Volume 22, Number 5—May 2016
Research
Expanded Geographic Distribution and Clinical Characteristics of Ehrlichia ewingii Infections, United States
Table 2
Results for patients tested for infection with Ehrlichia and Anaplasma species by real-time PCR, United States
State* | No. tested | No. (%) positive |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
E. chaffeensis | E. canis/ewingii | A. phagocytophilum | ||
Arkansas | 3 | 0 (0) | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) |
Colorado | 3 | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Connecticut | 23 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (13) |
Georgia | 7 | 1 (14.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Illinois | 70 | 4 (5.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Indiana | 263 | 25 (9.5) | 3 (1.1) | 0 (0) |
Iowa | 4 | 1 (25) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Kansas | 52 | 10 (19.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Kentucky | 26 | 8 (30.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Louisiana | 11 | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Maine | 375 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 17 (4.5) |
Massachusetts | 526 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 40 (7.6) |
Michigan | 3 | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Minnesota | 930 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 44 (4.7) |
Missouri | 94 | 15 (15.9) | 4 (4.3) | 0 (0) |
Nebraska | 69 | 8 (11.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) |
New Hampshire | 708 | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0) | 51 (7.2) |
New Jersey | 202 | 7 (3.5) | 1 (0.5) | 5 (2.5) |
New York | 283 | 3 (1.1) | 1 (0.4) | 6 (2.1) |
Pennsylvania | 72 | 2 (2.8) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) |
Tennessee | 150 | 6 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Texas | 52 | 2 (3.8) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.9) |
Utah | 16 | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Virginia | 28 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.6) |
Washington | 24 | 2 (8.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Wisconsin | 68 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (13.2) |
*States for which all patents showed negative results are Alabama (n = 2), Arizona (n = 11), California (n = 19), Florida (n = 9), Hawaii (n = 1), Idaho (n = 1), Montana (n = 1), Nevada (n = 3), North Carolina (n = 6), North Dakota (n = 2), Ohio (n = 25), Oregon (n = 8), Rhode Island (n = 3), South Dakota (n = 21), and Wyoming (n = 3).
1Current affiliation: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Page created: April 13, 2016
Page updated: April 13, 2016
Page reviewed: April 13, 2016
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.