BACKGROUND: The combination of both PCR and intrathecal antibody studies is recommended to confirm or refute the diagnosis of herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE). AIM: To investigate the pattern of use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of suspected cases of HSE, and to determine the final diagnosis in cases proven not to be HSE. DESIGN: Structured audit. METHODS: We reviewed the case-notes of all patients who, over a five-year time period, presented with suspected encephalitis; and/or were prescribed aciclovir. Clinical and laboratory criteria were used to categorize the likelihood of HSE. RESULTS: We identified 222 patients: 10 (5%) had definite HSE, 24 (10%) possible HSE, and 144 (65%) a definite alternative diagnosis. In 44 (20%), no final diagnosis was made, but the diagnosis of HSE was excluded. PCR was performed in 68 (31%), intrathecal antibody studies in 24 (11%), and brain biopsy in 17 (8%). A wide range of diseases mimicked HSE, but most common were inflammatory diseases and other infections of the central nervous system. DISCUSSION: Laboratory tests, particularly intrathecal antibody assays, are under-used in the diagnosis of HSE. Although early empirical treatment of suspected HSE is essential, confirmation or exclusion of the diagnosis is equally important to avoid overlooking alternative diagnoses. Identification of the aetiology of encephalitis is of particular importance, given the current concerns of emerging infections and bioterrorism.
BACKGROUND: The combination of both PCR and intrathecal antibody studies is recommended to confirm or refute the diagnosis of herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE). AIM: To investigate the pattern of use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of suspected cases of HSE, and to determine the final diagnosis in cases proven not to be HSE. DESIGN: Structured audit. METHODS: We reviewed the case-notes of all patients who, over a five-year time period, presented with suspected encephalitis; and/or were prescribed aciclovir. Clinical and laboratory criteria were used to categorize the likelihood of HSE. RESULTS: We identified 222 patients: 10 (5%) had definite HSE, 24 (10%) possible HSE, and 144 (65%) a definite alternative diagnosis. In 44 (20%), no final diagnosis was made, but the diagnosis of HSE was excluded. PCR was performed in 68 (31%), intrathecal antibody studies in 24 (11%), and brain biopsy in 17 (8%). A wide range of diseases mimicked HSE, but most common were inflammatory diseases and other infections of the central nervous system. DISCUSSION: Laboratory tests, particularly intrathecal antibody assays, are under-used in the diagnosis of HSE. Although early empirical treatment of suspected HSE is essential, confirmation or exclusion of the diagnosis is equally important to avoid overlooking alternative diagnoses. Identification of the aetiology of encephalitis is of particular importance, given the current concerns of emerging infections and bioterrorism.
Authors: Katherine N Ward; Anu Ohrling; Naomi J Bryant; Jennifer S Bowley; Euan M Ross; Christopher M Verity Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 3.791