4.1 Article

Frequency of viral etiology in symptomatic adult upper respiratory tract infections

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 30-35

出版社

ELSEVIER BRAZIL
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2014.08.005

关键词

Respiratory infection; Viral infection; Viral diagnosis; Epidemiology

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [471063/2012-6]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao Carlos Chagas de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Brazil [E-26/103.113/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the frequency of viral pathogens causing upper respiratory tract infections in non-hospitalized, symptomatic adults in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Methods: Respiratory samples (nasal/throat swabs) were collected between August 2010 and November 2012 and real time PCR was used to detect different viral pathogens. Results: Viruses were detected in 32.1% (43/134) of samples from 101 patients. Specifically, 9% (12/134) were positive for HBoV, 8.2% (11/134) were positive for HAdV, 5.2% (7/134) were positive for HRV, and 1.5% (2/134) were positive for FLUBV or HMPV, as single infections. HRSV-A, HPIV-3, and HCoV-HKU1 were detected in one (0.75%) sample each. Co-infections were detected in 4.8% (6/134) of the samples. Peaks of viral infections were observed in March, April, May, August, and October. However, positive samples were detected all year round. Only 23.3% (10/43) of the positive samples were collected from patients with febrile illness. Conclusion: Results presented in this report suggest that respiratory viral infections are largely under diagnosed in immunocompetent adults. Although the majority of young adult infections are not life-threatening they may impose a significant burden, especially in developing countries since these individuals represent a large fraction of the working force. (C) 2014 Elsevier Editora Ltda. Este e um artigo Open Access sob a licenca de CC BY-NC-ND

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

4.1
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