Leishmaniasis epidemiology in endemic areas of metropolitan France and its overseas territories from 1998 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: In France, leishmaniasis is endemic in the Mediterranean region, in French Guiana and to a lesser extent, in the French West Indies. This study wanted to provide an updated picture of leishmaniasis epidemiology in metropolitan France and in its overseas territories. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Leishmaniasis cases were collected by passive notification to the French National Reference Centre for Leishmaniases (NRCL) in Montpellier from 1998 to 2020 and at the associated Centre in Cayenne (French Guiana) from 2003 to 2020. In metropolitan France, 517 autochthonous leishmaniasis cases, mostly visceral forms due to Leishmania infantum (79%), and 1725 imported cases (French Guiana excluded), mainly cutaneous leishmaniasis from Maghreb, were recorded. A slight decrease of autochthonous cases was observed during the survey period, from 0.48 cases/100,000 inhabitants per year in 1999 (highest value) to 0.1 cases/100,000 inhabitants per year in 2017 (lowest value). Conversely, imported cases increased over time (from 59.7 in the 2000s to 94.5 in the 2010s). In French Guiana, 4126 cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis cases were reported from 2003 to 2020. The mean incidence was 103.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants/year but varied in function of the year (from 198 in 2004 to 54 in 2006). In Guadeloupe and Martinique (French West Indies), only sporadic cases were reported. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Because of concerns about disease expansion and outbreaks in other Southern Europe countries, and leishmaniasis monitoring by the NRCL should be continued and associated with a more active surveillance.

Additive value of bioclinical risk scores to high sensitivity troponins-only strategy in acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Discharging patients home as quickly as possible, or gaining the ability to eliminate a serious event is a goal requested by clinicians in the emergency department (ED). For this, risk scores, taking into account co-morbidities, have been established. The aim of our study consists to evaluate in patients with chest pain admitted in ED the risk stratification obtained with clinico-biological risk scores (CCS, GRACE score, TIMI score and HEART score) using Ortho hs-cTnI assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Illkirch, France) on the Vitros 3600® instrument or Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module (Roche diagnostics, Meylan, France), with comparison to hs-cTn-only strategy. Prognostic performances were evaluated according to AMI with or without STEMI, and deaths during hospitalization. METHODS: Patients admitted to the ED presenting chest pain or symptoms suggesting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Hs-cTnT was performed on a Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module using a fifth-generation assay and was used for the clinical diagnosis. In addition, hs-cTnI was tested using Ortho hs-cTnI assay on the Vitros 3600® analyzer. Retrospectively, we collected the variables needed for each score in clinical records. Our endpoint were occurrence of AMI in patients with chest pain after presentation to the ED and all cause death during the hospitalization. RESULTS: We enrolled 160 patients with suspected ACS. The adjudicated diagnosis was AMI in 37 patients (with 9 STEMI and 28 NSTEMI), cardiac pathologies in 57 patients and other causes in 66 patients. The majority of patients were classified at high risk for each risk scores (from 42% to 68%) whatever the considered hs-cTn assay, except for TIMI score. Cohen's kappa agreements with GRACE, TIMI and HEART scores were excellent between Roche hs-cTnT vs Ortho hs-cTnI. The AUC of the HEART score was highest for both hs-cTn to predict AMI, NSTEMI or death, with no statistical difference according to the hs-cTn (p = NS) assay used. NRI analysis confirmed the interest of HEART score which improved individual risk prediction for AMI (or NSTEMI) and death. CONCLUSION: In view of our results, the decision aids using only biological variables (hs-cTn-only strategy and CCS) would seem more effective for rule-out AMI whereas bioclinical risk scores could better identify patients at low and high risk for mortality. In consequence, risk scores taking in account comorbidities, appear necessary to determine the outcome and thus to adapt the therapeutic options. It is interesting to note that the HEART score could be useful for the rule out AMI but also for the risk prediction as confirmed by the NRI.