Pityriasis rosea--evidence for and against an infectious aetiology

玫瑰糠疹——支持和反对感染病因学的证据

阅读:1

Abstract

Pityriasis rosea, first named as such in 1860, probably holds the longest record for an exanthem suspected to be associated with an infection but for which an exact cause has not been found. The distinctly programmed clinical course, the lack of recurrence for most patients, and the presence of temporal case clustering provide the strongest evidence to support an infectious aetiology. Further support comes from seasonal variation and the association with respiratory tract infections, the unfavourable social and economic background of cases, and a history in some cases of contact with patients with pityriasis rosea. The apparent therapeutic efficacy of several treatment modalities does not provide strong evidence for or against an infectious aetiology. The roles of human herpesvirus 7 and to a lesser extent human herpesvirus 6 remain controversial. There exists reasonable evidence that pityriasis rosea is not associated with cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, parvovirus B19, picornavirus, influenza and parainfluenza viruses, Legionella spp., Mycoplasma spp. and Chlamydia spp. infections. Evidence is also unsubstantiated as yet for alternative aetiological hypotheses such as autoimmunity, atopy, and genetic predisposition.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。