An outbreak of tick-borne relapsing fever (TBRF) originating at the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park was investigated in 1990. To determine risk factors for the disease, almost 7,000 parties of visitors were surveyed; over half responded, representing > 10,000 people. Fifteen cases of confirmed or probable TBRF were identified in visitors and 2 in employees. All patients except one experienced symptoms after overnight stays in a group of cabins that had not been rodent-proofed after a TBRF outbreak in 1973 (relative risk for visitors [RR] 8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-62). Seven cases of TBRF were associated with a single cabin (RR 98, 95% CI 30-219). Structural flaws and rodent nests were common in the implicated cabins and rare in unaffected cabins. This investigation suggests that measures to rodent-proof cabins at sites where TBRF is endemic prevent reinfestation of cabins by infected rodents and tick vectors, thereby preventing the spread of disease in humans.

BACKGROUND:In the summer of 2000, an outbreak of primary pneumonic tularemia occurred on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. The only previously reported outbreak of pneumonic tularemia in the United States also occurred on the island in 1978.METHODS:We conducted a case-control study of adults with pneumonic tularemia and investigated the environment to identify risk factors for primary pneumonic tularemia. Patients with confirmed cases were residents of or visitors to Martha's Vineyard who had symptoms suggestive of primary pneumonic tularemia, were ill between May 15 and October 31, 2000, and had a positive laboratory test for tularemia. Controls were adults who had spent at least 15 days on Martha's Vineyard between May 15 and September 28, 2000.RESULTS:We identified 15 patients with tularemia; 11 of these cases were primary pneumonic tularemia. Francisella tularensis type A was isolated from blood and lung tissue of the one man who died. Patients were more likely than controls to have used a lawn mower or brush cutter in the two weeks before the illness or before an interview, for controls (odds ratio, 9.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 68.0) and during the summer (odds ratio, undefined; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.8 to infinity). Lawn mowing and brush cutting remained significant risk factors after adjustment for other potentially confounding variables. Only one patient reported being exposed to a rabbit while cutting brush. Of 40 trapped animals, 1 striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and 1 Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) were seropositive for antibodies against F. tularensis.CONCLUSIONS:Study of this outbreak of primary pneumonic tularemia implicates lawn mowing and brush cutting as risk factors for this infection.

Epidemiological methods are needed to evaluate community exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease (LD). For LD serodiagnosis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-test approach that involves enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing and Western immunoblotting (WB) of EIA-equivocal and EIA-positive specimens. The specificity of this approach was evaluated among residents of a LD-endemic community and was compared with WB alone and with a simplified 2-test approach (WB of equivocal EIA only). Participants reporting no previous diagnosis of LD were recruited during a community-wide serosurvey on Block Island, Rhode Island. Of 80 eligible participants, 20 had received LD vaccine. Seven (35%) of 20 vaccinees and 22 (37%) of 60 nonvaccinees reported nonspecific symptoms compatible with LD in the previous year. In this highly LD-endemic community, the overall specificity of the CDC-recommended approach was highest (100%), followed by WB alone (98.7%), then the simplified approach (95%).

ABSTRACT Human louse-borne relapsing fever occurs in sporadic outbreaks in central and eastern Africa that are characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. Isolates of the causative agent,Borrelia recurrentis, were obtained from the blood of four patients during a recent epidemic of the disease in southern Sudan. TheglpQ gene, encoding glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase, from these isolates was sequenced and compared with the glpQ sequences obtained from other relapsing-fever spirochetes. Previously we showed that GlpQ of Borrelia hermsii is an immunogenic protein with utility as a serological test antigen for discriminating tick-borne relapsing fever from Lyme disease. In the present work, we cloned and expressed theglpQ gene from B. recurrentis and used recombinant GlpQ in serological tests. Acute- and convalescent-phase serum samples obtained from 42 patients with louse-borne relapsing fever were tested with an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that used whole cells ofB. recurrentis and with immunoblotting to whole-cell lysates of the spirochete and Escherichia coli producing recombinant GlpQ. The geometric mean titers of the acute- and convalescent-phase serum samples measured by IFA were 1:83 and 1:575, respectively. The immunoblot analysis identified a high level of reactivity and seroconversion to GlpQ, and the assay was more sensitive than the whole-cell IFA and ELISA using purified, recombinant histidine-tagged GlpQ. Serum antibodies to GlpQ and other antigens persisted for 27 years in one patient. We conclude that assessment of anti-GlpQ antibodies will allow serological confirmation of louse-borne relapsing fever and determination of disease prevalence.

BACKGROUND. The intent of the current study was to ascertain whether differences in cancer survival between Montana non-American Indians (non-AI) and Montana American Indians (AI) were related to differences in stage of disease at diagnosis or in the type of treatment received.METHODS. A case-control design was utilized using data from the Montana Central Tumor Registry and the Indian Health Service medical records. Als diagnosed between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1993 were the cases in the study, and non-AIs diagnosed in the same period were the controls. Chi-square tests and life table techniques were used to analyze the data.RESULTS. Five hundred twenty-two cases were matched with controls. The 5-year cancer survival rate for AIs was 36% and was 47% among non-AIs. The stage at the time of diagnosis was local in 34% of AIS and 36% of non-AIs. The stage was regional in 30% of AIs and 26% of non-AIs. Distant disease at the time of diagnosis was present in 25% of AIs and 24% of non-AIs, whereas an unknown extent of disease was present in 11% of AIs and 14% of non-AIs. AIs underwent surgery less frequently than non-AIs (79% vs. 86%), but this did not appear to contribute to the survival differences observed.CONCLUSIONS. The survival differences observed in the current study cannot be explained easily by differences in the cancer stage at diagnosis or the type of treatment received. (C) 2000 American Cancer Society.

PROBLEM/CONDITION:Lyme disease is caused by infection with the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi and is the most commonly reported vector-borne disease in the United States. Borrelia burgdorferi is transmitted to humans by infected Ixodes scapularis and I. pacificus ticks. Lyme disease is typically evidenced in its early stage by a characteristic rash (erythema migrans), accompanied by nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fever, malaise, fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia). Lyme disease can usually be treated successfully with standard antibiotic regimens.REPORTING PERIOD:1992-1998.DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM:Lyme disease surveillance data are reported to CDC through the National Electronic Telecommunication System for Surveillance, a computerized public health database for nationally notifiable diseases. During 1992-1998, data regarding reported cases of Lyme disease included county and state of residence, age, sex, and date of onset. Descriptive analyses were performed, and cumulative incidence by state, county, age group, and sex were calculated.RESULTS:During 1992-1998, a total of 88,967 cases of Lyme disease was reported to CDC by 49 states and the District of Columbia, with the number of cases increasing from 9,896 in 1992 to 16,802 in 1998. A total of 92% of cases was reported from eight northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and two north-central states. Children aged 5-9 years and adults aged 45-54 years had the highest mean annual incidence.INTERPRETATION:Lyme disease is a highly focal disease, with the majority of reported cases occurring in the northeastern and north-central United States. The number of reported cases of Lyme disease increased during 1992-1998. Geographic and seasonal patterns of disease correlate with the distribution and feeding habits of the vector ticks, I. scapularis and I. pacificus.PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION:The results presented in this report will help clinicians evaluate the prior probability of Lyme disease and provide the framework for targeting human Lyme disease vaccine use and other prevention and treatment interventions.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend a two-test approach for the serodiagnosis of Lyme disease (LD), with EIA testing followed by Western immunoblotting (WB) of EIA-equivocal and -positive specimens. This approach was compared with a simplified two-test approach (WB of EIA equivocals only) and WB alone for early LD. Case-patients with erythema migrans (EM) rash >/=5 cm were recruited from three primary-care practices in LD-endemic areas to provide acute- (S1) and convalescent-phase serum specimens (S2). The simplified approach had the highest sensitivity when either S1 or S2 samples were tested, nearly doubling when S2 were tested, while decreasing slightly for the other two approaches. Accordingly, the simplified approach had the lowest negative likelihood ratio for either S1 or S2. For early LD with EM, the simplified approach performed well and was less costly than the other testing approaches since less WB is required.

Reported cases of Lyme disease in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, increased almost 200% from 75 (67/100,000 population) in 1992 to 216 (193/100,000 population) in 1993. For evaluation of risk factors for Lyme disease and for determination of the cause of this increase, a case-control study was conducted, and the reporting practices of physicians' offices were evaluated. For cases reported in 1993, age and sex distribution, month of disease onset, and proportion of cases with erythema migrans rash were within expected limits. Analysis of age-matched case-control data showed that rural residence; clearing periresidential brush during spring and summer months; and the presence of rock walls, woods, deer, or a bird feeder on residential property were associated with incident Lyme disease. A review of physician reporting patterns suggested that the increase in reported cases in 1993 was due to improved reporting as well as to an increase in the numbers of patients diagnosed with Lyme disease. In addition, substantial underreporting of Lyme disease by physicians' offices was found.

PURPOSE:To examine the cost-effectiveness of test-treatment strategies for patients suspected of having Lyme disease.DATA SOURCES:The medical literature was searched for information on outcomes and costs. Expert opinion was sought for information on utilities.STUDY SELECTION:Articles that described patient population, diagnostic criteria, dose and duration of therapy, and criteria for assessment of outcomes.DATA EXTRACTION:The decision analysis evaluated the following strategies: 1) no testing-no treatment; 2) testing with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) followed by antibiotic treatment of patients with positive results; 3) two-step testing with ELISA followed by Western blot and antibiotic treatment for patients with positive results on either test; and 4) empirical antibiotic therapy. Three patient scenarios were considered: myalgic symptoms, rash resembling erythema migrans, and recurrent oligoarticular inflammatory arthritis. Results were calculated as costs per quality-adjusted life-year and were subjected to sensitivity analysis. Adjustment was made for the diagnostic value of common clinical features of Lyme disease.DATA SYNTHESIS:For myalgic symptoms without other features suggestive of Lyme disease, the no testing-no treatment strategy was most economically attractive (that is, had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio). For rash, empirical antibiotic therapy was less costly and more effective than other strategies. For oligoarticular arthritis with a history of rash and tick bite, two-step testing was associated with the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio. Testing with ELISA and empirical antibiotic therapy cost an additional $880,000 and $34,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. For oligoarticular arthritis with one or no other features suggestive of Lyme disease, two-step testing was most economically attractive.CONCLUSIONS:Neither testing nor antibiotic treatment is cost-effective if the pretest probability of Lyme disease is low. Empirical antibiotic therapy is recommended if the pretest probability is high, and two-step testing is recommended if the pretest probability is intermediate.

1. Introduction 1.1 Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne disease in North America. From 1982 through 1994, more than 70 000 cases were reported in North America; most of these cases were in the United States [1]. It is important that clinicians diagnose Lyme disease correctly because efficacious therapy is available and delayed or inadequate treatment can lead to many morbid sequelae. Lyme disease is a complex multisystem disease caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi [2]. It affects persons of all ages and both sexes. Since the disease was recognized in Connecticut in 1975 [3], endemic areas have been identified in several regions in North America. In more restricted areas in some northeastern and upper midwestern U.S. states, the disease has assumed the characteristics of an emerging epidemic [4-9]. The true incidence is almost certainly underestimated because of under-reporting [10, 11]. 1.2 Most patients develop a distinctive rash, erythema migrans, that is accompanied by such flu-like symptoms as fatigue, headache, mild stiff neck, joint and muscle aches, and fever [12]. Some weeks or months after the initial exposure, symptoms and signs of disseminated disease (particularly neurologic, cardiac, or articular disease) may develop in untreated patients [13, 14]. 1.3 Case definitions of Lyme disease have been developed in the United States for national disease surveillance purposes. A positive serologic test result was initially required for patients who had erythema migrans alone and had not been exposed to Lyme disease in endemic areas [15], but the 1990 criteria established in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) U.S. Lyme disease national surveillance definition reduced this requirement to a recommendation (Table 1) [16]. These criteria were developed for an epidemiologic case definition intended for surveillance purposes only. However, previous national disease surveillance criteria have been used in clinical studies [17, 18], and such definitions do provide standardization. Standardization allows comparisons of clinical studies and permits the performance of meta-analysis to facilitate development of clinically useful guidelines. Table 1. Criteria for Confirmed Lyme Disease 1.4 Requests for laboratory testing for Lyme disease have increased rapidly. In Wisconsin, for example, it was reported that more than 60 000 tests were being done annually [19]; in New Jersey, 5000 tests were done in 1 week in 1989 [20]. According to market projections for the United States, 2.79 million rapid tests were to have been done for Lyme disease in 1995 [21]. Testing is often done in persons who have only nonspecific signs and symptoms of illness, such as headache, fatigue, myalgia, or arthralgia. Even in highly endemic areas, the pretest probability of Lyme disease in such patients is less than 0.20 (usually much lower). Thus, even when highly experienced laboratories are used, the probability of a false-positive test result is higher than that of a true-positive result. This problem is compounded by the lack of standardized serologic tests for Lyme disease. Comparisons of the test results from different laboratories have shown poor reliability and accuracy; up to 21% of standardized positive samples are missed, and up to 7% of samples from persons with no known exposure are incorrectly identified as positive [22]. 1.5 This background paper provides a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the predictive value of the laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease. This evaluation forms the basis for guidelines on clinical diagnosis. Practitioners have been confused by the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for Lyme disease. The causes of this controversy arise from a combination of factors: the use of different tests in different laboratories, the use of different criteria to set positive and negative cutoff values for the same tests, different degrees of quality control in different laboratories, and differences in the community prevalence of Lyme disease. 1.6 We address each of these factors and make recommendations for the diagnostic workup of patients suspected of having Lyme disease. 2. Methods 2.1 Data Sources Relevant articles from the medical literature were identified by searching the MEDLINE database for English-language articles or articles with English-language abstracts published from 1982 (when the spirochetal cause of Lyme disease was established [23, 24]) to 1996. The keywords used were Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, diagnosis, ELISA, Western blot, immunofluorescence assay, polymerase chain reaction, urinary antigen detection, and culture. The computerized literature search was complemented by citations from authorities in the field. 2.2 Study Selection All identified articles were reviewed by using a modification of the methodologic criteria for evaluating diagnostic tests developed by Irwig and colleagues [25]. The included studies had to provide the following material: a clear statement on the test of interest, a description of the study characteristics that used a design that permitted the calculation of sensitivity and specificity, reproducible information on the sampling and clinical details of patients with the disease of interest and on controls (that is, data on the presence or absence of the criteria for Lyme disease described in the U.S. Lyme disease national surveillance case definition) (Table 1), and reproducible information on the reference standard (that is, cases diagnosed by experts who were blinded to the results of the diagnostic tests being evaluated). Because there are systematic differences in the strains of B. burgdorferi in different parts of the world, studies were excluded if they described results in patients outside of North America. When the same cohort of patients was described in more than one report, the results for individual patients were included only once. 2.3 Data Extraction Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated by using established methods [26]; a random-effects model was used to combine the proportions from the eligible studies [27]. 2.4 Estimates of Prevalence and Incidence Levels of the endemicity of Lyme disease in the United States can be estimated by using the annual incidence of Lyme disease reported to the CDC [1] (Figure 1). Figure 1. Rates of Lyme disease cases in the United States in 1993 as reported by states to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2.5 Epidemiologic studies of Lyme disease in communities in the eastern United States provide important information on the emergence of the disease in populations newly at risk, as well as some estimates of incidence and prevalence [29]. In two clusters of cases in New Jersey, risk was related to residence in new suburban housing developments and to occupational exposures among outdoor workers at a military reservation [6, 7]. A study on Fire Island, a barrier island off the southern coast of Long Island, New York, reported a seasonal incidence of 1% to 3% and a cumulative prevalence of 7.5% among residents of this summer vacation site [5]. A longitudinal study of a community of about 160 persons on Great Island, Massachusetts, found a slow build-up of incidence to a peak of 3 cases per 100 persons per year and a total cumulative prevalence of 16% over a 20-year period [9]. Two population-based studies in highly endemic suburban communities in Westchester, New York, reported seasonal attack rates of 2.6% and 3% and cumulative prevalences of 8.8% and 17%, respectively [30, 31]. On the basis of these data, we considered four categories of endemicity: low (incidence estimate, 0.01%), moderate (incidence estimate, 0.1%), high (incidence estimate, 1%), and very high (incidence estimate, 3%). 2.6 Likelihood Ratios and Treatment Thresholds of Tests Three of the authors constructed scenarios that describe three hypothetical patients. One had diffuse nonspecific muscle pain (scenario A), one had a rash resembling erythema migrans (scenario B), and one had episodic oligoarticular arthritis (scenario C) (Table 2). These models were used to compute the change in the probability of disease using likelihood ratios (likelihood ratio for positive test result = sensitivity [100 specificity]; likelihood ratio for negative test result = [100 sensitivity] specificity) [26] resulting from the use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blotting. Decision analysis was used to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the management options in these clinical situations when the clinician must decide whether to perform laboratory testing for Lyme disease [32]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as costs per quality-adjusted life-year for each scenario. This cost-effectiveness study is described in detail in a forthcoming paper [33]. Table 2. Hypothetical Patient Scenarios 3. Data Synthesis 3.1 Microbial Isolation Cultural isolation of B. burgdorferi is the best diagnostic evidence of Lyme disease. Borrelia burgdorferi grows well in Barbour, Stoenner, Kelly (BSK) medium, but it is difficult to obtain isolates from clinical specimens other than biopsy samples from erythema migrans lesions. 3.2 Thirty-four papers were identified by the literature search. None met the criteria formal analysis, but some case reports were worth noting. In the presence of erythema migrans, material has been collected from cutaneous lesions with various techniques, including direct aspiration of involved skin, aspiration after saline instillation, and skin biopsy. Wormser and colleagues [34] reported success rates of 29% with saline-lavage needle aspiration and 60% with 2-mm punch biopsies of the advancing edge of suspected primary erythema migrans lesions. Berger and colleagues [35] reported a success rate of more than 80% with biopsy specimens obtained from the leading edge of erythema migrans lesions. 3.3 Culture from sites other than the erythem

In September 1994, in response to a reported epidemic of plague in India, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enhanced surveillance in the United States for imported pneumonic plague. Plague information materials were rapidly developed and distributed to U.S. public health officials by electronic mail, facsimile, and expedited publication. Information was also provided to medical practitioners and the public by recorded telephone messages and facsimile transmission. Existing quarantine protocols were modified to effect active surveillance for imported plague cases at U.S. airports. Private physicians and state and local health departments were relied on in a passive surveillance system to identify travelers with suspected plague not detected at airports. From September 27 to October 27, the surveillance system identified 13 persons with suspected plague; no case was confirmed. This coordinated response to an international health emergency may serve as a model for detecting other emerging diseases and preventing their importation.

An ELISA containing a purified flagellar antigen from Borrelia burgdorferi (FLA-ELISA) was evaluated. The FLA-ELISA, detecting IgM and IgG together, did not have adequate specificity by itself. Good accuracy was obtained, however, when the FLA-ELISA was the first step in a two-step protocol that used immunoblotting as a conditional second test. Samples that scored positive or equivocal by the FLA-ELISA were evaluated with separate IgM and IgG immunoblots. The sensitivity of the two-step process for patients with erythema migrans or with later manifestations of Lyme disease was 64% and 100%, respectively. The specificity for health blood donors was 100% and was 90% for the aggregate of all persons with illness that may cause serologic cross-reactivity (98% if the samples from relapsing fever patients were excluded). Test precision was 96% overall, 99% for Lyme disease case serum samples, 100% for specimens from blood donors, and 88% for samples from persons with other illness.

The diverse clinical manifestations of Lyme disease (1-3) have led to frequent confusion in clinical diagnosis, a confusion compounded by problems in the accuracy and precision of diagnostic serologic tests (4-11) and the difficulty of isolating the causative organism (12-14), Borrelia burgdorferi. In 1990, more than 20 commercially prepared serologic test kits for Lyme disease were being sold in the United States, but no nationally standardized reference test was available. A collaborative evaluation of a selected sample of the commercial test kits by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors (ASTPHLD) demonstrated poor concordance of results among these test kits and among a selected group of state health department laboratories (11). Because of the lack of a rigorously defined reference serum panel, conclusions could not be drawn about the sensitivity and specificity of the test kits evaluated. An unexpected finding in this study was the low concordance in test results between CDC and two consulting academic reference center laboratories. A number of other studies also have demonstrated low concordance of Lyme disease serologic test results obtained by a variety of laboratories (4-10). As a result of those findings,the study described here was designed to fulfill the following objectives: 1) to assemble a serum panel from patients who had clinically well-defined Lyme disease (preferably confirmed by isolation of B. burgdorferi); healthy controls, and persons residing in non–endemic-disease areas whose potentially cross-reactive specimens had yielded equivocal ELISA results in earlier CDC tests; 2) to test this panel in a blinded fashion by several recognized Lyme disease reference and research laboratories; and 3) to compare the accuracy and precision of tests as a prelude to developing national recommendations for standardized serologic testing for antibodies to B. burgdorferi. Tests were performed by five academic centers active in Lyme disease research (the Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wisconsin; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York; Tufts/New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut) and CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases,National Center for Infectious Diseases, based in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Serum samples from Lyme disease case-patients were obtained from the participating academic investigators (n = 72) and from the CDC Lyme disease reference serum collection (n = 37). All case-patient serum samples (total = 109) were from patients who met the CDC clinical case definition for surveillance of Lyme disease (15). The clinical manifestations in these patients ranged from acute erythema migrans (EM) to late neurologic disease accompanied by Lyme arthritis. B. burgdorferi had been cultured by the method of Berger et al. from 14 of 34 (41%) acute-phase specimens provided by CDC (14). Duplicate specimens (n = 85) were randomly selected from the 109 case-patient samples for precision analysis, making a total of 194 case-patient samples in the panel. Control serum samples were provided by CDC from unpaid healthy blood donors (n = 113) who resided in areas where Lyme disease is not endemic (Cincinnati, Ohio, and Atlanta, Georgia; travel histories were not available from these donors, however. Duplicate specimens (n = 87) also were randomly selected, resulting in 200 noncase samples in the serum panel. Additional control samples were obtained from persons who resided in areas where Lyme disease was not endemic but whose physicians submitted their serum for Lyme disease testing to CDC through their state health department (n = 113). These specimens from patients with suspected cases had borderline (equivocal) seroreactivity in the whole cell sonicate (WCS) enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) used by CDC before 1992 and are referred to hereafter as “WCS-suspects” (16). The addition of duplicate specimens (n = 87) brought this group to 200 equivocally seroreactive samples. Serum was separated and frozen by the original collectors and shipped frozen to CDC’s facilities in Ft. Collins, Colorado. The specimens were divided into aliquots and coded; code labels were applied Dispatches

Treatment of unsubstantiated Lyme disease has led to serious complications in some cases. Two case-control studies, based on information in clinical records of patients discharged with a diagnosis of Lyme disease during 1990-1992, were conducted at a central New Jersey hospital. Twenty-five patients with biliary disease were identified, and 52 controls were selected from 1352 patients with suspected Lyme disease. Only 3% of 71 evaluatable subjects met the study criteria for disseminated Lyme disease. Patients with biliary disease were more likely than were antibiotic controls to have received ceftriaxone and more likely than ceftriaxone controls to have received a daily ceftriaxone dose > or = 40 mg/kg and to be < or = 18 years old. Fourteen of 25 biliary case-patients underwent cholecystectomy; all had histopathologic evidence of cholecystitis and 12 had gallstones. Thus, treatment of unsubstantiated diagnoses of Lyme disease is associated with biliary complications.

Telah dilakukan pemeriksaan secara laboratoris terhadap kesehatan transmigran yang berasal dari Jawa sebelum (1976) dan kurang lebih 2 tahun (1978) sesudah mereka menempati daerah transmigrasi Way Abung III, Lampung. Tujuan pemeriksaan ini adalah untuk mengetahui penyakit-penyakit yang mengancam mereka di daerah barunya. Pemeriksaan telah dilakukan terhadap sediaan darah yaitu untuk mengetahui adanya parasit malaria dan mikrofilaria, sedangkan pemeriksaan serologis untuk mengetahui adanya infeksi arbovirus, scrub dan murine typhus. Pemeriksaan tinja dilakukan hanya pada tahun 1976 untuk mengetahui adanya parasit usus. Dari hasil pemeriksaan tadi ditemukan bahwa prevalensi malaria meningkat dari 0,2% (1976) menjadi 10% (1978), sedangkan mikrofilaria rate sebelum dan sesudah pemindahan tetap 0. Hasil pemeriksaan tinja terhadap transmigran sebelum tiba di Lampung menunjukkan prevalensi Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura dan cacing tambang berturut-turut sebesar 46%,, 28%, dan 80%. Serologis hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody positive terhadap Japanese encephalitis (JE) virus naik dari 43,3%, menjadi 74,2%, sedangkan prevalensi HI antibody positive terhadap chikungunya (CHIK) virus tetap sama yaitu 3,5% sebelum dan 2,9% sesudah pemindahan. Prevalensi positif fluores-cent antibody test(FAT) terhadap scrub dan murine typhus juga tidak ada Perubahan yaitu 4,0% sebelum dan 3,4% sesudah pemindahan untuk scrub typhus dan 13,7%, sebelum dan 13,8% sesudah pemindahan untuk murine typhus. Dari hewan-hewan yang terdapat di Way Abung IH, serologis positif HI antibody kambing mempunyai prevalensi tertinggi (3%) terhadap arbovirus Group A (alpha virus) dan sapi tertinggi (35%) terhadap arbovirus Group B (flavivirus). Vektor-vektor potensial malaria, filariasis, scrub dan murine typhus, dan arbovirus infeksi dapat dijumpai di daerah transmigrasi Way Abung III, Lampung. Kecuali malaria ditarik kesimpulan bahwa diperlukan paired data untuk prevalensi cacing-cacing dan prevalensi serologis positif antibody terhadap arbovirus untuk memastikan apakah Way Abung lebih berbahaya daripada daerah asal transmigran.

"Humoral and Cellular Responses in Scrub Typhus Patients Reflecting Primary Infection and Reinfection with Rickettsia Tsutsugamushi" published on May 1982 by The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.

This study was supported in part by funds provided by the Indonesian Ministry of Health and The Naval Medical Research and Development Command, Navy Department for Work Unit MR041. 05-0052. The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Indonesian Ministry of Health and the Navy Department or the Naval Service at large.