没有被蜱虫叮咬或被叮咬后没有症状,为什么还要担心?

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Central European journal of public health Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.21101/cejph.a8114
Mykhaylo Andreychyn, Maria Shkilna, Oleksandr Tokarskyy, Oleh Ivakhiv, Zoriana Smahlii, Mykhaylo Korda
{"title":"没有被蜱虫叮咬或被叮咬后没有症状,为什么还要担心?","authors":"Mykhaylo Andreychyn, Maria Shkilna, Oleksandr Tokarskyy, Oleh Ivakhiv, Zoriana Smahlii, Mykhaylo Korda","doi":"10.21101/cejph.a8114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of the current study was to analyse the risks of Lyme borreliosis (LB) among 1,070 forestry workers, the influence of responsible behaviour (use of repellents, skin self-inspection) on Borrelia screening result status, and the occurrence of immediate and mid-term symptoms after tick bites and LB positive serological screening test.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The questionnaire was conducted as well as blood tests for LB disease by one-stage serological screening procedure using ELISA for specific B. burgdorferi IgM and IgG antibodies (EuroImmun AG company, Germany).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While 39.6% of foresters were LB positive among bitten foresters, as many as 27.0% were LB positive among those, who did not recall any tick attacks at all. Individuals with known history of tick bites had significantly higher odds (1.770×) of being LB positive (p < 0.05), while the use of repellents or skin self-inspection after visiting woods had no influence on LB results. The odds of skin discolouration after tick bites was significantly lower (0.682×) in case of LB positive test compared to LB negative test (p < 0.05), which can be explained by the fact that foresters could be unaware about erythema migrans appearance and timing, considering tick bite and developed later rash as completely separate events. Moreover, 69.1% of the bitten foresters with LB positive result developed no secondary symptoms (excluding those related to the skin), and the most frequent clinical symptoms were arthralgia (24.9%), followed by myalgia (7.6%), headache (5.7%), and damage to facial nerve (2.7%), which are non-specific and can be present in other illnesses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Therefore, the recommendations proposed would be the regular laboratory testing for LB of sensitive and at-risk population, who visits endemic woody areas, irrespective of all other factors involved.</p>","PeriodicalId":9823,"journal":{"name":"Central European journal of public health","volume":"32 3","pages":"173-177"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not bitten by Ixodes ticks or bitten without symptoms, why still to worry?\",\"authors\":\"Mykhaylo Andreychyn, Maria Shkilna, Oleksandr Tokarskyy, Oleh Ivakhiv, Zoriana Smahlii, Mykhaylo Korda\",\"doi\":\"10.21101/cejph.a8114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of the current study was to analyse the risks of Lyme borreliosis (LB) among 1,070 forestry workers, the influence of responsible behaviour (use of repellents, skin self-inspection) on Borrelia screening result status, and the occurrence of immediate and mid-term symptoms after tick bites and LB positive serological screening test.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The questionnaire was conducted as well as blood tests for LB disease by one-stage serological screening procedure using ELISA for specific B. burgdorferi IgM and IgG antibodies (EuroImmun AG company, Germany).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While 39.6% of foresters were LB positive among bitten foresters, as many as 27.0% were LB positive among those, who did not recall any tick attacks at all. Individuals with known history of tick bites had significantly higher odds (1.770×) of being LB positive (p < 0.05), while the use of repellents or skin self-inspection after visiting woods had no influence on LB results. The odds of skin discolouration after tick bites was significantly lower (0.682×) in case of LB positive test compared to LB negative test (p < 0.05), which can be explained by the fact that foresters could be unaware about erythema migrans appearance and timing, considering tick bite and developed later rash as completely separate events. Moreover, 69.1% of the bitten foresters with LB positive result developed no secondary symptoms (excluding those related to the skin), and the most frequent clinical symptoms were arthralgia (24.9%), followed by myalgia (7.6%), headache (5.7%), and damage to facial nerve (2.7%), which are non-specific and can be present in other illnesses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Therefore, the recommendations proposed would be the regular laboratory testing for LB of sensitive and at-risk population, who visits endemic woody areas, irrespective of all other factors involved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European journal of public health\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"173-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European journal of public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21101/cejph.a8114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21101/cejph.a8114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究的目的是分析 1070 名林业工人患莱姆包虫病(LB)的风险、负责任的行为(使用驱虫剂、皮肤自我检查)对包虫病筛查结果状况的影响,以及蜱虫叮咬和 LB 血清学筛查试验阳性后出现的近期和中期症状:方法:在进行问卷调查的同时,还通过使用 ELISA 检测特异性 B. burgdorferi IgM 和 IgG 抗体(德国 EuroImmun AG 公司)的单阶段血清学筛查程序对结核病进行血液检测:结果:在被咬伤的林业人员中,有 39.6% 的人乙型肝炎抗体呈阳性,而在完全不记得有蜱虫叮咬的人中,乙型肝炎抗体呈阳性的人高达 27.0%。已知有蜱虫叮咬史的人出现枸杞多糖阳性的几率明显更高(1.770×)(p < 0.05),而使用驱避剂或在游览树林后进行皮肤自我检查对枸杞多糖阳性结果没有影响。蜱虫叮咬后皮肤变色的几率(0.682×)在枸橼酸试验阳性的情况下明显低于枸橼酸试验阴性的情况(p < 0.05),这可能是由于林业人员可能不了解迁徙性红斑的出现和时间,认为蜱虫叮咬和后来出现的皮疹是完全独立的事件。此外,在 LB 阳性的被咬林农中,69.1% 没有出现继发症状(不包括与皮肤有关的症状),最常见的临床症状是关节痛(24.9%),其次是肌痛(7.6%)、头痛(5.7%)和面部神经损伤(2.7%),这些症状都是非特异性的,也可能出现在其他疾病中:因此,建议对前往林木流行区的敏感人群和高危人群定期进行结核病实验室检测,而不考虑所有其他因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Not bitten by Ixodes ticks or bitten without symptoms, why still to worry?

Objectives: The purpose of the current study was to analyse the risks of Lyme borreliosis (LB) among 1,070 forestry workers, the influence of responsible behaviour (use of repellents, skin self-inspection) on Borrelia screening result status, and the occurrence of immediate and mid-term symptoms after tick bites and LB positive serological screening test.

Methods: The questionnaire was conducted as well as blood tests for LB disease by one-stage serological screening procedure using ELISA for specific B. burgdorferi IgM and IgG antibodies (EuroImmun AG company, Germany).

Results: While 39.6% of foresters were LB positive among bitten foresters, as many as 27.0% were LB positive among those, who did not recall any tick attacks at all. Individuals with known history of tick bites had significantly higher odds (1.770×) of being LB positive (p < 0.05), while the use of repellents or skin self-inspection after visiting woods had no influence on LB results. The odds of skin discolouration after tick bites was significantly lower (0.682×) in case of LB positive test compared to LB negative test (p < 0.05), which can be explained by the fact that foresters could be unaware about erythema migrans appearance and timing, considering tick bite and developed later rash as completely separate events. Moreover, 69.1% of the bitten foresters with LB positive result developed no secondary symptoms (excluding those related to the skin), and the most frequent clinical symptoms were arthralgia (24.9%), followed by myalgia (7.6%), headache (5.7%), and damage to facial nerve (2.7%), which are non-specific and can be present in other illnesses.

Conclusion: Therefore, the recommendations proposed would be the regular laboratory testing for LB of sensitive and at-risk population, who visits endemic woody areas, irrespective of all other factors involved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Central European journal of public health
Central European journal of public health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes original articles on disease prevention and health protection, environmental impacts on health, the role of nutrition in health promotion, results of population health studies and critiques of specific health issues including intervention measures such as vaccination and its effectiveness. The review articles are targeted at providing up-to-date information in the sphere of public health. The Journal is geographically targeted at the European region but will accept specialised articles from foreign sources that contribute to public health issues also applicable to the European cultural milieu.
期刊最新文献
A post-pandemic trend in the consumption of dietary supplements among residents of Lithuania. Comparison of cervical cancer screening models based on Pap and HPV tests in Tbilisi, Georgia. Course and complications of influenza A in seniors over 65 years of age. Impact of climate on varicella distribution in Bulgaria (2009-2018). Mediterranean diet adherence in 9-years old children: a cross-sectional study in the part of the Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1