Exantema após vacinação do sarampo: análise laboratorial de casos notificados em São Paulo

OBJECTIVE: The clinical differential diagnosis of rash due to viral infections is often difficult, and misdiagnosis is not rare, especially after the introduction of measles and rubella vaccination. A study to determine the etiological diagnosis of exanthema was carried out in a group of children after measles vaccination. METHODS: Sera collected from children with rash who received measles vaccine were reported in 1999. They were analyzed for IgM antibodies against measles virus, rubella virus, human parvovirus B19 (HPV B19) using ELISA commercial techniques, and human herpes virus 6 (HHV 6) using immunofluorescence commercial technique. Viremia for each of those viruses was tested using a polimerase chain reaction (PCR). RESULTS: A total of 17 cases of children with exanthema after measles immunization were reported in 1999. The children, aged 9 to 12 months (median 10 months), had a blood sample taken for laboratory analysis. The time between vaccination and the first rash signs varied from 1 to 60 days. The serological results of those 17 children suspected of measles or rubella infection showed the following etiological diagnosis: 17.6% (3 in 17) HPV B19 infection; 76.5% (13 in 17) HHV 6 infection; 5.9% (1 in 17) rash due to measles vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The study data indicate that infection due to HPV B19 or HHV 6 can be misdiagnosed as exanthema due to measles vaccination. Therefore, it is important to better characterize the etiology of rash in order to avoid attributing it incorrectly to measles vaccine.OBJETIVO: O diagnóstico diferencial de doenças exantemáticas causadas por vírus é geralmente difícil, e equívocos não são raros, especialmente depois da introdução da vacina contra o sarampo e a rubéola. Um estudo laboratorial foi conduzido com o objetivo de estabelecer o diagnóstico etiológico de casos de exantema em crianças que receberam a vacina contra o sarampo. MÉTODOS: Soros de casos de exantema em crianças que receberam vacina contra o sarampo, em 1999, foram analisados para anticorpos IgM contra os vírus do sarampo, da rubéola e do parvovírus humano B19 (HPV B19), por técnicas comerciais de Elisa, e o herpes vírus humano tipo 6 (HHV 6), por técnica comercial de imunofluorecência. A viremia para cada um desses vírus foi testada pela reação em cadeia da polimerase (PCR). RESULTADOS: Foram notificados, em 1999, 17 casos de crianças com exantema pós-vacinal. A idade das crianças era de nove a 12 meses (mediana, dez meses). Uma amostra de sangue colhida para investigação laboratorial foi obtida para cada criança. O tempo decorrido entre a aplicação da vacina e o aparecimento do exantema variou de um a 60 dias. Os resultados da sorologia das 17 crianças sugeriram o seguinte diagnóstico etiológico para o exantema: 17,6% (três em 17) infecção pelo HPV B19; 76,5% (13 em 17) infecção pelo HHV 6; 5,9% (um em 17) exantema originado pela vacina do sarampo. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados indicaram que a infecção pelo HPV B19 ou pelo HHV 6 pode ser diagnosticada como sarampo de origem vacinal. Portanto, é fundamental incluir esses vírus no diagnóstico laboratorial para corretamente apontar a etiologia das doenças exantemáticas, evitando, assim, atribuir à vacina do sarampo efeito colateral

Rash after measles vaccination: laboratory analysis of cases reported in São Paulo, Brazil

OBJECTIVE: The clinical differential diagnosis of rash due to viral infections is often difficult, and misdiagnosis is not rare, especially after the introduction of measles and rubella vaccination. A study to determine the etiological diagnosis of exanthema was carried out in a group of children after measles vaccination. METHODS: Sera collected from children with rash who received measles vaccine were reported in 1999. They were analyzed for IgM antibodies against measles virus, rubella virus, human parvovirus B19 (HPV B19) using ELISA commercial techniques, and human herpes virus 6 (HHV 6) using immunofluorescence commercial technique. Viremia for each of those viruses was tested using a polimerase chain reaction (PCR). RESULTS: A total of 17 cases of children with exanthema after measles immunization were reported in 1999. The children, aged 9 to 12 months (median 10 months), had a blood sample taken for laboratory analysis. The time between vaccination and the first rash signs varied from 1 to 60 days. The serological results of those 17 children suspected of measles or rubella infection showed the following etiological diagnosis: 17.6% (3 in 17) HPV B19 infection; 76.5% (13 in 17) HHV 6 infection; 5.9% (1 in 17) rash due to measles vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The study data indicate that infection due to HPV B19 or HHV 6 can be misdiagnosed as exanthema due to measles vaccination. Therefore, it is important to better characterize the etiology of rash in order to avoid attributing it incorrectly to measles vaccine

Rash after measles vaccination: laboratory analysis of cases reported in São Paulo, Brazil

OBJECTIVE: The clinical differential diagnosis of rash due to viral infections is often difficult, and misdiagnosis is not rare, especially after the introduction of measles and rubella vaccination. A study to determine the etiological diagnosis of exanthema was carried out in a group of children after measles vaccination. METHODS: Sera collected from children with rash who received measles vaccine were reported in 1999. They were analyzed for IgM antibodies against measles virus, rubella virus, human parvovirus B19 (HPV B19) using ELISA commercial techniques, and human herpes virus 6 (HHV 6) using immunofluorescence commercial technique. Viremia for each of those viruses was tested using a polimerase chain reaction (PCR). RESULTS: A total of 17 cases of children with exanthema after measles immunization were reported in 1999. The children, aged 9 to 12 months (median 10 months), had a blood sample taken for laboratory analysis. The time between vaccination and the first rash signs varied from 1 to 60 days. The serological results of those 17 children suspected of measles or rubella infection showed the following etiological diagnosis: 17.6% (3 in 17) HPV B19 infection; 76.5% (13 in 17) HHV 6 infection; 5.9% (1 in 17) rash due to measles vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The study data indicate that infection due to HPV B19 or HHV 6 can be misdiagnosed as exanthema due to measles vaccination. Therefore, it is important to better characterize the etiology of rash in order to avoid attributing it incorrectly to measles vaccine