4.5 Review

Pityriasis rosea - evidence for and against an infectious aetiology

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 132, Issue 3, Pages 381-390

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268804002304

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pityriasis rosea, first named as such in 1860, probably holds the longest record for an exanthem suspected to be associated with an infection but for which an exact cause has not been found. The distinctly programmed clinical course, the lack of recurrence for most patients, and the presence of temporal case clustering provide the strongest evidence to support an infectious aetiology. Further support comes from seasonal variation and the association with respiratory tract infections, the unfavourable social and economic background of cases, and a history in some cases of contact with patients with pityriasis rosea. The apparent therapeutic efficacy of several treatment modalities does not provide strong evidence for or against an infectious aetiology. The roles of human herpesvirus 7 and to a lesser extent human herpesvirus 6 remain controversial. There exists reasonable evidence that pityriasis rosea is not associated with cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, parvovirus B19, picornavirus, influenza and parainfluenza viruses, Legionella spp., Mycoplasma spp. and Chlamydia spp. infections. Evidence is also unsubstantiated as yet for alternative aetiological hypotheses such as autoimmunity, atopy, and genetic predisposition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available