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 chikungunya (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.
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 chikungunya (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.
Authors: Noreen Mumtaz; Marijke Koedam; Johannes P T M van Leeuwen; Marion P G Koopmans; Bram C J van der Eerden; Barry Rockx Journal: Emerg Microbes Infect Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 19.568
Authors: Bettie Voordouw; Barry Rockx; Thomas Jaenisch; Pieter Fraaij; Philippe Mayaud; Ann Vossen; Marion Koopmans Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Elizabeth A Van Dyne; Paige Neaterour; Aidsa Rivera; Melissa Bello-Pagan; Laura Adams; Jorge Munoz-Jordan; Priscilla Baez; Myriam Garcia; Stephen H Waterman; Nimia Reyes; Lisa C Richardson; Brenda Rivera-Garcia; Tyler M Sharp Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Ludmila Lobkowicz; Anna Ramond; Nuria Sanchez Clemente; Ricardo Arraes de Alencar Ximenes; Demócrito de Barros Miranda-Filho; Ulisses Ramos Montarroyos; Celina Maria Turchi Martelli; Thalia Velho Barreto de Araújo; Elizabeth B Brickley Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-05
Authors: Cássia F Estofolete; Bruno H G A Milhim; Nathalia Zini; Samuel N Scamardi; Joana D'Arc Selvante; Nikos Vasilakis; Maurício L Nogueira Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: Alice F Versiani; Estefânia M N Martins; Lidia M Andrade; Laura Cox; Glauco C Pereira; Edel F Barbosa-Stancioli; Mauricio L Nogueira; Luiz O Ladeira; Flávio G da Fonseca Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: José Sánchez-Carbonel; Derek Tantaléan-Yépez; Miguel Angel Aguilar-Luis; Wilmer Silva-Caso; Pablo Weilg; Fernando Vásquez-Achaya; Luis Costa; Johanna Martins-Luna; Isabel Sandoval; Juana Del Valle-Mendoza Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2018-03-14