IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0334957.html

Comparison of the epidemiological and clinical fingerprints of Human Granulocytotropic Anaplasmosis and Human Monocytotropic Ehrlichiosis in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Kositz
  • Larissa Gygax
  • Sophie Schudel
  • Esther Kuenzli
  • Andreas Neumayr

Abstract

Background: Human granulocytotropic anaplasmosis (HGA), caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis (HME), caused by Ehrlichia chaffeensis, are tick-borne zoonoses. The vast majority of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infections reported worldwide are from the United States. Ehrlichia chaffeensis infections are reported exclusively from North America, with the majority reported from the United States. We have recently summarized the available data on HGA and HME in the form of two systematic reviews. We compared data from these two systematic reviews to objectify differences in epidemiological and clinical presentation between the two diseases in the United States. Methods: From our recently published systematic reviews on HGA and HME, «best evidence data» were extracted and comparatively analyzed. Cases were included if (i) they had a high level of diagnostic certainty (i.e., diagnosed by PCR, culture, immunostaining of tissue, or paired IgG IFA serology), (ii) individual clinical data were available, (iii) no concomitantly present coinfection(s) were reported, and (iv) the infection was acquired in the United States. Results: HME cases were statistically more frequent immunocompromised and younger and had gastrointestinal symptoms, hepatosplenomegaly and elevated liver function tests (LFT) levels. HGA cases were statistically more frequent presenting with pulmonary symptoms and encephalitis. Hospitalization and a fatal outcome was more frequent in HME. No differences in fatal outcome were observed between immunocompetent and immunocompromised HME cases. Conclusion: Although HGA and HME show similarities, there are statistically significant differences in terms of their clinical patterns and outcomes and a not yet described difference in the affected age pattern.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Kositz & Larissa Gygax & Sophie Schudel & Esther Kuenzli & Andreas Neumayr, 2025. "Comparison of the epidemiological and clinical fingerprints of Human Granulocytotropic Anaplasmosis and Human Monocytotropic Ehrlichiosis in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-9, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334957
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334957
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334957&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0334957?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334957. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.