4.4 Article

Association of Anti-Herpes Simplex Virus IgG in Tears and Serum With Clinical Presentation in Patients With Presumed Herpetic Simplex Keratitis

期刊

CORNEA
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1251-1256

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f771f

关键词

anti-HSV antibodies; tears; herpes simplex keratitis

资金

  1. Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the clinical relevance of tear anti-herpes simplex virus (HSV) antibody measurement for the diagnosis of herpes simplex keratitis. Methods: Records of 364 patients clinically suspect of HSV-related keratitis who had tear anti-HSV IgG assessment (tear-quantified anti-HSV IgG/filtrated IgG ratio) in our institution between January 2000 and August 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into 4 groups as follows: group 1, anti-HSV IgG negative in serum and tears; group 2, anti-HSV IgG negative in tears and positive in serum; group 3, anti-HSV IgG nonsignificantly positive in tears and positive in serum; and group 4, anti-HSV IgG significantly positive in serum and tears. Randomly selected patient charts from each group were reviewed for clinical data. Results: The prevalence of anti-HSV IgG in blood increased with age from > 70% before 20 years to 95% after 70 years. The prevalence of anti-HSV IgG in tears increased with age from 20% before 20 years to > 50% after 70 years. The presence (either significant or not) of anti-HSV IgG in tears was significantly associated with decreased corneal sensation, presence of stromal opacities, and with neurotrophic keratitis. Logistic regression showed no significant association between age and clinical signs except for herpetic ulcers and herpetic necrotizing keratitis. Conclusions: Tear production of anti-HSV IgG increases with age, and it is associated with sequelae of herpes simplex keratitis. Conversely, it is poorly associated with clinical signs of acute herpes simplex keratitis.

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

4.4
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