4.6 Review

Coxsackievirus A6 associated hand, foot and mouth disease in adults: Clinical presentation and review of the literature

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 60, 期 4, 页码 381-386

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2014.04.023

关键词

Hand foot and mouth disease; Coxsackievirus A6; Enterovirus

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is generally considered a rare illness in adults. Classically, HFMD has been strongly associated with coxsackievirus strain A16 and enterovirus 71. The coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6) strain has been linked to severe worldwide outbreaks since 2008. CVA6 is associated with a more severe and profound course of disease, affecting both children and adults. Objectives: To present a series of five adult patients diagnosed with HFMD due to CVA6. We investigate method of diagnosis and compare clinical presentation of adult cases to those in children. Study design: Each patient underwent a full-body skin exam as well as inspection of the oral cavity. Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and serologic assays by complement fixation against coxsackievirus B (1-6) and A (2,4,7,9,10,16) were performed as indicated. As standard serological testing does not detect CVA6, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) of serum, buccal swabs, and skin scrapings were performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results: Each patient had clinical findings consistent with various stages of HFMD. One patient presented with delayed onychomadesis and desquamation of the palms and soles. RPR and serologic assays by complement fixation against CVB (1-6) and CVA (2,4,7,9,10,16) were mostly negative, although elevated in two patients due to cross-reactivity. qRT-PCR identified CVA6 genetic material in samples from all patients. Conclusion: This series demonstrates that there is a wide array of disease presentation of CVA6 associated HFMD in adults. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据