Clinical, laboratory and virological data from suspected ZIKV patients in an endemic arbovirus area

Autor(es):Mostrar menos -

Colombo, Tatiana Elias ^{[1, 2]} ; Estofolete, Cassia Fernanda ^[1] ; Negri Reis, Andreia Francesli ^[3] ; da Silva, Natal Santos ^[4] ; Aguiar, Morgana Lima ^[2] ; Sotello Cabrera, Eliana Marcia ^[1] ; Penha dos Santos, Izalco Nuremberg ^[3] ; Costa, Fabiana Rodrigues ^[3] ; Arao Antonio Cruz, Lilian Elisa ^[3] ; Rombola, Patricia Lopes ^[3] ; Bernardes Terzian, Ana Carolina ^[1] ; Nogueira, Mauricio Lacerda ^[1]

Afiliação do(s) autor(es)

^[1] Fac Med Sao Jose do Rio Preto FAMERP, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP - Brazil

^[2] Univ Paulista UNIP, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP - Brazil

^[3] Prefeitura Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Dept Vigilancia Saude, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP - Brazil

^[4] Uniao Fac Grandes Lagos, Fac Med, Lab Modelagens Matemat & Estat Med, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP - Brazil

• Tipo de documento: Artigo Científico
• Fonte: Journal of Clinical Virology; v. 96, p. 20-25, NOV 2017.
• Citações Web of Science: 12

Resumo

Background: The emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) presents new challenges to both clinicians and public health authorities. Overlapping clinical features between the diseases caused by ZIKV, dengue (DENV) and chi-kungunya (CHIKV) and the lack of validated serological assays for ZIKV make accurate diagnosis difficult. Brazilian authorities largely rely on clinical and epidemiological data for the epidemiological and clinical classifications of most ZIKV cases. Objective: : To report the laboratory and clinical profiles of patients diagnosed with Zika fever based only on clinical and epidemiological data. Study design: We analyzed 433 suspected cases of ZIKV identified by the attending physician based on proposed clinical criteria. The samples were also screened for ZIKV, DENV and CHIKV using PCR. Results: Of the 433 patients analyzed, 168 (38.8%) were laboratory-confirmed for arboviruses: 96 were positive for ZIKV, 67 were positive for DENV (56 for DENV-2, 9 for DENV-1, and 2 for DENV-4), four were positive for co-infection with ZIKV/DENV-2, and one was positive for CHIKV. The most common signs or symptoms in the patients with laboratory-confirmed ZIKV were rash (100%), arthralgia (77.1%), fever (74.0%), myalgia (74.0%) and non-purulent conjunctivitis (69.8%). In patients with laboratory-confirmed DENV infections, the most frequently observed symptoms were rash (100%), fever (79.1%), myalgia (74.6%), headache (73.1%) and arthralgia (70.1%). The measure of association between clinical manifestations and laboratory manifestations among patients with ZIKV and DENV detected a statistically significant difference only in abdominal pain (p = 0.04), leukopenia (p = 0.003), and thrombocytopenia (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our data suggests that clinical and epidemiological criteria alone are not a good tool for ZIKV and DENV differentiation, and that laboratory diagnosis should be mandatory. (AU)

• Processo FAPESP: 13/21719-3 - Estudo epidemiológico da dengue (sorotipos 1 a 4) em coorte prospectiva de São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brasil, durante 2014 a 2018
• Beneficiário: Maurício Lacerda Nogueira
• Linha de fomento: Auxílio à Pesquisa - Temático
• Processo FAPESP: 15/12295-0 - Diagnóstico de arboviroses brasileiras e emergentes em pacientes e mosquitos em duas regiões distintas do Brasil
• Beneficiário: Ana Carolina Bernardes Terzian
• Linha de fomento: Bolsas no Brasil - Pós-Doutorado