Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2004, p. 2813-2815, Vol. 42, No. 6
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.6.2813-2815.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Centre for Research in Medical Entomology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai 625002,1 Department of Pediatrics, Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar 608002, Chidambram,2 Department of Paediatrics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Dhanvantri Nagar, Pondicherry 605006, India3
Received 14 October 2003/ Returned for modification 7 February 2004/ Accepted 20 February 2004
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
It was understood that most of the acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) case patients (patients with encephalitis and related central nervous system disorders) were attending the two nearby referral hospitals (Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital [RMMCH], Chidambaram, and Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research [JIPMER], Pondicherry) for want of better treatment facilities. Between July 2002 and June 2003, a collaborative study was undertaken to estimate the number of pediatric AES cases of JE etiology in patients attending the hospitals. The study was interrupted in March 2003. Therefore, we analyzed AES case patients reporting between July 2002 and February 2003. We also investigated whether these cases represent the areas of JE endemicity in and around this district.
Both the hospitals are 1,000-bed teaching hospitals, where a provisional diagnosis of JE has been arrived at based mainly on the clinical manifestations. These peripheral hospitals are not equipped with enough laboratory diagnostic facilities for JE and thus tend to underestimate the disease rate. Therefore, during the study period, clinical specimens collected from the AES children were transported under cold conditions to the Center for Research in Medical Entomology (CRME) (200 km away) and tested for JEV infections by using a panel of diagnostic tests for JE (Table 1).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Laboratory diagnosis of JE among patients with AES hospitalized at JIPMER and RMMCH between July 2002 and February 2003a
|
Since the patients admitted were in different clinical phases, CSF and sera were analyzed at CRME for JE confirmation by five laboratory tests, namely, (i) JEV antigen detection in CSF by immunofluorescence assay (IFA), (ii) JEV-specific antibody detection in CSF, (iii) JEV-specific antibody detection in serum by immunoglobulin M antibody capture (MAC) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), (iv) virus isolation from CSF in Toxorhynchitis splendens larvae (insect bioassay; toxo-IFA) (1), and (v) virus genome detection in CSF by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) (5). A patient was declared positive by clinical and laboratory result criteria (1). Out of the 58 study subjects, we could get CSF and sera from 37, sera alone from 11, and CSF alone from 10 patients.
Out of 58 AES patients enrolled in the study, a total of 19 patients were examined by all five tests, and the results from these assays are presented in Table 1. The JE confirmation by different assays varied. CSF samples from 47 patients were tested by cell IFA, insect bioassay, and CSF MAC ELISA, and 35 samples were tested by RT-PCR assay. Serum samples from 38 patients were analyzed by MAC ELISA. The positivity rate of each assay with different denominators is shown in Table 2. Out of the tests used here, RT-PCR and virus isolation by insect bioassay have shown higher positivity rates, indicating their superior sensitivity (1, 5). However, the insect bioassay is cumbersome and time-consuming and requires maintaining a host mosquito colony. Studies elsewhere have reported a higher positivity rate for CSF MAC ELISA (3). It is likely that the patients reported to the hospitals in the initial stages of the infection before the appearance of anti-JE immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Due to the nonavailability of serum specimens from 30% of the JE-confirmed patients, results for anti-JE IgM antibodies in serum were not considered.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Positivity rate (percent) of diagnostic assays for JE
|
JE was diagnosed in 17 (29.3%) out of 58 pediatric AES cases. Nearly half (7 of 16, 43.75%) and one-quarter (10 of 42, 23.8%) of these AES-JE children were reporting from JIPMER and RMMCH, respectively. In a recent study carried out in Pondicherry, South India, JE was confirmed in 70.7% (212 of 300) of pediatric patients hospitalized with AES, and all these cases were coming from Tamil Nadu districts bordering Pondicherry (4). In comparison, we report a lower incidence of JE (43.75%, 7 of 16) in Pondicherry. However, we investigated only 16 AES patients from Pondicherry.
The JE incidence recorded was highest among the children aged 3 to 8 years. In our earlier studies, the attack rate of JE was highest among the children aged 4 to 5 years (2). However, the number of cases decreased with rising age in this study, which is in accordance with our earlier observations (2). The distribution was equal between the sexes. The seasonal distribution of AES-JE cases has shown (Fig. 1) that JE occurrence appears to be perennial, with a peak in the month of December. In general, the distribution of AES cases followed that of JE cases, suggesting that JE may constitute a major component of hospitalized children with AES reporting to both these referral hospitals. Next to JE, tuberculosis was most often reported to be responsible for pediatric AES of non-JE etiology. Analysis of the locations of these cases revealed that all these cases represent provinces in (10 of 17, 59%) and around Cuddalore District near these hospitals, where JEV activity has been demonstrated in vector mosquitoes and in animal hosts.
![]() View larger version (14K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Monthwise distribution of pediatric AES and AES due to JE infection seen in JIPMER and in RMMCH between July 2002 and February 2003.
|
In general in developing countries, nonreporting of cases from areas of JE endemicity to nearby small hospitals does not rule out JE occurrence, since the clinical cases may be reported to the nearby referral hospitals in view of the seriousness of the disease. Therefore, in order to know the true incidence and to reduce JE-related mortality in children in areas of JE endemicity, it will be ideal to (i) strengthen diagnostic facilities (inclusion of more than one diagnostic test for JE) and management capabilities for JE in the peripheral hospitals and (ii) also maintain contact with the nearby referral hospitals to know the particulars and locations of JE cases. This will help to identify JE-prone areas where control measures can be intensified.
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»