4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Viral etiology of mumps- like illnesses in suspected mumps cases reported in Catalonia, Spain

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 282-287

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/hv.36165

关键词

mumps virus; parotitis; suspected cases; laboratory diagnosis; MMR vaccine; sample collection timing

资金

  1. CIBER Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP), Spain
  2. AGAUR [2009/SGR 42]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the etiology of reported sporadic suspected mumps cases with a negative RT-PCR result for the mumps virus in the Barcelona-South region in 2007-2011. Samples from mumps virus-negative patients presenting unilateral or bilateral parotitis or other salivary gland swelling were tested for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) by real-time PCR and for respiratory viruses by two multiplex-PCR-based assays to detect parainfluenza virus (PIV) 1-4, influenza virus (InV) A, B and C, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), enterovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus OC43, and rhinovirus. 101 samples were analyzed in persons aged 8 months to 50 years. Oral samples were collected on the first day of glandular swelling in 53 patients (52.5%), and on the first two days in 74 patients (73.3%). Viruses were detected in 52 (51.5%) of samples: one virus (25 EBV, 8 PIV3, 4 adenovirus, 4 PIV2, 1 PIV1, 1 InVA, and 1 enterovirus) was detected in 44 patients (84.6%), two viruses in 7 patients, and three viruses in one patient. In 58 patients (57.5%) whose sample was collected in the first 2 days after onset of parotitis and had received two doses of MMR vaccine and in 15 patients (14.8%) whose sample was collected on the first day, it is very likely that the cause was not the mumps virus. This would mean that 72.3% (73/101) of the reported sporadic suspected mumps cases were not mumps cases. The timing of oral-sample collection is crucial to correctly interpret the negative results for mumps virus RNA, especially when suspected cases occur in vaccinated persons.

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

4.5
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