Identificação de casos de leptospirose e hantavirose em pacientes com suspeita clínica de dengue no Ceará

Abstract

Dengue is considered the most important arbovirus in the world in terms of morbidity and mortality, causing 50-270,000,000 infections per year, of which 2,000,000 cases progress to more severe forms and 21,000 result in death. Clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic and undifferentiated febrile syndrome to severe hemorrhagic. Considering that dengue has a wide range and nonspecific clinical spectrum, it is difficult to distinguish it from other diseases, using only clinical and epidemiological criteria. There is a high prevalence of patients with a non-laboratory confirmed dengue in epidemics, there is a need to investigate other possible etiologic agents responsible for these cases in order to take early and effective therapeutic measures. This study aimed to identify cases of leptospirosis and hantavirosis in patients with dengue-like syndrome. Therefore, we evaluated 93 patients, with clinical suspicion of dengue, recruited during January-September in 2012, in the State of Ceará. The samples were tested for dengue through NS1 immunochromatographic, ELISA-IgM and RT-PCR. Dengue negative samples were tested for leptospirosis, through ELISA-IgM and PCR, and for hantaviruses, through RT-PCR. All the samples from this study were tested for hantavirus by ELISA-IgM and ELISA-IgG. Of the 93 patients evaluated for dengue, 48 (51,6%) were positive for at least one of the tests. Of the remaining 45 patients with negative results for dengue, 13 (28,8%) patients were positive for leptospirosis, 5 by ELISA-IgM and 8 by PCR. One (1,07%) patient was positive for hantavirus by ELISA IgM and 30 (31,6%) were positive by ELISA-IgG. Thirty two (32,2%) patients remained negative in tests for dengue, leptospirosis and hantavirus, not having revealed its etiology. Thus, in epidemics of dengue, leptospirosis and hantaviruses cases were underdiagnosed and confused with dengue, leading to inappropriate treatment. Besides these, other etiologic agents should be involved, requiring further investigation to define its etiology and the actual prevalence of these pathologies in State.