Emily Jacobsen, MPAS, PA-C, Claire E. Hull, MHS, PA-C
References
CLINICAL PRESENTATION Identifying HZ infection is primarily a clinical diagnosis and not particularly difficult. Approximately 20% of patients will present with prodromal symptoms of fatigue, headache, malaise, and fever. Paresthesias in the involved dermatome often precede the rash by several days and may be manifested as itching, tingling, burning, or severe pain. Physical examination at this stage may reveal tenderness and hyperesthesia of the skin in the involved dermatome.3,5,15,16
Pain and abnormal skin sensations are the most common symptoms of HZ. They often precede and usually accompany the rash. The prodromal pain of HZ can mimic a variety of other conditions, including pleurisy, myocardial infarction, peptic ulcer, appendicitis, or biliary or renal colic, prompting some clinicians to undertake an extensive workup and treatment plan.15,17
Consistent with other herpes infections, the HZ rash initially starts in the form of erythematous papules, which quickly evolve into grouped vesicles or bullae. Within three to four days, these vesicular lesions can become more pustular. In contrast to chickenpox, the rash of shingles is manifested in a dermatomal distribution. The two most commonly affected dermatomes are the first (ophthalmic) division of the trigeminal nerve and the spinal sensory ganglia from T1 to L2.3,5,15,16 The infection is generally limited to one dermatome in previously healthy hosts but can occasionally affect two or three neighboring dermatomes. Some patients have a few scattered vesicles located some distance away from the involved dermatome.15
In immunocompetent hosts, the lesions crust over within seven to 10 days and are no longer considered infectious. The development of new lesions more than a week after presentation should raise concerns regarding possible underlying immunodeficiency.3,5,15,16
LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS While HZ is generally a clinical diagnosis based on the history and physical exam findings, laboratory testing may be appropriate to confirm the diagnosis when the presentation is atypical, the host is immunocompromised, lesions recur, or serious complications are suspected.17,18
Several laboratory tests are currently available (see Table 117,19). Detection of VZV DNA following amplification of appropriate specimens (most reliably, clear fluid from recently erupted vesicles) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is generally recommended if testing is required, because of its high sensitivity and specificity and quick turnaround. However, this test is not available at every laboratory.17-19
When PCR is not available, a suitable alternative is direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) staining of cellular material from fresh vesicles or prevesicular lesions.1 This test uses a modified Tzanck technique to view fluorescein-conjugated monoclonal antibodies. DFA staining can differentiate between herpes simplex and herpes zoster.16,17,20
The original Tzanck smear is inexpensive and may reveal multinucleated giant cells and epithelial cells containing acidophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies.17 However, this test is not often used to confirm a diagnosis of HZ; rather, it is most helpful for distinguishing herpesvirus infections from vesicular lesions of other etiologies (eg, coxsackievirus, echovirus).15,17
Serologic tests measuring immunoglobulin M and A titers (IgM, IgA) may be helpful in cases of zoster without rash (zoster sine herpete), but their sensitivity and specificity are low.15 Positive results may be indicative of primary infection, reinfection, or reactivation.1