Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Oct;89(4):804-10.
doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0197. Epub 2013 Aug 26.

Identification of concurrent bacterial infection in adult patients with dengue

Affiliations

Identification of concurrent bacterial infection in adult patients with dengue

Kay C See et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Oct.

Abstract

We aim to construct a diagnostic model for bacterial coinfection in dengue patients (Dengue Dual Infection Score [DDIS]); 2,065 adult dengue patients (mean age = 41.9 ± 17.2 years, 58.4% male, 83 patients with bacterial coinfection) seen at a university hospital from January of 2005 to February of 2010 were studied. The DDIS was created by assigning one point to each of five risk factors for bacterial coinfection: pulse rate ≥ 90 beats/minute, total white cell count ≥ 6 × 10(9)/L, hematocrit < 40%, serum sodium < 135 mmol/L, and serum urea ≥ 5 mmol/L. The DDIS identified bacterial coinfection (derivation set area under the curve = 0.793, 95% confidence interval = 0.732-0.854; validation set area under the curve = 0.761, 95% confidence interval = 0.637-0.886). A DDIS of ≥ 4 had a specificity of 94.4%, whereas a DDIS of ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 94.4% for bacterial coinfection. The DDIS can help to select dengue patients for early bacterial cultures and empirical antibiotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Using DDIS for the identification of bacterial infection (N = 1,299 patients in the derivation set with complete data and 60 patients with bacterial infection).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Using DDIS for the identification of bacterial infection (N = 536 patients in the validation set with complete data and 18 patients with bacterial infection).

References

    1. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, Drake JM, Brownstein JS, Hoen AG, Sankoh O, Myers MF, George DB, Jaenisch T, Wint GR, Simmons CP, Scott TW, Farrar JJ, Hay SI. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496:504–507. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilder-Smith A, Schwartz E. Dengue in travelers. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:924–932. - PubMed
    1. Halstead SB. Dengue. Lancet. 2007;370:1644–1652. - PubMed
    1. Wilder-Smith A, Renhorn KE, Tissera H, Abu Bakar S, Alphey L, Kittayapong P, Lindsay S, Logan J, Hatz C, Reiter P, Rocklov J, Byass P, Louis VR, Tozan Y, Massad E, Tenorio A, Lagneau C, L'Ambert G, Brooks D, Wegerdt J, Gubler D. DengueTools: innovative tools and strategies for the surveillance and control of dengue. Glob Health Action. 2012;2012:5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rigau-Perez JG, Clark GG, Gubler DJ, Reiter P, Sanders EJ, Vorndam AV. Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Lancet. 1998;352:971–977. - PubMed