ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective To measure the role of enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid compared with the Bacterial Meningitis Score in children with meningitis. Methods A retrospective cohort based on analysis of medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed as meningitis, seen at a private and tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, between 2011 and 2014. Excluded were patients with critical illness, purpura, ventricular shunt or recent neurosurgery, immunosuppression, concomitant bacterial infection requiring parenteral antibiotic therapy, and those who received antibiotics 72 hours before lumbar puncture. Results The study included 503 patients. Sixty-four patients were excluded and 94 were not submitted to all tests for analysis. Of the remaining 345 patients, 7 were in the Bacterial Meningitis Group and 338 in the Aseptic Meningitis Group. There was no statistical difference between the groups. In the Bacterial Meningitis Score analysis, of the 338 patients with possible aseptic meningitis (negative cultures), 121 of them had one or more points in the Bacterial Meningitis Score, with sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 64.2%, and negative predictive value of 100%. Of the 121 patients with positive Bacterial Meningitis Score, 71% (86 patients) had a positive enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Conclusion Enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid was effective to differentiate bacterial from viral meningitis. When the test was analyzed together with the Bacterial Meningitis Score, specificity was higher when compared to Bacterial Meningitis Score alone.
RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar o papel da pesquisa de enterovírus no líquido cefalorraquidiano em comparação com o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana em crianças com meningite. Métodos Coorte retrospectiva, realizada pela análise de prontuários, incluindo pacientes pediátricos, com diagnóstico de meningite e atendidos em um hospital privado e terciário, localizado em São Paulo, entre 2011 e 2014. Foram excluídos os pacientes com doença crítica, púrpura, derivação ventricular ou neurocirurgia recente, imunossupressão, outra infecção bacteriana concomitante que necessitasse de antibioticoterapia parenteral e aqueles que receberam antibiótico 72 horas antes da punção lombar. Resultados Foram incluídos no estudo 503 pacientes. Destes, 64 foram excluídos e 94 não realizaram todos os exames para análise. Dos 345 pacientes restantes, 7 ficaram no Grupo de Meningite Bacteriana e 338 no Grupo de Meningite Asséptica. Não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos. Na análise do Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, dos 338 pacientes com possível meningite asséptica (culturas negativas), 121 deles tiveram um ou mais pontos para o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, com valor de sensibilidade de 100%, especificidade de 64,2% e valor preditivo negativo de 100%. Dos 121 pacientes com Escore de Meningite Bacteriana positivo, 71% (86 pacientes) tiveram a pesquisa de enterovírus positiva no líquido cefalorraquidiano. Conclusão A pesquisa de enterovírus no líquido cefalorraquidiano mostrou-se eficaz em diferenciar a meningite bacteriana da viral. Analisada junto com o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, a especificidade foi maior em comparação ao Escore de Meningite Bacteriana isolado.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Decision Support Techniques , Meningitis, Bacterial/cerebrospinal fluid , Enterovirus/isolation & purification , Meningitis, Aseptic/cerebrospinal fluid , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Meningitis, Bacterial/diagnosis , Meningitis, Bacterial/virology , Data Accuracy , Meningitis, Aseptic/diagnosis , Meningitis, Aseptic/virology , NeutrophilsABSTRACT
La enfermedad meningocócica, aunque poco frecuente, es severa y puede causar la muerte en 10% de quienes la contraen, de allí la importancia de la inmunización para prevenirla. existen varias clases de vacunas, como las polisacáridas que aun cuando pueden inducir protección, no son inmunogénicas en niños menores de 2 años ni inducen inmunidad de rebaño. la administración de dosis de refuerzoproduce hiporespuesta. Las vacunas conjugadas pueden ser monovalentes como la serogrupo c que demostró una reducción en un 93% de la enfermedad en poblaciones con altas coberturas vacunales, y las tetravalentes Ac W135, y/d (conjugada al toxoide diftérico y A; c, W135, y/crM139 conjugada a una mutante no tóxica de toxina diftérica Ambas son inmunogénicas y seguras. estudios epidemiológicos con A; c; W135, y/d descartan aumento de riesgo al síndrome de Guillain Barre (sGB) posterior a su administración. se recomienda administrar dosis única a adolescentes más un refuerzo. el personal de alto riesgo a la enfermedad (Asplenia anatómica o funcional, alteración del complemento, déficit de Properdina, vIh) deben recibir dos dosis más refuerzos cada cinco años
Meningococcal disease is a rare but serious infection, up to 10% of persons who contract disease die, so it is very important to immunized for Meningococcal disease protection and prevention. there are two types of vaccine: Polysaccharides that even though induces protection ,is not immunogenic in children younger of 2 years, dont induce herd immunity and produce hypo responsivenessto a booster dose. conjugate vaccines can be monovalent serogroup: c which demonstrated 93% reduction of serogroups c disease in population with high vaccine coverage. Also there are two quadrivalent serogroups A;c;W135;y vaccines one conjugate to d(difteric toxoid) and other to /crM 139(mutant no toxic of dfsteric toxin. studies showed their immunogenicity up to 55 years and boths are safes. epidemiological study with A;c;W135,y/d disproves any evidence of increased risk to sGB after its administration recommended schedule is to immunized all adolescent, with a dose plus a booster. high risk people of invasive meningococcal disease (anatomic or functional asplenia,terminal complement or prperdin deficiencies,hIv) should rereceived, 2 doses, plus boostersevery 5 years