Evidence Hub

Invasive Campylobacter jejuni/coli Infections: 9 Case Reports at a Single Center between 2000 and 2015, and a Review of Literature Describing Japanese Patients

Tasaka K, Matsubara K, Nigami H, Iwata A, Isome K, Yamamoto G

Kansenshogaku zasshi. The Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, 2016

14 participants

Abstract

There have been few coherent reports on extraintestinal infection or bacteremia caused by Campylobacter jejuni (C. jejuni) or C. coli in Japan. To clarify the clinical and microbiological characteristics of invasive infections caused by these two species, we retrospectively analyzed the records of patients from whom these pathogens had been isolated from sterile sites between 2000 and 2015. During this study period, we identified 9 patients. The clinical syndrome of all of these patients was bacteremia. Three patients had underlying diseases with both liver cirrhosis and malignant neoplasm, and all of these patients were aged 60 years or older. The remaining 6 patients were immunocompetent and younger than 40 years of age. All 9 patients had a fever of 38.5 degrees C or higher. The proportion of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms was lower for the 3 patients with underlying diseases, compared with the 6 patients without underlying diseases (1/3 cases vs, 4/6 cases). Of the 8 strains evaluated for antimicrobial susceptibility, all were susceptible to imipenem/cilastatin, kanamycin and erythromycin, and 2 were resistant to levofloxacin. Antimicrobial treatment was administered to 8 patients, but one spontaneously recovered without any treatment. We were able to follow the outcomes of 8 patients, and all of these patients completely recovered without relapses. We also reviewed 14 Japanese patients reported in the Japanese and English literature and found similar clinical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 14 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free