American journal of translational research · 2021
Predictive models for Angiostrongylus cantonensis and Gnathostoma spinigerum infection in pathologically or serologically proved eosinophilic meningitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khamsai Sittichai, Sawanyawisuth Kittisak, Senthong Vichai, Limpawattana Panita, Chindaprasirt Jarin, Maleewong Wanchai, Tiamkao Somsak, Chotmongkol Verajit
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The two most common causes of eosinophilic meningitis (EOM) are the parasites: Angiostrongylus cantonensis and Gnathostoma spinigerum. This study aimed to evaluate whether clinical factors can predict either neuroangiostrongyliasis or gnathostomiasis in EOM patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included reports of patients with eosinophils in the CSF and either serological or pathological diagnosis of neuroangiostrongyliasis or gnathostomiasis published in 2014 or earlier and available on PubMed. Predictive clinical models were generated for neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis.
RESULTS: In total, 155 patients were included in the study, 24 in the gnathostomiasis group and 131 in the neuroangiostrongyliasis group. According to the separate models, factors associated with neuroangiostrongyliais were gender of male, Pila/Pomacea snail exposure, and headache, and independent factors for gnathostomiasis were weakness (adjusted odds ratio 50.8) and radicular pain (adjusted odds ratio 35.3). The combined model identified two independent factors for neuroangiostrongyliasis: weakness and radicular pain. The laboratory models revealed that xanthochromic CSF perfectly predicted both neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis. Two other predictive factors were blood eosinophilia and CSF eosinophils, which positively predicted gnathostomiasis (adjusted odds ratios of 1.13 and 1.08, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Clinical factors may be predictive of neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis in EOM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included reports of patients with eosinophils in the CSF and either serological or pathological diagnosis of neuroangiostrongyliasis or gnathostomiasis published in 2014 or earlier and available on PubMed. Predictive clinical models were generated for neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis.
RESULTS: In total, 155 patients were included in the study, 24 in the gnathostomiasis group and 131 in the neuroangiostrongyliasis group. According to the separate models, factors associated with neuroangiostrongyliais were gender of male, Pila/Pomacea snail exposure, and headache, and independent factors for gnathostomiasis were weakness (adjusted odds ratio 50.8) and radicular pain (adjusted odds ratio 35.3). The combined model identified two independent factors for neuroangiostrongyliasis: weakness and radicular pain. The laboratory models revealed that xanthochromic CSF perfectly predicted both neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis. Two other predictive factors were blood eosinophilia and CSF eosinophils, which positively predicted gnathostomiasis (adjusted odds ratios of 1.13 and 1.08, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Clinical factors may be predictive of neuroangiostrongyliasis and gnathostomiasis in EOM.