Publication: Adenovirus infection after kidney transplantation in Thailand: Seasonal distribution and potential route of acquisition
Issued Date
2010-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
00411345
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-78650442165
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Transplantation Proceedings. Vol.42, No.10 (2010), 4091-4093
Suggested Citation
S. P. Watcharananan, P. Junchotikul, C. Srichanrusmi, P. Chanchompoo, V. Mavichak, S. Kantachuvessiri, W. Chantratita Adenovirus infection after kidney transplantation in Thailand: Seasonal distribution and potential route of acquisition. Transplantation Proceedings. Vol.42, No.10 (2010), 4091-4093. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.09.055 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/29418
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Adenovirus infection after kidney transplantation in Thailand: Seasonal distribution and potential route of acquisition
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background Data on the epidemiology and route of acquisition of adenovirus (ADV) infection after kidney transplantation are limited. From April 2007 to March 2010, there were 17 cases of ADV infection: namely, 2 from April to December 2007; 8 from January to December 2008; 4 from January to December 2009; and 3 from January to March 2010. Most cases occurred in October and November (n = 8; 47.1%), followed by February to April (n = 6; 35.3%) and July (n = 3; 17.6%). Methods From April 2007 to August 2009, the diagnosis of ADV infection was made based on patient symptoms. From September 2009 to March 2010, in addition to symptoms, the diagnosis was complemented by urine surveillance for ADV using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) prospectively performed every 12 weeks among recipients of living-related kidney, starting at week 2 posttransplantation for a total of 812 weeks. Before transplantation, recipients and donors were screened for ADV in urine and also using nasal swab. Results Only 1 of the 24 patients displayed a positive ADV PCR in the urine surveillance study. A local investigation during a cluster of cases in October 2008 showed 2 patients who developed ADV after sharing a room in the transplant unit. Although nosocomial transmission was probable, the majority of cases were scattered over time rather than clustering in 1 time period. Conclusion These findings suggested that ADV infection cases occurred after exogenous exposure. In a resource-limited country, early diagnosis of ADV is justified for patients with compatible symptoms complemented by intense infection control to prevent nosocomial transmission from a confirmed case. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.