Search

Background Diethylcarbamazine citrate (DEC) treatment of loiasis is complicated by adverse reactions that are correlated with the number of circulating microfilariae (mf). The cause of these reactions is unknown, but they are accompanied by a dramatic interleukin-5 (IL-5)-dependent increase in eosinophilia and evidence of eosinophil activation. Methods To explore the role of IL-5 driven eosinophilia in post-DEC reactions, 8 adults with confirmed loiasis and Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Single dose reslizumab lowered the AEC by 77% prior to initiation of DEC therapy (vs. 12% in the placebo group, P Conclusions In summary, although reslizumab was able to blunt peripheral eosinophilia post-DEC treatment in subjects with loiasis and had no effect on microfilarial clearance, the reduction in AEC appeared to have been insufficient to prevent post-treatment AEs.

Parasitic infections are likely under-recognized among immigrant populations in the USA. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate if such infections have health impacts among recent immigrants in Chicago and to identify predictive factors for parasitic infections. A total of 133 recent immigrants were enrolled, filling out a standardized medical questionnaire and providing blood and stool samples. Appriximately 12% of subjects (15/125) who provided a blood or stool sample for testing were found to have evidence of current or prior infection with a pathogenic parasite, of whichToxocaraspp.(8 subjects, 6.4%) andStrongyloides stercoralis(5 subjects, 4%) were most commonly identified. Parasitic infection was more likely among subjects who had immigrated within the previous 2 years and those with a self-reported history of worms in the stool. The most useful surrogate markers identified for parasitic infections were an elevated immunoglobulin E level (seen in 46.7% (7/15) of subjects with parasitic infections and 20% (22/110) of uninfected individuals,p = 0.04) and the presence ofBlastocystis hominiscysts on Ova & Parasite exam (detected in 38.5% (5/13) of subjects with parasitic infections who provided a stool sample and 5.1% (5/98) of uninfected subjects,p = 0.002). Our study found that parasitic infections may be common in recent US immigrants, which highlights an important health disparity among a vulnerable population that merits further study. Additionally, clinical risk factors, symptoms, and laboratory findings traditionally thought to be associated with parasites were commonly found but not predictive of infection in this study population.

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

Background We have previously demonstrated that eosinophil-associated processes underlie some of the differences in clinical presentation among patients with Loa loa infection prior to therapy and that some posttreatment adverse events appear to be dependent on eosinophil activation. Methods We first conducted a retrospective review of 204 patients (70 microfilaria [MF] positive/134 negative) with Loa loa both before and following definitive therapy. We then measured filarial-specific antibodies, eosinophil- and Th2-associated cytokines, and eosinophil granule proteins in their banked serum prior to and at 1 year following definitive treatment. We also evaluated the influence of pretreatment corticosteroids and/or apheresis in altering the efficacy of treatment. Results Patients without circulating microfilariae (MF negative) not only had a higher likelihood of peripheral eosinophilia and increased antifilarial antibody levels but also had significantly increased concentrations of granulocyte-macrophage colony–stimulating factor, interleukin (IL) 5, and IL-4 compared with MF-positive patients. However, these differences had all resolved by 1 year after treatment, when all parameters approached the levels seen in uninfected individuals. Neither pretreatment with corticosteroids nor apheresis reduced the efficacy of the diethylcarbamazine used to treat these subjects. Conclusions Our results highlight that, by 1 year following treatment, infection-associated immunologic abnormalities had resolved in nearly all patients treated for loiasis, and pretreatment corticosteroids had no influence on the resolution of the immunologic perturbations nor on the efficacy of diethylcarbamazine as a curative agent in loiasis. Clinical Trials Registration NCT00001230.

Background Severe adverse reactions have been observed in individuals with Loa loa infection treated with either diethylcarbamazine (DEC), the drug of choice for loiasis, or ivermectin (IVM), which is used in mass drug administration programs for control of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis in Africa. In this study, posttreatment clinical and immunologic reactions were compared following single-dose therapy with DEC or IVM to assess whether these reactions have the same underlying pathophysiology. Methods Twelve patients with loiasis and microfilarial counts

BackgroundParasitic infections are likely under-recognized among immigrant populations in the United States (US). We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the frequency of such infections among recent immigrants in Chicago and to identify predictive factors for parasitic infections.Methodology and principal findings133 recent immigrants were enrolled, filling out a standardized questionnaire regarding medical history and exposures and providing blood and stool samples for evaluation. Fifteen of 125 subjects (12%) who provided a blood or stool sample for testing were found to have evidence of current or prior infection with a pathogenic parasite, of whichToxocaraspp. (8 subjects, 6.4%) andStrongyloides stercoralis(5 subjects, 4%) were most commonly identified. Parasitic infection was more likely among subjects who had immigrated within the previous 2 years and those with a self-reported history of ever having seen worms in the stool. Infected individuals were likely to have multiple nonspecific physical complaints; however, classic symptoms of parasitic infections (skin rashes, diarrhea,etc.)were not increased among infected individuals. The most useful surrogate markers identified for parasitic infections were an elevated Immunoglobulin E level (seen in 7/15 subjects with parasitic infections, 46.7% and 22/110 uninfected individuals, 20%, p=0.04) and the presence ofBlastocystis hominiscysts on Ova & Parasite exam (detected in 5/13 subjects with parasitic infections who provided a stool sample, 38.5% and 5/98 uninfected subjects, 5.1%, p=0.002). In contrast, the Absolute Eosinophil Count (typically thought of as an indicator of parasites) was not found to be a good screening test for parasitic infections in this study.ConclusionsOur study found that parasitic infections are common in recent US immigrants, which highlights an important health disparity among a vulnerable population. Further, we found that classically used symptoms and laboratory tests had a low predictive value for parasitic infections in this population.AUTHOR SUMMARYParasitic infections, though rare in the United States (US), are common in many areas of the world including the regions of origin of many US immigrants. However, the prevalence rates and health impacts of these infections in immigrant populations are undefined. We conducted a study to identify the frequency of parasitic infections among healthy immigrants in one community, recruiting 133 immigrants from 28 countries. Subjects completed a standardized questionnaire regarding symptoms and infection risk-factors and provided blood and stool samples for testing. Twelve percent of subjects in our study had evidence of current or previous pathogenic parasitic infections. Symptoms and risk factors classically thought to be associated with parasitic infection (allergic symptoms, elevated blood eosinophil counts,etc.)were common among enrolled subjects, but did not differ significantly between those with and without evidence for infection. Overall, our results suggest that many immigrants, even those who are asymptomatic, may have undiagnosed parasitic infections. These results highlight an important health disparity among a vulnerable underserved population in the US. As most of these infections are easily treatable, more research should be done to further characterize the optimal testing strategies for recent immigrants.

Loa loa is a filarial parasite that infects approximately 13 million individuals in Central and West Africa [1, 2]. Chronic infection with L. loa can lead to nephropathy [3], cardiomyopathy [4], retinopathy [5], neuropsychiatric complications [6], lymphedema [7], and encephalopathy [8]. Loiasis is an important public health problem due to the occurrence of immune-mediated serious adverse events in some individuals with high circulating levels of L. loa microfilariae following exposure to the antiparasitic drugs diethylcarbamazine (DEC) and ivermectin [9, 10]. As ivermectin is used in mass drug administration programs for onchocerciasis and (in combination with either DEC or albendazole) for lymphatic filariasis control, these Loa-associated posttreatment reactions have halted or impeded mass drug administration programs [11]. Prior studies have found marked differences in the clinical presentation of loiasis between those who acquire the infection as temporary residents (TR) and individuals native to endemic regions (END). Similar to the serious adverse events following exposure to antiparasitic drugs, the differences in clinical presentation between these 2 groups are thought to be immune-mediated [12–14]. TR experience greater “allergic” symptoms, are more often amicrofilaremic, and have markedly increased eosinophil counts compared with END [12–14]. The exact immunologic mechanisms underlying these clinical syndromes are unknown. Additionally, whether the quantitative differences in eosinophil counts between the 2 groups are accompanied by further differences in eosinophil regulation, function, or activation and whether additional immune pathways are altered between these groups has not been well studied heretofore. Because both posttreatment reactions as well as the differing clinical presentations between the 2 groups are likely related to immunologic responses to parasite antigens, an improved understanding of the immunology of loiasis could provide new strategies to ameliorate symptoms and prevent posttreatment reactions in patients with L. loa infection. In the present study, we aimed to explore the varied clinical presentations of loiasis and to evaluate the impact of alterations in immune function on these differing presentations. As such, we explored the basis for the differences between the TR and END populations infected with L. loa by assessing the clinical presentation, filaria-specific antibody responses, and eosinophil-related activation markers and cytokines in 186 patients with loiasis.

The concentrations of major basic protein (MBP), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), eosinophil derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil peroxidase (EPO) have been associated with eosinophilic disease severity. Whereas a variety of techniques have been used to measure individual eosinophil granule protein concentration, none of these methods efficiently measures MBP, ECP, EDN and EPO simultaneously. A multiplex suspension array system was developed to simultaneously measure the concentration of MBP, ECP, EDN and EPO in serum. The assay showed excellent inter- and intra-assay reliability, and serum levels of MBP, ECP and EDN from eosinophilic subjects analyzed by ELISA and multiplex were highly correlated (r = 0.8579; P < 0.0001, r = 0.6356; P = 0.0006 and r = 0.8600; P < 0.0001, respectively, Spearman rank correlation). Moreover, the multiplex assay required 500-fold less serum than a single ELISA to achieve comparable sensitivity. Absolute eosinophil count and eosinophil surface expression of the activation marker, CD69, were significantly correlated with concentrations of MBP, EDN and EPO, but not ECP, in serum from eosinophilic subjects. Furthermore, subjects with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder and normal peripheral absolute eosinophil counts (< 0.5 × 109/L) had significantly increased concentrations of MBP (P < 0.0001), ECP (P < 0.0001), EDN (P = 0.0001) and EPO (P < 0.0001) compared to normal donors. In summary, the eosinophil granule protein multiplex assay provides a rapid and reliable way to measure eosinophil granule protein levels and should prove useful in assessing patterns of degranulation in patients with eosinophilic disorders.

Rapid and accurate tests are currently needed to identify individuals with high levels of Loa loa microfilaria (mf), so that these individuals may be excluded from mass ivermectin administration campaigns against onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis being conducted in areas where Onchocerca volvulus , Wuchereria bancrofti , and L. loa are coendemic. To address this need, colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays targeting the L. loa -specific gene sequences LLMF72 and LLMF342 were developed for the detection and quantification of L. loa microfilaremia. Both LAMP assays were highly specific (100%) for L. loa infection compared to the absence of infection or infection with related filarial pathogens. The LLMF72-based LAMP assay showed greater analytic sensitivity (limit of detection, 0.1 pg/ml of genomic DNA [gDNA] and/or 5 mf/ml) than the LLMF342-based LAMP assay (10 pg/ml of gDNA and/or 50 mf/ml), and its analytic sensitivity was similar to that of LLMF72-based quantitative PCR (qPCR). A high level of correlation was observed between microfilaria counts as determined by LLMF72-based qPCR and time to positivity by the LAMP assay, and performance measures of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were similar for both assays when applied to field-collected clinical samples. By simply varying the run time, the LAMP assay was able to accurately distinguish individuals at risk for serious adverse events (SAEs) after exposure to ivermectin, using thresholds of >5,000 mf/ml and >30,000 mf/ml as indicators of increasing levels of risk. In summary, LLMF72 LAMP represents a new molecular diagnostic tool that is readily applicable as a point-of-care method for L. loa microfilarial detection and quantification in resource-limited countries where L. loa infection is endemic.

Wound infections represent a major cause of morbidity, amputations, and increased health-care costs in the US population. A primary risk factor for lower extremity wounds is diabetes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of Americans diagnosed with diabetes has skyrocketed in the past three decades: from 5.6 million in 1980 to 20.9 million in 2011. Consequently, the number of discharges during this same time period for lower extremity amputations and wound infections has also increased.

Brucellosis is the most common bacterial zoonosis, and causes a considerable burden of disease in endemic countries. Cardiovascular involvement is the main cause of mortality due to infection with Brucella spp, and most commonly manifests as endocarditis, peripheral and cerebrovascular aneurysms, or arterial and venous thromboses. We report a case of brucellosis presenting as bacteraemia and aortic endarteritis 18 years after the last known exposure to risk factors for brucella infection. The patient was treated with doxycycline, rifampicin, and gentamicin, and underwent surgical repair of a penetrating aortic ulcer, with a good clinical recovery. We review the signs and symptoms, diagnostic approach, prognosis, and treatment of brucella arteritis. We draw attention to the absence of consensus about the optimum therapy for vascular brucellosis, and the urgent need for additional studies and renewed scientific interest in this major pathogen.