4.6 Article

Early Neurologic Abnormalities Associated with Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type 1 Infection in a Cohort of Peruvian Children

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 155, 期 5, 页码 700-706

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.05.027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgian Government
  2. NIH [P30AI054999, R25TW007766]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Because human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1)-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP) may occur in some children infected with HTLV-1, we sought to determine the prevalence of neurologic abnormalities and any associations of neurologic abnormalities with infective dermatitis in these children. Study design We enrolled 58 children infected with HTLV-1 and 42 uninfected children (ages 3 to 17) of mothers infected with HTLV-1 in a family study in Lima, Peru. We obtained medical and developmental histories, surveyed current neurologic symptoms, and conducted a standardized neurologic examination without prior knowledge of HTLV-1 status. Results HTLV-1 infection was associated with reported symptoms of lower extremity weakness/fatigue (odds ratio [ OR], 6.1; confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 281), lumbar pain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.4 to 8), and paresthesia/dysesthesia (OR, 2.6; CI, 0.6 to 15.8). HTLV-1 infection was associated with lower-extremity hyperreflexia (OR, 3.1; CI, 0.8 to 14.2), ankle clonus (OR, 5.0; CI, 1.0 to 48.3), and extensor plantar reflex (OR undefined; P = .2). Among children infected with HTLV-1, a history of infective dermatitis was associated with weakness (OR, 2.7; CI, 0.3 to 33), lumbar pain (OR, 1.3; CI, 0.2 to 8), paresthesia/dysesthesia (OR, 2.9; CI, 0.5 to 20), and urinary disturbances (OR, 5.7; CI, 0.5 to 290). Conclusions Abnormal neurologic findings were common in Peruvian children infected with HTLV-1, and several findings were co-prevalent with infective dermatitis. Pediatricians should monitor children infected with HTLV-1 for neurologic abnormalities. (J Pediatr 2009; 155: 700-6).

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