Next Article in Journal
Lomentospora prolificans Disseminated Infections: A Systematic Review of Reported Cases
Previous Article in Journal
Secretomic Insights into the Pathophysiology of Venturia inaequalis: The Causative Agent of Scab, a Devastating Apple Tree Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/pathogens12010065
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

Three Cases of Atypical Pneumonia with Chlamydia psittaci: The Role of Laboratory Vigilance in the Diagnosis of Psittacosis

by
Sophie Missault
1,†,
Anne De Meyst
2,*,†,
Jan Van Elslande
3,
Anne-Marie Van den Abeele
3,
Elke Steen
1,
Jos Van Acker
3,‡ and
Daisy Vanrompay
2,‡
1
Department of Geriatric Medicine, AZ Sint-Lucas Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2
Laboratory for Immunology and Animal Biotechnology, Department of Animal Science and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
3
Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, AZ Sint-Lucas Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pathogens 2023, 12(1), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12010065
Submission received: 21 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 26 December 2022 / Published: 31 December 2022
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chlamydia psittaci is an established zoonotic agent causing respiratory disease in humans. An infection often remains asymptomatic but can also result in flu-like illness, pneumonia or even multi-organ failure. This paper describes three patients, hospitalised at AZ Sint-Lucas Hospital, with atypical pneumonia who were diagnosed with C. psittaci after an in-depth anamnesis and laboratory investigation in the midst of the COVID pandemic. All three infections were confirmed with PCR and serology, whereas viable bacteria were only present for one patient. Genotyping revealed the presence of genotype B for patient 1 and 2 whereas ompA genotyping was unsuccessful for patient 3. This case report demonstrates the importance of a thorough patient history as close contact with birds is one of the main risk factors to contract the pathogen. Once exposure to birds has been confirmed, a diagnosis by a combination of PCR and serology is essential in order to initiate a treatment with the proper antibiotics. As psittacosis is still an underestimated and underdiagnosed disease, communication between laboratory, clinicians and bird fanciers is encouraged.

1. Introduction

Chlamydia psittaci is the causative agent of psittacosis, also known as parrot fever. It is an obligate intracellular bacterium that belongs to the Chlamydiaceae family, which currently comprises 14 characterized species [1,2].
C. psittaci is an established zoonotic pathogen, infecting humans predominantly after contact with infected birds or their excrements. The typical reservoir concerns parrot-type birds (Psittaciformes), although many other birds (e.g., pigeons, turkeys, ducks, chickens, owls) and even mammals such as horses have been implicated in zoonotic transmission of C. psittaci to humans [3]. Human-to-human transmission is possible but rarely occurs [4,5]. As C. psittaci is mainly transmitted through aerosols, individuals having regular close contact with birds are an important risk population.
Human infections occur as solitary events or in outbreak settings, such as in poultry processing plants, poultry farms, bird shows and bird sanctuaries. Especially during outbreaks, laboratory diagnostics are indispensable to aid with case finding, cluster identification and source detection [6].
Symptoms of psittacosis range from none (asymptomatic) to mild flu-like illness up to severe pneumonia. Sepsis, hepatitis and/or meningitis can occur when the disease becomes systemic, which is sporadically fatal [7,8,9]. As there are no specific symptoms of psittacosis, compared to other atypical pneumonias, the incidence of psittacosis is largely underestimated [1].
Psittacosis is a mandatory, notifiable disease in all three Belgian regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia). In general, a case can be confirmed when the patient has clinical signs like headache, cough, fever and chills, in combination with strong laboratory evidence provided by isolation of C. psittaci from respiratory secretions (preferably samples of the lower respiratory tract) or blood, or by a significant antibody titer rise on paired acute and convalescent serum samples. A probable case implies clinical signs and a single increase in C. psittaci-specific IgM antibodies (Wallonia or Flanders) or the detection of C. psittaci in respiratory secretions by PCR (Flanders) [1].
We describe three cases of pneumonia in patients with a history of close contact with pigeons and parrots during the COVID pandemic. All three patients were diagnosed with psittacosis after in-depth laboratory testing. This study demonstrates the importance of a thorough anamnesis in combination with laboratory vigilance for rapid case confirmation.

2. Case Description

2.1. Patient 1

An 87-year-old man was referred to the emergency care department by his general care practitioner because of progressive dyspnea, fever and general malaise for one week. The patient was empirically prescribed azithromycin, with insufficient improvement. The man had a history of atrial flutter and coronary artery disease and mentioned that he was a pigeon owner. At the time he was double vaccinated against COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Laboratory investigation showed an acute kidney failure and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters with a CRP of 47 mg/L (reference value <5 mg/L) and a leukocytosis of 13.7 × 103/μL (reference value 3.4–9.8 × 103/μL) in presence of a left shift. A chest CT scan revealed bilateral patchy infiltrates and lung emphysema. The patient was hospitalized and treated empirically for atypical pneumonia with moxifloxacin for ten days. Clinical symptoms improved and the patient could be discharged after eight days. One week after dismissal, C. psittaci-specific PCR on sputum, performed by the national reference laboratory for human psittacosis (Ghent University), returned positive. Serology for C. psittaci was significantly positive as well, and in consultation with the treating pneumologist, the patient was treated with doxycycline (100 mg once daily after a loading dose of 200 mg) for another ten days. A re-evaluation after three months revealed a complete resolution of his pneumonia on chest X-ray. The man sold his pigeons shortly after. There was no testing nor treatment performed on the animals.

2.2. Patient 2

A 56-year-old man presented at the emergency department with general malaise, dry cough, headache and fever. He already received amoxicillin for three days from the primary care physician, though symptoms worsened. The man was a truck driver and had an unremarkable medical history but mentioned transporting pigeons on weekends. At the time of presentation, the man was vaccinated once against COVID-19 and had a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. Laboratory tests showed an elevated CRP of 159 mg/L (Reference: <5 mg/L) with a normal leukocyte count. A CT-scan of the chest showed a pneumonic infiltration in the left lower lobe. A diagnosis of pneumonia was made, and the man was empirically treated with clindamycin and levofloxacin for seven days. After five days, the patient had sufficiently improved to be discharged from the hospital. Fourteen days after discharge from the hospital, PCR for C. psittaci on sputum returned positive and specific antibodies could be detected as well. The patient was treated for another two weeks with doxycycline (100 mg twice daily). There was no testing or treatment performed on the pigeons.

2.3. Patient 3

A 90-year-old woman, double vaccinated against COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative, was referred to the emergency department because of presumed upper respiratory tract infection, for which she had received amoxicillin, corticosteroids and aerosol therapy. Nevertheless, she developed more dyspnea, cough and desaturation. She had been living with her son, who kept parrots, though she claimed not to have had close contact with these birds. Laboratory findings included a low CRP of 5 mg/L (reference value < 5 mg/L) though a significant leukocytosis (13.8 × 103/μL, reference value 3.4–9.8 × 103/μL) with a left shift was present. A chest CT scan showed post-infectious changes in the lower lobes. Respiratory multiplex PCR detected parainfluenza virus and sputum showed abundant growth of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterobacter cloacae, for which hospital treatment with levofloxacin was established for five days. C. psittaci was detected in the sputum sample by PCR and serology returned positive as well. An additional treatment with doxycycline (100 mg twice daily) was established. The birds (Bourke’s Parrots) tested positive for C. psittaci as well and were treated with oxytetracycline.

3. Laboratory Investigations

Patient 1 and 2 both showed specific anti-C. psittaci IgG antibodies with a titer of 1/400 (reference value <1/100). The third patient had a slightly elevated IgG titer of 1/100 (reference value <1/100). The serum sample of patient 1 was also sent to a second laboratory, which confirmed the positive IgG result (122 U/mL, reference value < 22 U/mL).
The sputum sample of patient 1 was positive by nested C. psittaci-specific PCR and culture in Buffalo Green Monkey (BGM) cells. The C. psittaci ompA genotyping real-time PCR, directly on sputum, was unsuccessful. However, when using cell culture harvest, the sample could be typed as ompA genotype B (Cycle Threshold (CT)-value of 33.95). The sputum sample of patient 2 was positive by nested PCR. Culture was unsuccessful because all monolayers were destroyed by microbial contaminants. Nevertheless, we were able to confirm the nested PCR result as genotyping, performed directly on sputum, revealed the presence of C. psittaci ompA genotype B (CT-value of 31.88). The sputum sample of the third patient was positive by nested PCR as well, whereas genotyping was negative for genotypes A to F and E/B. Culture of sputum was negative as well.
From only one patient, the 90-year-old lady, the birds (Bourke’s parrots) were tested by a local veterinarian and confirmed to be infected by C. psittaci, but no samples were sent to the national reference center for C. psittaci (University of Ghent) for genotyping.
An overview of the laboratory investigations can be found in Table 1.

4. Discussion

In this study, we describe three cases of psittacosis, diagnosed during the third and fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium [10]. A detailed anamnesis showed that all three patients had regular contact with birds and laboratory investigations were initiated to establish a diagnosis. C. psittaci infections were confirmed by both PCR and serology and appropriate treatment was initiated to aid the full recovery of the patients.
While COVID-19 is the most prevalent, if not the most feared, respiratory pathogen among humans since 2019, C. psittaci should certainly not be forgotten as a causative agent of pneumonia as well. With humans being the primary host of COVID-19, C. psittaci predominantly infects birds and is only occasionally transmitted to humans [11]. The global prevalence of C. psittaci in birds is estimated around 20% and its transmission to humans has been reported regularly [12,13]. In 2020, Rybarczyk et al., presented the epidemiological data on psittacosis in Belgium. Since 2010, a small increase in reported cases was observed, but in 2017, the reported cases almost doubled (44 cases) compared to the two previous years. Remarkably, from 2015 to 2017, the mandatory notification system registered only 24% (22 cases in total) of all the cases reported in laboratories [1]. Although two of our three patients were older than 85 years, only 16.3% (39/239) of all infected people in Belgium since 2014 were older than 65 years [14]. Parallel to reports on other diseases, underdiagnosis of psittacosis in elderly can be attributed to limited access to health care, lower levels of education, living in a nursing home and, importantly, to the absence of typical clinical signs [15]. Furthermore, a history of contact with birds should outweigh the importance of a patient’s age in suspecting psittacosis.
Although an increase in reported cases is observed, the real burden of psittacosis is believed to be underestimated. The reasons for this underestimation are multiple. First of all, psittacosis is a systemic infection which most frequently presents with flu-like symptoms, with highly variable severity and organ involvement. As seen in our three cases, chest imaging and routine laboratory findings are often indistinguishable from other causes of (atypical) pneumonia, including C. pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumoniae, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 [16]. Second, in community acquired pneumonia (CAP), there is no standard recommendation of extensive testing to find a causative agent and treatment is frequently empirically established. Many patients, therefore, receive the diagnosis of pneumonia without the causative agent being specified [1,17,18]. A study from Raeven et al., performed on 980 patients, concluded that atypical causative agents in CAP are associated with, respectively, the non-respiratory season (May to October), age (<60 years), male gender and absence of COPD. Therefore, testing for atypical agents should be considered in patients younger than 60 years old who are admitted with CAP from early May to early October [17]. Some authors also recommend diagnostic testing when other organisms are ruled out or if there is a history of close contact with birds or other psittacosis cases [6]. Based on our three cases, we want to emphasize the importance of a thorough medical anamnesis, regardless of patient age, as a history of contact with birds plays a key role in setting the diagnosis of psittacosis.
In this study, diagnosis was performed by a combination of PCR, serology and culture methods. PCR testing is both rapid and sensitive but preferentially requires a sample from the lower respiratory tract (i.e., BAL or sputum) taken within 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms. As the sensitivity of PCR might decrease when the sample is not taken in the acute phase of the infection or when samples are collected from the upper respiratory tract, PCR is often combined with serological tests. Antibody titers can remain positive for over six months, but serological tests are not 100% specific as antibodies can cross-react with other Chlamydia species [19,20,21]. A seroconversion or rise in titer is required to confirm the diagnosis of an acute C. psittaci infection. However, paired sera from infected people will not always test positive. As an example, we refer to a paper of De Boeck et al. (2016), describing the case of a 54-year-old hospitalized woman who was diagnosed with psittacosis after the purchase of a sick lovebird in a pet shop. Both acute and convalescent blood samples were IgM and IgG negative [22]. False-negative results may be explained by the lack of sensitivity of certain serological tests or the intake of antibiotics 2–3 weeks prior to testing, hampering the development of antibodies [22,23]. Further, individuals carrying genetic mutations in Toll-Like Receptors (TLR), or Nucleotide-binding Oligomerization Domain (NOD) families may fail to recognize the pathogen, resulting in the absence of an adequate immune response. This has already been demonstrated for C. trachomatis and might also be applicable to other chlamydiae [24,25]. In spite of possible false-positive and false-negative results, serology can still be of use in outbreak situations, when infections are often discovered after the acute phase and the sensitivity of PCR testing is thereby lowered. Further, a serological test is often available in clinical labs while PCR for C. psittaci is sometimes not. Outsourcing of PCR prolongs the time-to-result as additional sample shipping is required and can be avoided by implementing C. psittaci in molecular test panels in the clinical labs.
Both C. psittaci DNA and C. psittaci IgG antibodies were found for all three patients, revealing an acute infection. However, only the sputum sample from the first patient was also culture positive. Before the arrival of molecular techniques, the culture of Chlamydiaceae was the golden standard, as it is the only method to demonstrate the viability of the agent. Nevertheless, culture is difficult, labor-intensive and often requires a biosafety level 3 laboratory given the outbreak potential of the microorganisms and its possible severe disease course. Further, the cultivability of field strains largely varies and is also affected by transport time and temperature, transport medium, prior antibiotics use and the presence of other microorganisms in the sample. It is therefore routinely replaced by other methods [6,26]. As all patients received antibiotics before the sample was collected, it is not surprising that the viability of the agent could only be demonstrated in one sample.
Finally, genotyping revealed that patient 1 and 2 both were infected with C. psittaci genotype B, whereas no genotype could be identified for patient 3. Genotyping can help to map clusters of cases and prove transmission from an animal to a patient, as each genotype has its specific host preferences [6,27]. The genotype-specific PCR developed by Geens et al. (2005) is able to detect the initial seven avian ompA genotypes (A-F, E/B) [28]. Genotype A and B are most prevalent in psittacine birds and pigeons, respectively. Genotype C is mostly found in ducks and geese, D in turkeys and F in psittacine birds, as well as turkeys. Genotype E can be found in a wide variety of hosts and genotype E/B was isolated most frequently from ducks. All genotypes are considered capable of infecting humans, with a spectrum of asymptomatic infection to severe pneumoniae and systemic disease [8,23]. The highly virulent genotype A from infected Psittaciformes is predominantly reported in hospitalized patients; but also genotype B, which was found in two of our patients who both were pigeon enthusiasts, is often detected in C. psittaci cases [22,29,30,31]. In our third patient, genotyping unfortunately could not confirm any subtype. Possibly, the third patient was infected with one of the newly proposed genotypes (YP84, CPX0308, I, J, Mat116, R54, 6N) which have been found in psittacine birds and wild birds [32,33]. As no genotyping was performed on her resident son Bourke’s parrots, no further conclusions can be drawn. However, we would like to recommend the implementation of a broader genotyping method, including the mammalian genotypes WC and M56 and the newly proposed avian genotypes. Vorimore et al. (2021) recently published a genotyping method based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms able to discriminate between the established genotypes and the less described genotype Mat116 [34].
With the recent advancements in sequencing technologies, traditional approaches are gradually replaced by other molecular alternatives. An example is the use of untargeted metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), where both host and microbial DNA are sequenced in parallel. As the interpretation of mNGS is complex and the full procedure still needs standardization, it is not routinely used yet [35]. However, this precise and rapid method (average time-to-result is 48 h) has already been applied in diagnosing C. psittaci pneumonia [16,36].
As psittacosis is a notifiable disease in Flanders (Belgium), infections must be reported to the Flemish Agency for Care and Health, that subsequently will initiate contact tracing and cluster identification [37]. When an infection can be traced back to contact with a specific bird, this bird must be tested and treated accordingly. However, in this case study, only the birds of the third patient were tested and treated. Both patients 1 and 2 were infected with genotype B, indicating transmission from pigeons, but no pigeons were tested or treated. This non optimal casework, probably due to a lack of time during the COVID crisis, should be avoided because it facilitates the transmission of the pathogen to people and birds. Better communication between laboratories, clinicians and the responsible public agencies has to be encouraged to enable a rapid and effective response.
In conclusion, with this study, we attempted to add to the growing body of evidence that a thorough anamnesis with standard questioning the history of bird contact is indispensable in setting the diagnosis of C. psittaci. A history of (frequent) contact with psittacine birds in patients with suggestive though non-specific clinical signs should trigger testing a patient for C. psittaci in order to set up the relevant treatment. As a fast diagnosis is often essential for the selection of a suitable treatment, we also recommend the incorporation of C. psittaci in syndromic molecular test panels for CAP testing in clinical labs.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Serology

Blood samples were obtained from all three patients for routine clinical investigations. Samples were taken 7, 5 and 11 days after onset of symptoms for patients 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The sera were sent to an external laboratory (Institute of tropical medicine Antwerp, Belgium) for determination of C. psittaci-specific IgG antibodies using a micro-immunofluorescence assay (MIF) from EUROIMMUN (PerkinElmer, Mechelen, Belgium). The serum sample of patient 1 was also sent to another laboratory (Algemeen Medisch Laboratorium Antwerp, Belgium), where they determined C. psittaci-specific IgG and IgM antibodies with a MIF from Focus Diagnostics (Cypress, California, USA).

5.2. C. psittaci Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction

Sputum samples were collected, respectively, 6, 6 and 11 days after onset of symptoms for patients 1,2 and 3. DNA was extracted from the sputum samples for all patients. For this purpose, the body fluid protocol of the QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen, Antwerp, Belgium) was used. A C. psittaci-specific nested PCR was performed on all three DNA extracts, as described by [38]. The PCR detects the outer membrane protein A (ompA) gene of all C. psittaci genotypes with a sensitivity of 1.0 Inclusion Forming Units (IFU).

5.3. Culture

Samples were also used for Chlamydia culture. Of each sample, 75 μL was inoculated onto a 24-hour old monolayer of Buffalo Green Monkey (BGM) cells and centrifuged (1200× g) for 1 h at 37 °C. Afterwards, monolayers were incubated for six days at 37 °C in complete Chlamydia culture medium consisting of Minimal Essential Medium (MEM) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Geel, Belgium), 5% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (Greiner Bio-One, Vilvoorde, Belgium), 2% D-glucose (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 2 mM L-glutamine (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 1% MEM vitamins (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 0.1 mg/mL vancomycin (Sandoz NV, Vilvoorde, Belgium), 0.1 mg/mL streptomycin sulphate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Geel, Belgium), 0.22% cycloheximide (Merck Life Science BV, Overijse, Belgium), 0.25 μg/mL fungizone (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 0.5 mg/mL gentamycin (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Afterwards, an immunostaining was performed using the IMAGEN™ Chlamydia kit (Oxoid™, Geel, Belgium). A sample was considered positive when inclusion-forming units could be identified inside host cells.

5.4. Molecular Characterization

DNA extracts of sputum and cell culture were used for C. psittaci ompA genotyping. The genotype-specific real-time PCR was performed as described earlier [28]. The assay detects avian C. psittaci ompA genotypes A to F and genotype E/B with a sensitivity of 10 copies/μL DNA extract.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M., A.D.M. and J.V.E.; methodology, S.M. and A.D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M. and A.D.M.; writing—review and editing, D.V., J.V.E., A.-M.V.d.A., E.S. and J.V.A.; supervision, D.V. and E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

De Meyst, A. was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), PhD grant number FWO 1S67121N.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The contribution of our three patients and veterinarian Ingels to this study is acknowledged with gratitude.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Rybarczyk, J.; Versteele, C.; Lernout, T.; Vanrompay, D. Human psittacosis: A review with emphasis on surveillance in Belgium. Acta Clin. Belg. 2020, 75, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Marchino, M.; Rizzo, F.; Barzanti, P.; Sparasci, O.A.; Bottino, P.; Vicari, N.; Rigamonti, S.; Braghin, S.; Aaziz, R.; Vorimore, F.; et al. Chlamydia Species and Related Risk Factors in Poultry in North-Western Italy: Possible Bird-to-Human Transmission for C. gallinacea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hogerwerf, L.; Roof, I.; de Jong, M.J.K.; Dijkstra, F.; van der Hoek, W. Animal sources for zoonotic transmission of psittacosis: A systematic review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Wallensten, A.; Fredlund, H.; Runehagen, A. Multiple human-to-human transmission from a severe case of psittacosis, Sweden, January—February 2013. Eurosurveillance 2014, 19, 20937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Zhang, Z.; Zhou, H.; Cao, H.; Ji, J.; Zhang, R.; Li, W.; Guo, H.; Chen, L.; Ma, C.; Cui, M.; et al. Human-to-human transmission of Chlamydia psittaci in China, 2020: An epidemiological and aetiological investigation. Lancet Microbe. 2022, 3, e512–e520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nieuwenhuizen, A.A.; Dijkstra, F.; Notermans, D.W.; Van Der Hoek, W. Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: A systematic review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Harkinezhad, T.; Verminnen, K.; De Buyzere, M.; Rietzschel, E.; Bekaert, S.; Vanrompay, D. Prevalence of Chlamydophila psittaci infections in a human population in contact with domestic and companion birds. J. Med.Microbiol. 2009, 58, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Meijer, R.; Van Biezen, P.; Prins, G.; Boiten, H. Multi-organ failure with necrotic skin lesions due to infection with Chlamydia psittaci. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 106, 262–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Gier, B.; Hogerwerf, L.; Dijkstra, F.; Van Der Hoek, W. Disease burden of psittacosis in the Netherlands. Epidemiol. Infect. 2018, 146, 303–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sciensano. Vaccinatiegraad en Epidemiologische Impact van de COVID-19-Vaccinatiecampagne in België. 2021. Available online: https://www.sciensano.be/nl/biblio/vaccinatiegraad-en-epidemiologische-impact-van-de-covid-19-vaccinatiecampagne-belgie-gegevens-tot-en (accessed on 14 September 2022).
  11. Sachs, J.D.; Karim, S.S.A.; Aknin, L.; Allen, J.; Brosbøl, K.; Colombo, F.; Barron, G.C.; Espinosa, M.F.; Gaspar, V.; Gaviria, A.; et al. The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2022, 6736, 1–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sukon, P.; Nam, N.H.; Kittipreeya, P.; Sara-In, A.; Wawilai, P.; Inchuai, R.; Weerakhun, S. Global prevalence of chlamydial infections in birds: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2021, 192, 105370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. De Meyst, A.; Aaziz, R.; Pex, J.; Braeckman, L.; Livingstone, M.; Longbottom, D.; Laroucau, K.; Vanrompay, D. Prevalence of New and Established Avian Chlamydial Species in Humans and Their Psittacine Pet Birds in Belgium. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sciensano. Epistat Belgian Infectious Diseases. Available online: https://epistat.sciensano.be/dashboard/ (accessed on 29 September 2022).
  15. Skinner, T.R.; Scott, I.A.; Martin, J.H. Diagnostic errors in older patients: A systematic review of incidence and potential causes in seven prevalent diseases. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2016, 9, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Li, N.; Li, S.; Tan, W.; Wang, H.; Xu, H.; Wang, D. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the family outbreak of psittacosis: The first reported family outbreak of psittacosis in China under COVID-19. Emerg. Microbes. Infect. 2021, 10, 1418–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Raeven, V.M.; Spoorenberg, S.M.C.; Boersma, W.G.; van de Garde, E.M.W.; Cannegieter, S.C.; Voorn, G.P.P.; Bos, W.J.W.; van Steenbergen, J.E.; On behalf of the Alkmaar study group; On behalf of the Ovidius study group. Atypical aetiology in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia is associated with age, gender and season; a data-analysis on four Dutch cohorts. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. UZGent. Richtlijn Diagnostiek, Triage en Behandeling van Community Acquired Pneumonie (CAP). 2020, pp. 1–5. Available online: https://www.uzgent.be/sites/default/files/2021-06/CAP20150223.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2022).
  19. Grayston, J.T.; Campbell, L.A.; Kuo, C.; Mordhorst, C.H.; Saikku, P.; Thom, D.H.; Wang, S.-P. A New Respiratory Tract Pathogen: Chlamydia pneumoniae Strain TWAR. J. Infect. Dis. 1989, 161, 618–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saikku, P.; Leinonen, M.; Tenkanen, L.; Linnanmaki, E.; Ekman, M.-R.; Manninen, V.; Mänttäri, M.; Frick, M.H.; Huttunen, J.K. Chronic Chlamydia pneumoniae Infection as a Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. Ann. Intern. Med. 1992, 116, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hogerwerf, L.; De Gier, B.; Baan, B.; Van Der Hoek, W. Chlamydia psittaci (psittacosis) as a cause of community-acquired Pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol. Infect. 2017, 145, 3096–3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. De Boeck, C.; Dehollogne, C.; Dumont, A.; Spierenburg, M.; Heijne, M.; Gyssens, I.; Van Der Hilst, J.; Vanrompay, D. Managing a cluster outbreak of psittacosis in Belgium linked to a pet shop visit in The Netherlands. Epidemiol. Infect. 2016, 144, 1710–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beeckman, D.S.A.; Vanrompay, D.C.G. Zoonotic Chlamydophila psittaci infections from a clinical perspective. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Den Hartog, J.E.; Morré, S.A.; Land, J.A. Chlamydia trachomatis-associated tubal factor subfertility: Immunogenetic aspects and serological screening. Hum. Reprod. Update 2006, 12, 719–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lal, J.A.; Malogajski, J.; Verweij, S.P.; De Boer, P.; Ambrosino, E.; Brand, A.; Ouburg, S.; Morré, S. Chlamydia trachomatis infections and subfertility: Opportunities to translate host pathogen genomic data into public health. Public Health Genom. 2013, 16, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sachse, K.; Vretou, E.; Livingstone, M.; Borel, N.; Pospischil, A.; Longbottom, D. Recent developments in the laboratory diagnosis of chlamydial infections. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 135, 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Fraeyman, A.; Boel, A.; Van Vaerenbergh, K.; De Beenhouwer, H. Atypical pneumonia due to Chlamydophila psittaci: 3 case reports and review of literature. Acta Clin. Belg. 2010, 65, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Geens Dewitte Boon, V. Development of a Chlamydophila psittaci species- specific and genotype-specific real-time PCR. Vet. Res. 2005, 36, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Heddema, E.R.; Van Hannen, E.J.; Bongaerts, M.; Dijkstra, F.; Ten Hove, R.J.; De Wever, B.; Vanrompay, D. Typing of chlamydia psittaci to monitor epidemiology of psittacosis and aid disease control in the Netherlands, 2008 to 2013. Eurosurveillance 2015, 20, 21026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Magnino, S.; Haag-Wackernagel, D.; Geigenfeind, I.; Helmecke, S.; Dovč, A.; Prukner-Radovčić, E.; Residbegović, E.; Ilieski, V.; Laroucau, K.; Donati, M.; et al. Chlamydial infections in feral pigeons in Europe: Review of data and focus on public health implications. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 135, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ling, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, X.; Yang, X.; Yang, J.; Bavoil, P.M.; He, C. Epidemiology of Chlamydia psittaci Infection in Racing Pigeons and Pigeon Fanciers in Beijing, China. Zoonoses Public Health 2015, 62, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Origlia, J.A.; Cadario, M.E.; Frutos, M.C.; Lopez, N.F.; Corva, S.; Unzaga, M.F.; Piscopo, M.V.; Cuffini, C.; Petruccelli, M.A. Detection and molecular characterization of Chlamydia psittaci and Chlamydia abortus in psittacine pet birds in Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Rev. Argent Microbiol. 2019, 51, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Szymańska-Czerwińska, M.; Mitura, A.; Niemczuk, K.; Zarȩba, K.; Jodeøko, A.; Pluta, A.; Piscopo, M.V.; Cuffini, C.; Petruccelli, M.A. Dissemination and genetic diversity of chlamydial agents in Polish wildfowl: Isolation and molecular characterisation of avian Chlamydia abortus strains. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vorimore, F.; Aaziz, R.; de Barbeyrac, B.; Peuchant, O.; Szymańska-czerwińska, M.; Herrmann, B.; Schnee, C.; Laroucau, K. A new snp-based genotyping method for C. psittaci: Application to field samples for quick identification. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Simner, P.J.; Miller, S.; Carroll, K.C. Understanding the promises and hurdles of metagenomic next-generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool for infectious diseases. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 778–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Gu, L.; Liu, W.; Ru, M.; Lin, J.; Yu, G.; Ye, J.; Zhu, Z.-A.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Lai, G.; et al. The application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in diagnosing Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia: A report of five cases. BMC Pulm. Med. 2020, 20, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Gezondheid A Zorg en. Psittacose. Available online: https://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/psittacose (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  38. Van Loock, M.; Verminnen, K.; Messmer, T.O.; Volckaert, G.; Goddeeris, B.M.; Vanrompay, D. Use of a nested PCR-enzyme immunoassay with an internal control to detect Chlamydophila psittaci in turkeys. BMC Infect. Dis. 2005, 5, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Overview of the clinical manifestations and laboratory test results of the three patients.
Table 1. Overview of the clinical manifestations and laboratory test results of the three patients.
Patient 1Patient 2Patient 3
Clinical manifestationsDyspnea
Fever
Malaise		Dry cough
Fever
Malaise
Headache		Cough
Dyspnea
Desaturation
Analysed samplesBlood and sputum sampleBlood and sputum sampleBlood and sputum
collected 7 and 6 days
after onset of symptoms		collected 5 and 6 days
after onset of symptoms		collected 11 days
after onset of symptoms
Diagnosis:
Serology IgG (MIF)1/4001/4001/100
CulturePositiveIndecisiveNegative
C. psittaci-specific PCRPositivePositivePositive
Genotype-specific PCRGenotype BGenotype BIndecisive
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Missault, S.; De Meyst, A.; Van Elslande, J.; Van den Abeele, A.-M.; Steen, E.; Van Acker, J.; Vanrompay, D. Three Cases of Atypical Pneumonia with Chlamydia psittaci: The Role of Laboratory Vigilance in the Diagnosis of Psittacosis. Pathogens 2023, 12, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12010065

AMA Style

Missault S, De Meyst A, Van Elslande J, Van den Abeele A-M, Steen E, Van Acker J, Vanrompay D. Three Cases of Atypical Pneumonia with Chlamydia psittaci: The Role of Laboratory Vigilance in the Diagnosis of Psittacosis. Pathogens. 2023; 12(1):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12010065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Missault, Sophie, Anne De Meyst, Jan Van Elslande, Anne-Marie Van den Abeele, Elke Steen, Jos Van Acker, and Daisy Vanrompay. 2023. "Three Cases of Atypical Pneumonia with Chlamydia psittaci: The Role of Laboratory Vigilance in the Diagnosis of Psittacosis" Pathogens 12, no. 1: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12010065

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop