黑料网

Chlamydophila Pneumonia

Department of Clinical Pathology, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt

*Corresponding Author:

Mona Z Zaghloul
Microbiology Unit
Department of Clinical Pathology
Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
Tel: 02-24023494
Email: monazaki_810@hotmail.com

Received Date: May 20, 2015; Accepted Date: May 22, 2015; Published Date: May 26, 2015

Citation: Zaghloul MZ (2015) Chlamydophila Pneumonia. Air Water Borne Diseases 4:e134. doi:10.4172/2167-7719.1000e134

Copyright: © 2015 Zaghloul MZ et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Air & Water Borne Diseases

Editorial

Chlamydophila pneumoniae (formerly Chlamydia pneumonia (is a Gram-negative intracellular bacterium [1] responsible for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections. The first known case of infection with C. pneumoniae was a case of sinusitis in Taiwan. This atypical bacterium commonly causes pharyngitis, bronchitis, sinusitis [2] and atypical pneumonia [3] not only in elderly and debilitated patients, but also in healthy adults [4]. The term atypical pneumonia was used by Reiman in 1938 to describe the infection of non-characteristic course resistant to sulphonamide therapy [5]. Some researchers used the term “infections with atypical pathogens” to describe infection caused by Chlamydia, Mycoplasma and Legionella [6]. In addition to pneumonia, C. pneumoniae causes extrapulmonary manifestations include nervous system disorders such as Guillain-Baré syndrome and meningoencephalitis as well as atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease [7], reactive arthritis [8] and myocarditis [9].

Specific diagnosis of infection with atypical pathogens is important because treatment with routinely used β-lactam antibiotics is ineffective against these organisms, and atypical pneumonia can sometimes develop a severe clinical course. The isolation of C. pneumoniae in cell cultures as HEp-2 and HL cells require multiple passages over a period of weeks to show a positive result [10]. Failure to isolate the pathogen may be due to inadequate sample, specimen toxicity in cell culture or loss of specimen viability during transportation. Antigen detection tests include direct fluorescent antibody assays (DFA) and enzyme immunoassays (EIA) have the advantage of rapid turnaround time. Diagnosis of acute C. pneumoniae infection is based on paired serum samples obtained 4 to 8 weeks apart showing a 4-fold increase in IgG antibody titer, or on a single sample showing IgM antibody positivity [11]. IgA antibodies may be a marker of persistent infection and has been used in the definition of chronic C. pneumoniae infection [12]. The microimmunofluorescence (MIF) assay developed by Wang et al., [13] is considered the gold standard for Chlamydia serology today. It was proved to be suitable for routine diagnosis [14]. In the MIF test, purified elementary bodies are used to detect Chlamydia-specific antibodies in the IgM, IgG, and IgA serum fractions. The diagnostic criteria were a significant increase in specific antibody titer in paired serum samples, a very high specific IgG antibody titer, or the presence of IgM antibodies against C. pneumoniae [15]. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques have been developed for the detection of C. pneumoniae DNA [16]. Johansson et al, [17] reported that PCR was more sensitive than conventional microbiological methods and it could help to increase the microbial yield for patients with community acquired pneumonia.

References

1. Cosentini R, Blasi F (1996)
2. Grayston JT, Kuo CC, Wang SP, Altman J (1986)
3. Lang BR (1991) Chlamydia pneumonia as a differential diagnosis? Follow-up to a case report on progressive pneumonitis in an adolescent Patient Care 15: 1
4. Little, Linda (1991) Elusive pneumonia strain frustrates many clinicians, Medical Tribune, September 19: 6.
5. Puzio J, Kucewicz E, Sioła M, Dworniczak A, Wojarski J, et al. (2009)
6. Fields BS, Benson RF, Besser RE (2002)
7. Deniset JF, Pierce GN (2010)
8. Cascina A, MaroneBianco A, Mangiarotti P, Montecucco CM, Meloni F (2002) Cutaneous vasculitis and reactive arthritis following respiratory infection due to Chlamydia pneumoniae: report of a case. Clin Exp Rheumatol 20: 845-847.
9. Gran JT, Hjetland R, Andreassen AH (1993)
10. Augenbraun MH, Roblin PM, Chirgwin K, Landman D, Hammerschlag MR (1991)
11. Peeling RW (1995)
12. von Hertzen L, Isoaho R, Leinonen M, Koskinen R, Laippala P, et al. (1996)
13. Wang SP, Grayston JT, Kuo CC, Alexander ER, Holmes KK (1977) Serodiagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infection with the microimmunofluorescence test. In: Hobson D, Holmes KK, editors. Nongonococcal Urethritis and Related Infections. Washington: American Society for Microbiology 237-48.
14. Wang SP, Grayston JT, Alexander ER, Holmes KK (1975) Simplified microimmunofluorescence test with trachoma-lymphogranulomavenereum (Chlamydia trachomatis) antigens for use as a screening test for antibody. J Clin Microbiol 1: 250-255.
15. Verkooyen RP, Hazenberg MA, Van Haaren GH, Van Den Bosch JM, Snijder RJ, et al. (1992) Age-related interference with Chlamydia pneumoniaemicroimmunofluorescence serology due to circulating rheumatoid factor. J Clin Microbiol 30: 1287-90.
16. Black CM, Fields P, Messmer TO, Berdal BP (1994)
17. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, Giske CG, Hedlund J (2010) Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clinical Infectious Diseases 50: 202-209.