4.6 Article

Non-Polio Enteroviruses from Acute Flaccid Paralysis Surveillance in Korea, 2012-2019

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13030411

关键词

acute flaccid paralysis (AFP); surveillance; poliovirus; enterovirus

类别

资金

  1. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency [4800-4859-300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance in Korea and found that a significant number of cases were associated with non-polio enteroviruses (NPEV), with EV-A71 being the most common strain detected. The research suggests that EV-A71 plays a major role in neurological diseases in the region, except for Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and meningitis.
The risk of polio importation and re-emergence persists since epidemic polio still occurs in some countries, and the resurgence of polio occurring almost 20 years after polio eradication was declared in Asia has been reported. We analyzed the results of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance in Korea to assess the quality of AFP surveillance and understand the etiology of non-polio enterovirus (NPEV)-associated central nervous system diseases in a polio-free area. We investigated 637 AFP patients under 15 years of age whose cases were confirmed during 2012-2019 by virus isolation, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, and VP1 gene sequencing. Among the 637 AFP cases, NPEV was detected in 213 (33.4%) patients, with the majority observed in EV-A71, with 54.9% of NPEV positives. EV-A71 has been shown to play a role as a major causative agent in most neurological diseases except for Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and meningitis. This study provides information on the AFP surveillance situation in Korea and highlights the polio eradication stage in the monitoring and characterization of NPEV against the outbreak of neurological infectious diseases such as polio.

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