for identifying influenza infection among individuals with ILI.</p

Temporal distribution of ILI cases testing positive for influenza infection (RED) and negative for influenza infection (BLUE).

<p>Solid circles indicate months identified as experiencing influenza outbreaks (defined as months wherein > = 25% of ILI specimens tested positive for influenza infection by RT-PCR).</p