Surveillance of leishmaniasis cases from 15 European centres, 2014 to 2019: a retrospective analysis.

BackgroundSurveillance of human leishmaniasis in Europe is mostly limited to country-specific information from autochthonous infections in the southern part. As at the end of 2021, no integrated analysis has been performed for cases seen across centres in different European countries.AimTo provide a broad perspective on autochthonous and imported leishmaniasis cases in endemic and non-endemic countries in Europe.MethodsWe retrospectively collected records from cutaneous, mucosal and visceral leishmaniasis cases diagnosed in 15 centres between 2014 and 2019. Centres were located in 11 countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Data on country of infection, reason for travelling, infecting species, age and sex were analysed.ResultsWe obtained diagnostic files from 1,142 cases, of which 76%, 21% and 3% had cutaneous, visceral, and mucosal disease, respectively. Of these, 68% were men, and 32% women, with the median age of 37 years (range: 0-90) at diagnosis. Visceral leishmaniasis was mainly acquired in Europe (88%; 167/190), while cutaneous leishmaniasis was primarily imported from outside Europe (77%; 575/749). Sixty-two percent of cutaneous leishmaniasis cases from outside Europe were from the Old World, and 38% from the New World. Geographic species distribution largely confirmed known epidemiology, with notable exceptions.ConclusionsOur study confirms previous reports regarding geographic origin, species, and traveller subgroups importing leishmaniasis into Europe. We demonstrate the importance of pooling species typing data from many centres, even from areas where the aetiology is presumably known, to monitor changing epidemiology.

Comparison of Leishmania typing results obtained from 16 European clinical laboratories in 2014.

Leishmaniasis is endemic in southern Europe, and in other European countries cases are diagnosed in travellers who have visited affected areas both within the continent and beyond. Prompt and accurate diagnosis poses a challenge in clinical practice in Europe. Different methods exist for identification of the infecting Leishmania species. Sixteen clinical laboratories in 10 European countries, plus Israel and Turkey, conducted a study to assess their genotyping performance. DNA from 21 promastigote cultures of 13 species was analysed blindly by the routinely used typing method. Five different molecular targets were used, which were analysed with PCR-based methods. Different levels of identification were achieved, and either the Leishmania subgenus, species complex, or actual species were reported. The overall error rate of strains placed in the wrong complex or species was 8.5%. Various reasons for incorrect typing were identified. The study shows there is considerable room for improvement and standardisation of Leishmania typing. The use of well validated standard operating procedures is recommended, covering testing, interpretation, and reporting guidelines. Application of the internal transcribed spacer 1 of the rDNA array should be restricted to Old World samples, while the heat-shock protein 70 gene and the mini-exon can be applied globally.

Clinical presentation and diagnosis of imported strongyloidiasis at a tertiary hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Since Strongyloides can persist in its host for decades, and cause life threatening infections data on prevalence, the burden and risk factors for infection is crucial in migrant populations. METHODS: In this observational retrospective cohort study, we describe the epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of imported strongyloidiasis diagnosed at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, during 2010-2021. RESULTS: We identified 98 individuals with strongyloidiasis, 89 (90.8%) born in endemic and 9 (9.2%) in non-endemic countries. Sub-Saharan Africa was the most common origin among the group born in endemic countries (62, 69.7%), (p < 0.005). There were 22 individuals with an underlying immunosuppressive condition. Gastrointestinal symptoms (53/98, 54.1%) were the symptoms most frequently described, and were more frequent in adults (57.0%) vs children (0%) (p = 0.013). Eosinophilia was detected in 74 (75.5%), being more frequent in the endemic-borne group (79.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.002). Eight persons developed complications of strongyloidiasis because of either hyperinfection or disseminated disease. No people living with HIV with CD4 <500/mm3 (n = 6) developed severe strongyloidiasis. CONCLUSION: A limited number of strongyloidiasis cases was identified, with few complicated cases in immunosuppressed patients. Further studies focusing on identifying and exploring the risk of complicated strongyloidiasis in immunosuppressed patients are needed.