4.7 Article

Differential Cytokine Responses and the Clinical Severity of Adult and Pediatric Nephropathia Epidemica

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087016

关键词

nephropathia epidemica; cytokine; pediatric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing clinical and laboratory data, it was found that pediatric patients with Nephropathia epidemica (NE) had milder symptoms compared to adult patients. The activation of serum cytokines and kidney injury markers differed between adults and children with NE. These findings suggest age differences in NE severity, which should be considered in diagnosis.
Nephropathia epidemica (NE), caused by the hantavirus infection, is endemic in Tatarstan Russia. The majority of patients are adults, with infection rarely diagnosed in children. This limited number of pediatric NE cases means there is an inadequate understanding of disease pathogenesis in this age category. Here, we have analyzed clinical and laboratory data in adults and children with NE to establish whether and how the disease severity differs between the two age groups. Serum cytokines were analyzed in samples collected from 11 children and 129 adult NE patients during an outbreak in 2019. A kidney toxicity panel was also used to analyze urine samples from these patients. Additionally, serum and urine samples were analyzed from 11 control children and 26 control adults. Analysis of clinical and laboratory data revealed that NE was milder in children than in adults. A variation in serum cytokine activation could explain the differences in clinical presentation. Cytokines associated with activation of Th1 lymphocytes were prominent in adults, while they were obscured in sera from pediatric NE patients. In addition, a prolonged activation of kidney injury markers was found in adults with NE, whilst only a short-lasting activation of these markers was observed in children with NE. These findings support previous observations of age differences in NE severity, which should be considered when diagnosing the disease in children.

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

4.7
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