4.2 Review

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever: An update

期刊

MEDECINE ET MALADIES INFECTIEUSES
卷 49, 期 8, 页码 574-585

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.medmal.2019.09.005

关键词

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever; Viral hemorrhagic fever; Health professionals; Ribavirin; Ticks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a severe form of hemorrhagic fever caused by a virus of the genus Nairovirus. The amplifying hosts are various mammal species that remain asymptomatic. Humans are infected by tick bites or contact with animal blood. CCHF has a broad geographic distribution and is endemic in Africa, Asia (in particular the Middle East) and South East Europe. This area has expanded in recent years with two indigenous cases reported in Spain in 2016 and 2018. The incubation period is short with the onset of symptoms in generally less than a week. The initial symptoms are common to other infectious syndromes with fever, headache, myalgia and gastrointestinal symptoms. The hemorrhagic syndrome occurs during a second phase with sometimes major bleeding in and from the mucous membranes and the skin. Strict barrier precautionary measures are required to prevent secondary and nosocomial spread. CCHF may be documented by PCR detection of the virus genome during the first days after the onset of illness, and then by serological testing for IgM antibodies as from the 2nd week after infection. Patient management is mainly based on supportive care. Despite a few encouraging retrospective reports, there is no confirmed evidence that supports the use of ribavirin for curative treatment. Nevertheless, the World Health Organization continues to recommend the use of ribavirin to treat CCHF, considering the limited medical risk related to short-term treatment. The prescription of ribavirin should however be encouraged post-exposure for medical professionals, to prevent secondary infection. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据