4.3 Article

Pilot study of antibodies against varicella zoster virus and human immunodeficiency virus in relation to the risk of developing stroke, nested within a rural cohort in Uganda

期刊

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 1306-1310

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12556

关键词

varicella zoster virus; human immunodeficiency virus; stroke; cohort; prospective; Uganda

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
  2. UK Department for International Development (DFID) [MRC/DFID]
  3. MRC [MC_U950080926] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U950080926] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe risk of stroke rises after episodes of herpes zoster and chickenpox, which are caused by varicella zoster virus (VZV). We conducted a pilot case-control study of stroke, nested within a long-standing cohort in Uganda (the General Population Cohort), to examine antibodies against VZV prior to diagnosis. MethodsWe used stored sera to examine the evolution of IgG and IgM antibodies against VZV among 31 clinically confirmed cases of stroke and 132 matched controls. For each participant, three samples of sera were identified: one each, taken at or near the time of (pseudo)diagnosis, between 5 and 10years prior to diagnosis and at 15years prior to diagnosis. ResultsAll participants had detectable antibodies against VZV, but there were no significant differences between cases and controls in the 15years prior to diagnosis. As a secondary finding, 16% (5/31) of cases and 6% (8/132) of controls had HIV (OR 3.0; 95% CI 0.8-10.1; P=0.06). ConclusionsThis is the first prospective study to examine a biological measure of exposure to VZV prior to diagnosis of stroke and although we identified no significant association, in this small pilot, with limited characterisation of cases, we cannot exclude the possibility that the virus is causal for a subset. The impact of HIV on risk of stroke has not been well characterised and warrants further study.

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

4.3
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