Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/siny Enterovirus infections in neonates Marc Tebruegge a, b, c, Nigel Curtis a, b, c, * a Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of General Medicine, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia c Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia b s u m m a r y Keywords: Antiviral therapy Coxsackievirus Echovirus Enterovirus Neonate Treatment Enteroviruses, which include echoviruses, coxsackie A and B viruses, polioviruses and the ‘numbered’ enteroviruses, are among the most common viruses causing disease in humans. A large proportion of enteroviral infections occur in neonates and infants. There is a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations that can be caused by enterovirus infection with varying degrees of severity. In the neonatal age group, enteroviral infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly when infection occurs antenatally. This review provides a detailed overview of the epidemiology and clinical features of enterovirus infections in the neonatal period. In addition, laboratory features and diagnostic investigations are discussed. A review of the currently available data for prophylactic and therapeutic interventions, including antiviral therapy, is also presented. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The human enteroviruses belong to the family of picornaviridae and have historically been classified into echoviruses, coxsackie A and B viruses, and polioviruses. This traditional taxonomy is based on replication properties in culture, as well as the range of clinical symptoms caused by infection with these viruses in humans. Since the 1960s, rather than being assigned to one of the four major groups, newly identified enteroviruses have been given a numeric designation (‘numbered enteroviruses’, e.g. enterovirus 68 to 71). Further numbered enterovirus serotypes have been identified only in the last five years.1,2 Relatively recent molecular data suggest that the traditional groups are genetically quite diverse, which has led to the adoption of a new taxonomy.3,4 In this current taxonomy, enteroviruses are divided into five species: human enterovirus A, B, C and D, and polioviruses, with the traditional names retained for individual serotypes (Table 1). This review focuses primarily on non-polio enterovirus infections. Poliovirus infections and poliomyelitis have become exceedingly rare in most developed countries as a result of routine immunisation programmes, and are discussed in detail elsewhere.8,9 Also, parechoviruses, some of which were previously classified as echoviruses (echovirus 22 and 23), are not discussed in this review. Recent molecular sequencing data suggest that these * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 9345 5161; fax: þ61 3 9345 6667. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Curtis). 1744-165X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2009.02.002 are a separate group of viruses.10 However, the clinical manifestations associated with parechovirus infection show a considerable overlap with those produced by enteroviruses and disease can be virtually indistinguishable.11 Non-polio enteroviruses can produce a wide spectrum of acute illnesses with clinical manifestations ranging from non-specific febrile illness, mild upper respiratory tract infection or self-limiting gastroenteritis, to more severe entities such as myocarditis, hepatitis and encephalitis. Some diseases or manifestations are typically associated with a particular enterovirus group or even a particular serotype, such as herpangina (coxsackie A viruses),12 hand-foot-and-mouth disease [coxsackie A viruses (frequently A16), enterovirus 71],13,14 pericarditis/myocarditis (coxsackie B viruses),15,16 pleurodynia (Bornholm’s disease; coxsackie B viruses)17 and haemorrhagic conjunctivitis (coxsackievirus A24, enterovirus 70).18,19 2. Epidemiology of enterovirus infections Enteroviruses are among the most common viruses causing disease in humans. It has been estimated that in the USA alone 10– 15 million symptomatic enterovirus infections occur each year.20 Enterovirus infections have a distinct seasonal pattern in temperate climates, with the majority of infections occurring during summer and fall,21–24 although this seasonality appears to be less pronounced in the neonatal population.20 In Europe the most commonly isolated enterovirus serotypes are echoviruses E6, E7, E9, E11, E13, E19, E30, coxsackie A viruses A9, A16 and coxsackie B viruses B2 to B5.21,25,26 A recent publication from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), M. Tebruegge, N. Curtis / Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 Table 1 Classification of enteroviruses. Traditional taxonomy Current taxonomy Echoviruses E1–7, 9, 11–21, 24–27, 29–33 Human enterovirus A (HEV-A) CAV2-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, EV71 Coxsackie A viruses CAV1–22, 24 Human enterovirus B (HEV-B) CAV9, CBV1–6, E1–7, 9, 11–21, 24–27, 29–33, EV69 Coxsackie B viruses CBV1–6 Human enterovirus C (HEV-C) CAV1, 11, 13, 17, 19–22, 24, PV1–3 Polioviruses PV1–3 Human enterovirus D (HEV-D) EV68, 70 Numbered enteroviruses EV68–71 Table adapted from Khetsuriani et al.27 Gaps in the numbering are partly due to the finding that some viruses were in fact identical (e.g. coxsackievirus A15 and A11); others have been reclassified as part of another genus or virus family (e.g. echovirus 28 is now human rhinovirus 1A). Notably, echoviruses 22 and 23 are now considered to be part of a different genus, and have been renamed as parechovirus 1 and 2, respectively. Not included in the table are the four new enterovirus serotypes described in 2005 (EV76, EV89, EV90, EV91; likely subgroup of HEV-A)1 and 13 new serotypes reported in 2007(EV79-88, EV97, EV100, EV101; likely members of HEV-B).2 Other reports have described additional serotypes.5–7 summarising the epidemiological data in the USA accumulated over a 35-year period, reported that the five most common enterovirus serotypes were echoviruses E6, E9, E11, E30 and coxsackievirus B5, which accounted for almost half of all enteroviruses detected.27 In contrast to Europe, echovirus E13 and E19 played only a relatively minor role in the USA (1.2% and 0.2% of the reported cases respectively). The same report also showed that the predominant serotypes and ranking of individual enteroviruses change considerably over time. Another recent publication from the CDC reported that coxsackievirus B1 had become the most commonly identified enterovirus serotype in the USA in 2007, accounting for 25% of all enterovirus infections with known serotypes.28 Worryingly, an unusually large proportion of babies infected with this serotype developed severe disease – including myocarditis, severe hepatitis and coagulopathy – resulting in the death of five of these neonates. National surveillance data collected over a five-year period in France has shown that the vast majority of enterovirus infections occur in young children, with infants below the age of one year accounting for about a third of all cases.25 Similar observations have been reported by other national enterovirus surveillance programmes, including those in the USA,27 the UK26 and Taiwan.15 Enterovirus infections in the neonatal period are not rare. One study in the USA, conducted during a typical enterovirus season, found that the incidence of non-polio enterovirus infection in neonates, who were followed until one month of life, was as high as 12%.29 Interestingly, the majority (79%) of babies infected with enteroviruses in this report were asymptomatic, while only 4% required admission to the hospital. More recent data from the CDC National Enterovirus Surveillance System indicate that enteroviral infections in the neonatal period account for about 10% of the total number of reported cases of enterovirus infection in the USA.20 Notably, this report also revealed that the relative frequency and predominant serotypes of enteroviruses affecting neonates differed from the pattern observed in the general population (described above). During the 20-year period described in this report, echoviruses E6, E9, E11 and coxsackieviruses B2, B4 and B5 were the most commonly identified serotypes in neonates. 223 Enterovirus infections are not an uncommon cause of sepsis-like illness in the neonatal period. A prospective, population-based survey of neonates (up to day 29 of life) presenting with suspected systemic infection found that at least 3% of these episodes had been caused by enteroviruses.24 To put this number into context: only 3% of infants were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed bacterial sepsis during the same period. 3. Enterovirus transmission in neonates There is evidence suggesting that enterovirus infections can be acquired antenatally, intrapartum and postnatally. In-utero transmission in late gestation has been demonstrated in animal models,30 and a number of observations in humans also support the concept that enteroviruses can be transmitted antenatally – either transplacentally or potentially via ascending infection. One prospective study during a community outbreak of echovirus 11 suggests that vertical transmission is relatively common when the maternal enterovirus infection is acquired during late pregnancy.31 In this report, 57% of the neonates born to mothers with echovirus 11 infection were found to be infected with the same serotype; in all neonatal cases the virus could be isolated from the throat and/or rectum at three days of age, suggesting that the virus had been transmitted antenatally. Further evidence for antenatal transmission comes from the fact that specific neutralising immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies have been detected on the first day of life in a number of neonates.32 Other publications have reported the isolation of enterovirus from amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood.22,33,34 In addition, a number of postmortem studies have identified the presence of enteroviruses in the organs of aborted fetuses using immunohistochemical and molecular methods.35,36 Furthermore, several publications have reported neonates with symptomatic enterovirus infection on day 1 of life, indicating that the infection must have been acquired antenatally.22,23,33,37–40 Other modes of transmission include intrapartum exposure to maternal blood, genital secretions and stool, as well as postnatal exposure to oropharyngeal secretions from the mother and other individuals who have close contact with the baby.22,37,41 Given the relatively high rates of ‘viral illness’ observed in siblings and fathers of neonates with confirmed enterovirus infection it appears likely that transmission from family members is relatively common.38–40 Both epidemic outbreaks and sporadic transmission of enteroviruses in neonatal units and hospital nurseries have been described, with echovirus 11 and coxsackie B viruses as the most commonly implicated serotypes in the majority of reports.22,37,42–45 In some of these instances the enterovirus had been introduced by personnel working in the unit, while other outbreaks were traced back to neonates in the unit who had been vertically infected. The attack rate for infants at risk has been estimated to range from 22% to 53% in this setting.37 Notably, nosocomially acquired enterovirus infections are generally associated with less severe disease and lower mortality rates than vertically acquired infections.16,37 4. Clinical features of neonatal enterovirus infection Enterovirus infections in the neonate are associated with a wide spectrum of signs and symptoms, which range from a non-specific febrile illness to potentially fatal multisystem disease, frequently referred to as ‘neonatal enterovirus sepsis’ or ‘enteroviral sepsis syndrome’. The most common presenting features associated with neonatal enterovirus infection are fever, irritability, poor feeding and lethargy.22,38–40 A non-specific rash, which is frequently macular or 224 M. Tebruegge, N. Curtis / Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 maculo-papular in nature, is observed in around half of infants during the course of the illness.38,39 A similar proportion of patients develop respiratory symptoms, including nasal discharge, cough, apnoeas, tachypnoea, recessions, grunting and nasal flaring. Gastrointestinal symptoms, comprising vomiting, abdominal distension and diarrhoea, are less common, but still occur in about 20% of cases.39 Other potential manifestations include pancreatitis, adrenal haemorrhage and necrotising enterocolitis.22 Approximately half of the infants with neonatal enterovirus infection have evidence of hepatitis or jaundice during the course of the illness, while hepatomegaly is detected in around 20%.22,38 The hepatic inflammation may progress to acute hepatic necrosis, associated with marked elevation of transaminases and jaundice, liver failure and coagulopathy.23,39 Splenomegaly is a relatively uncommon feature.39 Some neonatal cases develop signs of myocarditis, such as cardiac arrhythmias, cardiomegaly, poor ventricular function, systemic hypotension, congestive heart failure, pulmonary oedema and myocardial ischaemia.16,22,23,39,40 Central nervous system disease may manifest as meningitis or encephalitis, or a combination of the two.22,23,39,46 Neonates with enteroviral meningitis may present with irritability, poor feeding, or less commonly a prominent anterior fontanelle.22,39 Encephalitis can manifest with seizures, depressed level of consciousness or focal neurological symptoms. 5. Diagnosis of enterovirus infection The detection of enteroviruses is traditionally based on viral isolation in cell culture, followed by immunofluorescence staining or typing with the use of antisera, which allows identification of the infecting serotype. Previous reports suggest that the highest isolation yields are achieved with samples from the upper respiratory tract (throat swabs/nasopharyngeal aspirates), gastrointestinal samples (rectal swabs/stool samples) and cerebrospinal fluid. Isolation from blood and urine is less common.15,23,38 Serology, which relies on the detection of IgM antibodies or the detection of a significant rise in IgG antibody titre, is generally less useful in the diagnosis of enterovirus infections. All currently available serological techniques have significant limitations. Notably, there is no single antigen that is present in all enterovirus serotypes, and consequently no truly ‘universal’ antibody or antigen assay exists. Various serological methods, including enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and complement fixation tests, have been developed.47,48 Although the specificity of these tests is often good, their sensitivity is generally rather poor (below 80%). Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) may increase the detection rate in enterovirus infections and is particularly useful in the analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples in patients with evidence of meningitis.40,49 In this setting, RT-PCR has been shown to have greater sensitivity than culture methods. In addition, RT-PCR on blood can be a useful tool for the diagnosis of enterovirus infection in infants presenting with sepsis-like illness.50,51 More recently, enteroviral real-time RT-PCR assays, which allow shorter turnover times, have been developed and demonstrated to have high sensitivity and specificity.50,52 Cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities are common in neonates with enterovirus infection. One study reported that abnormal CSF results were observed in 70% of neonatal cases, with CSF pleocytosis occurring in 53%.38 CSF pleocytosis in these patients most commonly shows a predominantly lymphocytic pattern.22 However, CSF pleocytosis with polymorphonuclear predominance (i.e. more than 50% polymorphs; usually suggestive of bacterial meningitis) has been reported to occur in up to one-third of patients.22,38,39 The majority of patients with enterovirus meningitis have only mild to moderately elevated CSF white blood cell counts, but cases with counts above 1000/mm3 have been described.16,22,38–40,46 CSF protein levels are frequently elevated.22 CSF glucose concentrations are generally within normal range,39,46 as would be expected in a viral infection, although several neonates with CSF glucose levels below 30 mg/ dL and abnormally low CSF glucose:blood glucose ratios have been reported.22 6. Prognosis of enterovirus infection in the neonatal period The majority of infants who present with enterovirus infection in the neonatal period have a benign course and make a full recovery. Pyrexia generally resolves within three to five days, whereas resolution of symptoms occurs on average within four to seven days after onset.22,38,39 Previous studies have reported overall mortality rates ranging between 0 and 42%.16,22,38,39,41 Risk factors for severe infection include prematurity,31,39,53 presence of maternal ‘viral symptoms’ at delivery,38 onset of symptoms in the first week of life23,38,40,53 and absence of specific antibodies (acquired by placental transfer) to the infecting serotype in the neonate.31,44,53,54 There is some evidence that certain enterovirus serotypes are associated with more severe disease in the neonatal period. In one population-based study, the highest mortality rate by far (40%) was observed in neonates infected with coxsackievirus B4.20 Another serotype associated with a high mortality rate was echovirus E11. By contrast, despite the fact that a considerable number (n ¼ 28) of neonatal infections with coxsackie B5 virus were documented during the study period, none had a fatal outcome. In addition to the specific serotype involved, the clinical manifestation of neonatal enterovirus infection is also an important determinant of prognosis, with the highest mortality rates being reported in neonates with sepsis-like illness, myocarditis and hepatitis.23,38,39,55 In one large study, all neonates who presented with a non-specific illness or aseptic meningitis (n ¼ 103) survived without long-term sequelae.23 By contrast, 24% of the neonates who developed hepatic necrosis and coagulopathy (n ¼ 42) had a fatal outcome. In this cohort the highest mortality (71%) was recorded in patients with hepatic necrosis and concurrent myocarditis. A different, retrospective study reported that the mortality rate of neonates with hepatitis and coexisting coagulopathy was 31%.55 Long-term sequelae following neonatal enterovirus infection are relatively rare. However, residual hepatic dysfunction in some infants who had originally presented with acute hepatic failure and coagulopathy has been described.38 Most patients with enteroviral myocarditis who survive have no persisting cardiac problems; a minority have residual ventricular dysfunction, ventricular aneurysms or rhythm abnormalities or develop dilated cardiomyopathy.56–58 Several reports have also described persisting neurological deficits in patients who had enteroviral meningitis or encephalitis, including spasticity, seizure disorders, learning difficulties and language disorders.59–61 One report also described the presence of white matter changes in several neonates with enterovirus meningoencephalitis, which resembled periventricular leukomalacia on imaging.62 7. Prophylaxis and treatment of enterovirus infection in neonates As enteroviral infection is a self-limiting infection in immunocompetent individuals and most neonates have a benign course, the treatment of neonatal enterovirus infections predominately consists of supportive therapy. M. Tebruegge, N. Curtis / Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 7.1. The role of immunoglobulin in enterovirus infections There is some anecdotal evidence suggesting that prophylactic immunoglobulin containing sufficiently high levels of specific neutralising antibodies may prevent enterovirus infection in infants at risk during outbreaks on neonatal units. In one report all patients in a neonatal unit were given immunoglobulin following the diagnosis of meningitis caused by echovirus 11 in an index case, and infection control measures were instigated simultaneously.54 None of the babies that had received prophylactic immunoglobulin soon after delivery developed signs suggestive of echovirus infection. Subsequent studies in similar settings reported less favourable results, although it appears that prophylactic immunoglobulin at least mitigates disease severity in some exposed neonates.63–65 Immunoglobulin has also been used for the treatment of symptomatic infants with enterovirus infection in several reports.16,23,66 While some groups believe that the use of immunoglobulin was potentially beneficial,16 others did not observe any impact on clinical outcome.23 In the only randomised controlled trial of immunoglobulin in the context of neonatal enterovirus infection, intravenously administered immunoglobulin was associated with subtle clinical benefits and faster resolution of viraemia.67 However, the study group was small (n ¼ 16), and therefore firm conclusions cannot be made. 7.2. Antiviral treatment options in enterovirus infection Over the last three decades a large variety of compounds with activity against picornaviruses, including enteroviruses, have been developed. These compounds either: (a) target the attachment, entry and uncoating of enteroviruses (e.g. pleconaril, BPROZ-194,68 MDL-86069), (b) inhibit the replication of the virus (e.g. enviroxime, enviradone,70 TBZE-02971), (c) interfere with viral proteases (e.g. rupintrivir,72 MPCMK73) or (d) prevent viral assembly and release (e.g. 5-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)methylhydantoin74). Many of these antiviral agents have been assessed in vitro and in animal models, and some have been evaluated in human trials (mainly phase I and II). A detailed review of these agents is beyond the scope of this chapter, but can be found elsewhere.75 At present, pleconaril is the most advanced antiviral treatment option for enterovirus infections. A report by Rotbart et al., describing the early experience with pleconaril in human enterovirus infection, showed some encouraging results.76 The majority of cases in this report were patients with congenital immunodeficiencies who suffered from chronic enterovirus infection. In this subgroup, treatment with pleconaril was associated with clinical improvement in 75% and virological response in 86% of cases. Notably, this report also included six neonates with enteroviral sepsis syndrome, five of whom survived. Viral clearance was achieved in all four neonates in whom the virological response was assessed. The largest study of pleconaril in the context of enteroviral disease reported to date is a randomised controlled trial conducted in adults with meningitis (n ¼ 240).77 Disappointingly, the clinical benefit of pleconaril treatment was only modest and primarily apparent in patients who presented with the most severe disease. To date there are only very limited data regarding pleconaril as treatment for enterovirus infections in neonates or infants.40,78–82 In this age group, reports consist almost exclusively of single case reports and small case series. Some of the respective authors believed that treatment with pleconaril had a positive impact on outcome; however, without untreated control patients for comparison, none of these anecdotal observations allow firm conclusions. Notably, some reports have described neonates with a fatal outcome despite treatment with pleconaril, although in most instances these patients already had severe disease manifestations 225 before treatment was started.40,79,82 A small randomised controlled trial in infants failed to show a significant difference in viral persistence, symptoms or duration of hospitalisation between the pleconaril-treated and the placebo groups.78 However, the majority of patients in this study had only mild disease and the size of the study population (n ¼ 20) would have limited the ability to detect even moderate treatment effects. A phase II double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pleconaril for the treatment of neonatal enteroviral sepsis syndrome is currently underway.83 However, the results of this trial are unlikely to be available before the year 2010, highlighting the need for the development and investigation of further effective anti-enteroviral compounds. Practice points Enterovirus infections in neonates are associated with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. The seasonality of enterovirus infections is less pronounced in the neonatal population and infections may be encountered throughout the year. Neonatal enterovirus infection resulting from antenatal transmission is associated with the most severe disease and poorest outcome. Prognosis depends on the causative serotype and the clinical manifestations. The use of molecular diagnostic methods can improve detection rates. The potential benefit of currently available antivirals in neonatal enterovirus infection remains uncertain. Research directions The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of recently identified enterovirus serotypes. The role of existing antiviral agents in the treatment of neonatal enterovirus infections. The development of new antiviral agents with antienteroviral activity. Conflict of interest statement None declared. Funding sources M.T. is supported by a Fellowship from the European Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases and an International Research Scholarship from the University of Melbourne. References 1. Oberste MS, Maher K, Michele SM, Belliot G, Uddin M, Pallansch MA. Enteroviruses 76, 89, 90 and 91 represent a novel group within the species Human enterovirus A. J Gen Virol 2005;86:445–51. 2. Oberste MS, Maher K, Nix WA, et al. Molecular identification of 13 new enterovirus types, EV79-88, EV97, and EV100-101, members of the species Human Enterovirus B. Virus Res 2007;128:34–42. 3. Stanway G, Brown F, Christian P, et al. Picornaviridae. In: Fauquet CM, Mayo MA, Maniloff J, Desselberger U, Ball LA, editors. Virus taxonomy – 226 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. *20. 21. *22. *23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. M. Tebruegge, N. Curtis / Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 classification and nomenclature of viruses. 8th report of the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. p. 757–78. Muir P, Kammerer U, Korn K, et al. Molecular typing of enteroviruses: current status and future requirements. The European Union Concerted Action on Virus Meningitis and Encephalitis. Clin Microbiol Rev 1998;11:202–27. Oberste MS, Maher K, Patterson MA, Pallansch MA. The complete genome sequence for an American isolate of enterovirus 77. Arch Virol 2007;152:1587–91. Oberste MS, Michele SM, Maher K, et al. Molecular identification and characterization of two proposed new enterovirus serotypes, EV74 and EV75. J Gen Virol 2004;85:3205–12. Norder H, Bjerregaard L, Magnius L, Lina B, Aymard M, Chomel JJ. Sequencing of ‘untypable’ enteroviruses reveals two new types, EV-77 and EV-78, within human enterovirus type B and substitutions in the BC loop of the VP1 protein for known types. J Gen Virol 2003;84:827–36. Howard RS. Poliomyelitis and the postpolio syndrome. Br Med J 2005;330:1314–8. Melnick JL. Current status of poliovirus infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 1996;9:293–300. Joki-Korpela P, Hyypia T. Parechoviruses, a novel group of human picornaviruses. Ann Med 2001;33:466–71. Wolthers KC, Benschop KS, Schinkel J, et al. Human parechoviruses as an important viral cause of sepsislike illness and meningitis in young children. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:358–63. Huebner RJ, Cole RM, Beeman EA, Bell JA, Peers JH. Herpangina; etiological studies of a specific infectious disease. J Am Med Assoc 1951;145:628–33. Ishimaru Y, Nakano S, Yamaoka K, Takami S. Outbreaks of hand, foot, and mouth disease by enterovirus 71. High incidence of complication disorders of central nervous system. Arch Dis Child 1980;55:583–8. Alsop J, Flewett TH, Foster JR. ‘‘Hand-foot-and-mouth disease’’ in Birmingham in 1959. Br Med J 1960;2:1708–11. Tseng FC, Huang HC, Chi CY, et al. Epidemiological survey of enterovirus infections occurring in Taiwan between 2000 and 2005: analysis of sentinel physician surveillance data. J Med Virol 2007;79:1850–60. Isacsohn M, Eidelman AI, Kaplan M, et al. Neonatal coxsackievirus group B infections: experience of a single department of neonatology. Isr J Med Sci 1994;30:371–4. Bury HS, Tobin JO. Further outbreak of Bornholm disease associated with Coxsackie virus. Lancet 1952;2:267–9. Mirkovic RR, Kono R, Yin-Murphy M, Sohier R, Schmidt NJ, Melnick JL. Enterovirus type 70: the etiologic agent of pandemic acute haemorrhagic conjunctivitis. Bull World Health Organ 1973;49:341–6. Christopher S, Theogaraj S, Godbole S, John TJ. An epidemic of acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis due to coxsackievirus A24. J Infect Dis 1982;146:16–9. Khetsuriani N, Lamonte A, Oberste MS, Pallansch M. Neonatal enterovirus infections reported to the national enterovirus surveillance system in the United States, 1983–2003. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006;25:889–93. Hovi T, Stenvik M, Rosenlew M. Relative abundance of enterovirus serotypes in sewage differs from that in patients: clinical and epidemiological implications. Epidemiol Infect 1996;116:91–7. Kaplan MH, Klein SW, McPhee J, Harper RG. Group B coxsackievirus infections in infants younger than three months of age: a serious childhood illness. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5:1019–32. Lin TY, Kao HT, Hsieh SH, et al. Neonatal enterovirus infections: emphasis on risk factors of severe and fatal infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:889–94. Rosenlew M, Stenvik M, Roivainen M, Jarvenpaa AL, Hovi T. A populationbased prospective survey of newborn infants with suspected systemic infection: occurrence of sporadic enterovirus and adenovirus infections. J Clin Virol 1999;12:211–9. Antona D, Leveque N, Chomel JJ, Dubrou S, Levy-Bruhl D, Lina B. Surveillance of enteroviruses in France, 2000–2004. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;26:403–12. Maguire HC, Atkinson P, Sharland M, Bendig J. Enterovirus infections in England and Wales: laboratory surveillance data: 1975 to 1994. Commun Dis Public Health 1999;2:122–5. Khetsuriani N, Lamonte-Fowlkes A, Oberst S, Pallansch MA. Enterovirus surveillance – United States, 1970–2005. MMWR Surveill Summ 2006;55:1–20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increased detections and severe neonatal disease associated with coxsackievirus B1 infection – United States, 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:553–6. Jenista JA, Powell KR, Menegus MA. Epidemiology of neonatal enterovirus infection. J Pediatr 1984;104:685–90. Soike K. Coxsackie B-3 virus infection in the pregnant mouse. J Infect Dis 1967;117:203–8. Modlin JF, Polk BF, Horton P, Etkind P, Crane E, Spiliotes A. Perinatal echovirus infection: risk of transmission during a community outbreak. N Engl J Med 1981;305:368–71. Haddad J, Gut JP, Wendling MJ, et al. Enterovirus infections in neonates. A retrospective study of 21 cases. Eur J Med 1993;2:209–14. Jones MJ, Kolb M, Votava HJ, Johnson RL, Smith TF. Case reports. Intrauterine echovirus type II infection. Mayo Clin Proc 1980;55:509–12. Ouellet A, Sherlock R, Toye B, Fung KF. Antenatal diagnosis of intrauterine infection with coxsackievirus B3 associated with live birth. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2004;12:23–6. 35. Chow KC, Lee CC, Lin TY, et al. Congenital enterovirus 71 infection: a case study with virology and immunohistochemistry. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31: 509–12. 36. Garcia AG, Basso NG, Fonseca ME, Outani HN. Congenital echovirus infection – morphological and virological study of fetal and placental tissue. J Pathol 1990;160:123–7. *37. Modlin JF. Perinatal echovirus infection: insights from a literature review of 61 cases of serious infection and 16 outbreaks in nurseries. Rev Infect Dis 1986;8:918–26. *38. Abzug MJ, Levin MJ, Rotbart HA. Profile of enterovirus disease in the first two weeks of life. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993;12:820–4. 39. Krajden S, Middleton PJ. Enterovirus infections in the neonate. Clin Pediatr 1983;22:87–92. *40. Bryant PA, Tingay D, Dargaville PA, Starr M, Curtis N. Neonatal coxsackie B virus infection – a treatable disease? Eur J Pediatr 2004;163:223–8. 41. Lake AM, Lauer BA, Clark JC, Wesenberg RL, McIntosh K. Enterovirus infections in neonates. J Pediatr 1976;89:787–91. 42. Berkovich S, Kibrick S. Echo 11 outbreak in newborn infants and mothers. Pediatrics 1964;33:534–40. 43. Davies DP, Hughes CA, MacVicar J, Hawkes P, Mair HJ. Echovirus-11 infection in a special-care baby unit. Lancet 1979;1:96. 44. Mertens T, Hager H, Eggers HJ. Epidemiology of an outbreak in a maternity unit of infections with an antigenic variant of Echovirus 11. J Med Virol 1982;9:81–91. 45. Nagington J, Wreghittt TG, Gandy G, Roberton NR, Berry PJ. Fatal echovirus 11 infections in outbreak in special-care baby unit. Lancet 1978;2:725–8. 46. Marier R, Rodriguez W, Chloupek RJ, et al. Coxsackievirus B5 infection and aseptic meningitis in neonates and children. Am J Dis Child 1975;129:321–5. 47. Terletskaia-Ladwig E, Metzger C, Schalasta G, Enders G. Evaluation of enterovirus serological tests IgM-EIA and complement fixation in patients with meningitis, confirmed by detection of enteroviral RNA by RT-PCR in cerebrospinal fluid. J Med Virol 2000;61:221–7. 48. Glimaker M, Samuelson A, Magnius L, Ehrnst A, Olcen P, Forsgren M. Early diagnosis of enteroviral meningitis by detection of specific IgM antibodies with a solid-phase reverse immunosorbent test (SPRIST) and mu-capture EIA. J Med Virol 1992;36:193–201. 49. Pozo F, Casas I, Tenorio A, Trallero G, Echevarria JM. Evaluation of a commercially available reverse transcription–PCR assay for diagnosis of enteroviral infection in archival and prospectively collected cerebrospinal fluid specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:1741–5. 50. Noordhoek GT, Weel JF, Poelstra E, Hooghiemstra M, Brandenburg AH. Clinical validation of a new real-time PCR assay for detection of enteroviruses and parechoviruses, and implications for diagnostic procedures. J Clin Virol 2008;41:75–80. 51. Rittichier KR, Bryan PA, Bassett KE, et al. Diagnosis and outcomes of enterovirus infections in young infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24:546–50. 52. Petitjean J, Vabret A, Dina J, Gouarin S, Freymuth F. Development and evaluation of a real-time RT-PCR assay on the LightCycler for the rapid detection of enterovirus in cerebrospinal fluid specimens. J Clin Virol 2006;35:278–84. 53. Modlin JF. Fatal echovirus 11 disease in premature neonates. Pediatrics 1980;66:775–80. 54. Nagington J, Gandy G, Walker J, Gray JJ. Use of normal immunoglobulin in an echovirus 11 outbreak in a special-care baby unit. Lancet 1983;2:443–6. 55. Abzug MJ. Prognosis for neonates with enterovirus hepatitis and coagulopathy. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:758–63. 56. Goudevenos J, Parry G, Gold RG. Coxsackie B4 viral myocarditis causing ventricular aneurysm. Int J Cardiol 1990;27:122–4. 57. Lu JC, Koay KW, Ramers CB, Milazzo AS. Neonate with coxsackie B1 infection, cardiomyopathy and arrhythmias. J Natl Med Assoc 2005;97:1028–30. 58. Rozkovec A, Cambridge G, King M, Hallidie-Smith KA. Natural history of left ventricular function in neonatal Coxsackie myocarditis. Pediatr Cardiol 1985;6:151–6. 59. Rantakallio P, Saukkonen AL, Krause U, Lapinleimu K. Follow-up study of 17 cases of neonatal coxsackie B5 meningitis and one with suspected myocarditis. Scand J Infect Dis 1970;2:25–8. 60. Sells CJ, Carpenter RL, Ray CG. Sequelae of central-nervous-system enterovirus infections. N Engl J Med 1975;293:1–4. 61. Wilfert CM, Thompson Jr RJ, Sunder TR, O’Quinn A, Zeller J, Blacharsh J. Longitudinal assessment of children with enteroviral meningitis during the first three months of life. Pediatrics 1981;67:811–5. 62. Verboon-Maciolek MA, Groenendaal F, Cowan F, Govaert P, van Loon AM, de Vries LS. White matter damage in neonatal enterovirus meningoencephalitis. Neurology 2006;66:1267–9. 63. Pasic S, Jankovic B, Abinun M, Kanjuh B. Intravenous immunoglobulin prophylaxis in an echovirus 6 and echovirus 4 nursery outbreak. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:718–20. 64. Wreghitt TG, Sutehall GM, King A, Gandy GM. Fatal echovirus 7 infection during an outbreak in a special care baby unit. J Infect 1989;19:229–36. 65. Kinney JS, McCray E, Kaplan JE, et al. Risk factors associated with echovirus 11 infection in a hospital nursery. Pediatr Infect Dis 1986;5:192–7. 66. Johnston JM, Overall Jr JC. Intravenous immunoglobulin in disseminated neonatal echovirus 11 infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989;8:254–6. *67. Abzug MJ, Keyserling HL, Lee ML, Levin MJ, Rotbart HA. Neonatal enterovirus infection: virology, serology, and effects of intravenous immune globulin. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1201–6. 68. Shih SR, Tsai MC, Tseng SN, et al. Mutation in enterovirus 71 capsid protein VP1 confers resistance to the inhibitory effects of pyridyl imidazolidinone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:3523–9. M. Tebruegge, N. Curtis / Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 14 (2009) 222–227 69. Powers RD, Gwaltney Jr JM, Hayden FG. Activity of 2-(3,4-dichlorophenoxy)5-nitrobenzonitrile (MDL-860) against picornaviruses in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982;22:639–42. 70. Langford MP, Ball WA, Ganley JP. Inhibition of the enteroviruses that cause acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis (AHC) by benzimidazoles; enviroxime (LY 122772) and enviradone (LY 127123). Antiviral Res 1995;27:355–65. 71. De Palma AM, Heggermont W, Leyssen P, et al. Anti-enterovirus activity and structure–activity relationship of a series of 2,6-dihalophenyl-substituted 1 3 H, H-thiazolo[3,4-a]benzimidazoles. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2007;353:628–32. 72. Patick AK, Binford SL, Brothers MA, et al. In vitro antiviral activity of AG7088, a potent inhibitor of human rhinovirus 3C protease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999;43:2444–50. 73. Molla A, Hellen CU, Wimmer E. Inhibition of proteolytic activity of poliovirus and rhinovirus 2A proteinases by elastase-specific inhibitors. J Virol 1993;67:4688–95. 74. Verlinden Y, Cuconati A, Wimmer E, Rombaut B. The antiviral compound 5-(3,4dichlorophenyl) methylhydantoin inhibits the post-synthetic cleavages and the assembly of poliovirus in a cell-free system. Antiviral Res 2000;48:61–9. *75. De Palma AM, Vliegen I, De Clercq E, Neyts J. Selective inhibitors of picornavirus replication. Med Res Rev 2008;28:823–4. *76. Rotbart HA, Webster AD. Treatment of potentially life-threatening enterovirus infections with pleconaril. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:228–35. 227 77. Desmond RA, Accortt NA, Talley L, Villano SA, Soong SJ, Whitley RJ. Enteroviral meningitis: natural history and outcome of pleconaril therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:2409–14. 78. Abzug MJ, Cloud G, Bradley J, et al. Double blind placebo-controlled trial of pleconaril in infants with enterovirus meningitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22:335–41. 79. Aradottir E, Alonso EM, Shulman ST. Severe neonatal enteroviral hepatitis treated with pleconaril. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:457–9. 80. Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Phipatanakul W, Winkelstein JA, Forman MS, Lederman HM. Successful treatment of enterovirus infection with the use of pleconaril in 2 infants with severe combined immunodeficiency. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:E13–4. 81. Bauer S, Gottesman G, Sirota L, Litmanovitz I, Ashkenazi S, Levi I. Severe Coxsackie virus B infection in preterm newborns treated with pleconaril. Eur J Pediatr 2002;161:491–3. 82. Rentz AC, Libbey JE, Fujinami RS, Whitby FG, Byington CL. Investigation of treatment failure in neonatal echovirus 7 infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006;25:259–62. 83. Collaborative Antiviral Study Group. Pleconaril Enteroviral Sepsis Syndrome (NCT00031512). Available from: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT00031512?term¼EnteroviralþSepsisþSyndrome&rank¼1. *The most important references are indicated with an asterisks.
