Prevalence and genetic characteristics of Saffold cardiovirus in China from 2009 to 2012

Zhang, Xiao-Ai; Lu, Qing-Bin; Wo, Ying; Zhao, Jin; Huang, Dou-Dou; Guo, Chen-Tao; Xu, Hong-Mei; Liu, En-Mei; Liu, Wei; Cao, Wu-Chun

In cohort 1, seven (41.2%) of the SAFV-positive patients, which is significantly higher than that of the SAFV-negative patients (41.2% vs. 14.2%, P 5 0.002), developed asthma that were related with this disease episode. By contrast, the opposite trend was found for pneumonia (47.1% vs. 73.4%, P 5 0.015). Other clinical manifestations were highly comparable between SAFV-positive and SAFV-negative patients (all P. 0.05). In cohort 2, the diarrhea duration was comparable between SAFV-positive and SAFVnegative patients. No SAFV-positive patients exhibited symptoms of vomiting, but 928 (46.3%) SAFV-negative patients did (P 5 0.009). Within cohort 3, the severe HFMD patients had significantly higher SAFV-positive rate than the mild HFMD patients (5.2% vs. 2.6%, P 5 0.001). Furthermore, SAFV-positive patients presented with significantly higher frequency of nervous system manifestation than the SAFV-negative patients (52.3% vs. 37.1%, P 5 0.004). For all three cohorts, the clinical manifestations of patients with SAFV single detection were insignificantly different from those with SAFV co-detection ( Table 2 ). We additionally analyzed whether the co-detection of SAFV might aggravate the clinical outcome of EV infected HFMD patients ( Table 3 ). The results demonstrated that 18 out of 23 (78.3%) SAFV/EV71 co-detected patients developed severe HFMD, significantly higher than that of patients with EV71 single detection (78.3% vs. 42.6%, P 5 0.001). By contrast, there was no significant difference between patients with CVA16 single detection and patients with SAFV/CVA16 co-detection (P. 0.05). Similarly, no difference was attained for other EVs co-detected patients either.