The cases demonstrate a specific IgG antibody response to Coxsackie virus A16 in pregnant women who contracted hand-foot-and-mouth disease.
Supports serological testing in pregnant HFMD; leaves open perinatal risks and requires prospective validation.
sent for virological examination.She described her illness, which had begun on 30 July with headache, fever, malaise, and tiredness followed by the appearance of mouth ulcers and several blisters on arms, legs, and trunk.This was clinically diagnosed as chickenpox.On admission she had several healing blisters on limbs and trunk (see figure).Her only child, a girl of .. . . . . .--, ...... ...Case-2.Appearance of healing blister at time of admission. 16months, had been unwell with a fever and papular rash on the buttocks the week before the patient's illness.Coxsackie virus A16 was isolated (in MRC5.cells) from the products of conception and identified by neutrahsation tests in suckling mice.Case 3-A third patient reported that she had had a mild attack of hand- foot-and-mouth disease in the 14th week of pregnancy after contact with infected children.She described mouth ulcers and a few skin vesicles but no systemic upset.Her pregnancy was continuing normally to mid-term.Pre-illness serum was available for these three patients, and convalescent samples obtained from each.Using an indirect immunofluorescence test for antibody to Coxsackie virus A16,1 we showed a specific response in all three patients.Some IgG antibody was detectable in all pre-illness sera (titres 16, 8, 8), but there was a significant increase' in each convalescent serum titre (128, 512, 512).The specificity of the pre-existing antibody remains to be determined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (1980) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: