[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.247.205. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure.
The overwhelming majority of patients given corticosteroids received them for indications other than the classically accepted airway concerns and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

The overwhelming majority of patients given corticosteroids received them for indications other than the classically accepted airway concerns and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

Table 1. 
Percentage of Patients Receiving Systemic Corticosteroid Therapy*
Percentage of Patients Receiving Systemic Corticosteroid Therapy*
Table 2. 
Outcome Comparison by Treatment Method
Outcome Comparison by Treatment Method
1.
Prout  CDalrymple  W A double-blind study of eighty-two cases of infectious mononucleosis treated with corticosteroids. J Am Coll Health Assoc 1966;1562- 66
PubMed
2.
Bender  CE The value of corticosteroids in the treatment of infectious mononucleosis. JAMA 1967;199529- 531
PubMedArticle
3.
Klein  EMCochran  JFBuck  RL The effects of short-term corticosteroid therapy on the symptoms of infectious mononucleosis pharyngotonsillitis: a double-blind study. J Am Coll Health Assoc 1969;17446- 452
PubMed
4.
Collins  MFleisher  GKreisberg  JFager  S Role of steroids in the treatment of infectious mononucleosis in the ambulatory college student. J Am Coll Health 1984;33101- 105
PubMedArticle
5.
Tynell  EAurelius  EBrandell  A  et al.  Acyclovir and prednisolone treatment of acute infectious mononucleosis: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Infect Dis 1996;174324- 331
PubMedArticle
6.
Fleisher  GRCollins  MFager  S Humoral immune response in infectious mononucleosis: late emergence of anti-EA(R) and the effects of corticosteroid therapy. J Adolesc Health Care 1985;6424- 428
PubMedArticle
7.
Peter  JRay  CG Infectious mononucleosis. Pediatr Rev 1998;19276- 279
PubMedArticle
8.
Portman  MIngall  DWestenfelder  GYogev  R Peritonsillar abscess complicating infectious mononucleosis. J Pediatr 1984;104742- 744
PubMedArticle
9.
Brady  MT Epstein-Barr virus infections (infectious mononucleosis).  In Rudolph  CD, ed. Rudolph’s Pediatrics. Vol 2. 21st ed. Philadelphia, Pa: McGraw-Hill; 2002:1035-1039
10.
Godshall  SEKirchner  JT Infectious mononucleosis: complexities of a common syndrome. Postgrad Med 2000;107175- 179, 183-184, 186Article
11.
Cozad  J Infectious mononucleosis. Nurse Pract 1996;2114- 27
PubMedArticle
12.
Schooley  RT Epstein-Barr virus (infectious mononucleosis).  In Mandell  GE, Bennett  JE, Dolin  R, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Churchill Livingstone; 2000:1599-1613.
13.
Henke  CEKurland  LTElveback  LR Infectious mononucleosis in Rochester, Minnesota, 1950 through 1969. Am J Epidemiol 1973;98483- 490
PubMed
14.
van Schaardenburg  Dvan den Brink  HRWieringa  HJ Short-term steroid therapy, sometimes with long-term sequelae. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001;1451769- 1773
PubMed
15.
Brandfonbrener  AEpstein  AWu  SPhair  J Corticosteroid therapy in Epstein-Barr virus infection: effect on lymphocyte class, subset, and response to early antigen. Arch Intern Med 1986;146337- 339
PubMedArticle
16.
Wohl  DLIsaacson  JE Airway obstruction in children with infectious mononucleosis. Ear Nose Throat J 1995;74630- 638
PubMed
17.
Snyderman  NLStool  SE Management of airway obstruction in children with infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1982;90168- 170
PubMed
18.
Sudderick  RMNarula  AA Steroids for airway problems in glandular fever. J Laryngol Otol 1987;101673- 675
PubMedArticle
19.
Seale  JPCompton  MR Side effects of corticosteroid agents. Med J Aust 1986;144139- 142
PubMed
20.
Handler  SDWarren  WS Peritonsillar abscess: a complication of corticosteroid treatment in infectious mononucleosis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1979;1265- 268
PubMedArticle
21.
Burstin  PPMarshall  CL Infectious mononucleosis and bilateral peritonsillar abscesses resulting in airway obstruction. J Laryngol Otol 1998;1121186- 1188
PubMed
22.
Gruber  BMhoon  EE Bilateral deep space neck abscesses complicating infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987;9766- 68
PubMed
23.
Feigin  RDDunkle LM, Infectious mononucleosis complicated by opportunistic bacterial infection: case report. Mo Med 1976;73473- 475
PubMed
24.
Johnsen  T Infectious mononucleosis and peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 1981;95873- 876
PubMedArticle
25.
Johnsen  TKatholm  MStangerup  SE Otolaryngological complications in infectious mononucleosis. J Laryngol Otol 1984;98999- 1001
PubMedArticle
26.
Ganzel  TMGoldman  JLPadhya  TA Otolaryngologic clinical patterns in pediatric infectious mononucleosis. Am J Otolaryngol 1996;17397- 400
PubMedArticle
27.
Westmore  GA Cervical abscess: a life-threatening complication of infectious mononucleosis. J Laryngol Otol 1990;104358- 359
PubMedArticle
28.
Kopec  SEIrwin  RSMello  CJUmali  CB Bilateral anaerobic empyemas complicating infectious mononucleosis. Chest 1997;112883- 885
PubMedArticle
29.
Andrianakis  IAKotanidou  ANPitaridis  MT  et al.  Life-threatening bilateral empyema and mediastinitis complicating infectious mononucleosis. Intensive Care Med 2002;28663- 664
PubMedArticle
30.
Derkay  CSBramhall  TC Epstein-Barr viral infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113334- 337
PubMedArticle
31.
Disney  FA Corticosteroids for infectious mononucleosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988;7820- 821
PubMedArticle
Original Article
October 2005

Infectious Mononucleosis and CorticosteroidsManagement Practices and Outcomes

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(10):900-904. doi:10.1001/archotol.131.10.900
Abstract

Objective  Although many studies have examined the effects of systemic corticosteroid therapy (SCT) on the clinical course of infectious mononucleosis (IM), few have evaluated the influence of these studies on treatment patterns and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to review current therapeutic strategies and outcomes in uncomplicated and complicated IM.

Design  Retrospective case series.

Setting  Tertiary care center.

Patients  We identified 206 immunocompetent patients with IM diagnosed during the previous 5 years. Patient information, including age, sex, history and physical findings at presentation, pertinent laboratory data, management practices, and treatment outcomes, were analyzed.

Interventions  Systemic corticosteroid therapy was used in 44.7% of patients. Evaluation of treatment indications for SCT revealed that 8.0% of the study population qualified by traditional criteria for the use of corticosteroids; 92.0% of patients received SCT for other indications. Factors associated with the observed increase in corticosteroid use included a history of repeat visits, inpatient admission, and otolaryngology consultation.

Main Outcome Measures  Diagnosis was made on the basis of a positive heterophil antibody test (monospot test) with appropriate clinical findings (97.5% of patients) or by the presence of lymphocytosis with appropriate clinical findings (2.4% of patients).

Results  Systemic corticosteroid therapy was not positively associated with fever, decreased oral intake, tonsillar hypertrophy, or duration of symptoms. No significant differences in incidence of disease complications, rates of hospital admission, or length of hospital stay were noted between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment groups.

Conclusions  Despite consistent and uniform acceptance in the medical literature that SCT in the setting of IM should be reserved for patients with impending airway obstruction, corticosteroids continue to be used on a much broader scale at this tertiary care institution. This observation suggests that clinicians see value in SCT for treatment of IM beyond the classically accepted reasons. Moreover, despite previous reports of possible adverse consequences of SCT in IM, our review failed to demonstrate any such trend.

The use of systemic corticosteroid therapy (SCT) in the treatment of infectious mononucleosis (IM) has long been controversial. Since the early 1960s, reports of successful treatment using SCT have prompted a number of studies to either corroborate or refute these findings.15 As is often the case, study results and conclusions differ significantly, making any universal recommendations difficult to develop. Not only do results vary but some authors assert that SCT for treatment of IM might have deleterious consequences.68 The only indication for SCT that experts consistently agree on is IM that produces severe airway compromise. Inasmuch as more recent studies have generally failed to show conclusive benefit from SCT,4,5 current indications continue to include airway compromise and systemic complications of IM such as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura or hemolytic anemia.7,912

Debate in the literature and expert recommendations aside, few studies have examined treatment patterns and outcomes with regard to IM.13 Because otolaryngologists are frequently consulted specifically for the management of refractory IM, knowledge of current practice patterns and related outcomes is essential. The goal of this study was to examine a single institution’s approach to management of IM and the use of SCT.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients seen at our hospital with a diagnosis of IM from January 1998 through March 2003 were reviewed. A diagnosis was made on the basis of positive heterophil antibody test results (monospot test) or elevated Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) IgM levels with appropriate clinical findings or by the presence of lymphocytosis with appropriate clinical findings. Appropriate clinical findings included at least 3 of the following: fever, pharyngitis, cervical lymphadenopathy, tonsillar hypertrophy or exudate, and hepatosplenomegaly. Patients with chronic immunocompromise and those with a positive monospot test but no other evidence of IM were excluded. Details of patient findings at presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed with the χ2 analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred six patients met the criteria for a diagnosis of IM. The group with positive antibody tests represented 97.5% (201/206) of the patients, whereas 2.4% (5/206) of the patients had negative antibody tests but met the diagnostic criteria on the basis of lymphocytosis and clinical findings. The adolescent and young adult population (aged 13-25) represented 80.6% (166/206) of the patients, and those younger than 13 and older than 25 represented much smaller groups at 13.1% (27/206) and 6.3% (13/206), respectively. Sex was fairly evenly split, with 99 male patients (48.1%) and 107 female patients (51.9%).

The history at presentation varied, but most commonly included sore throat (79.1%), history of a previous visit (67.0%), fever (63.6%), and dysphagia (58.7%). Average duration of symptoms at presentation was 9.7 days. The most common physical finding was cervical lymphadenopathy (78.8%), followed by tonsillar hypertrophy (70.4%), exudative tonsillitis (60.4%), fever (30.6%), and hepatosplenomegaly (27.1%). Laboratory evaluation found that 195 patients (94.7%) had positive monospot tests, whereas 147 patients (71.4%) had either absolute lymphocytosis or atypical lymphocytosis. The 6 patients (2.9%) in whom no monospot test was performed had elevated EBV IgM titers. Twelve (9.4%) of 128 patients tested positive by “rapid strep” test for group A β-hemolytic streptococcus.

Nearly 45% (92 of 206 [44.7%]) of all patients with acute IM received SCT at some time during their illness. Of the 137 patients who had been seen on a separate occasion by their primary care physician (PCP), 30 (21.9%) received oral SCT at that initial visit. All but 4 of these patients (86.7%) continued to receive SCT after evaluation in our emergency department (ED). The dosages and indications for use in these 4 patients were not available, and they were not included in further analysis of patients who received SCT. Including the additional 62 patients in whom SCT was initiated after evaluation in our ED, the overall SCT treatment rate at our hospital was 42.7% (88 of 206 patients). Specific steroids used, dosages, routes of administration, and duration of treatment differed dramatically among the population studied. In general, patients who were not admitted received 1 intravenous dose of dexamethasone sodium phosphate, 0.5 mg/kg, with or without a short course of oral steroids at discharge. Inpatients generally received dexamethasone, 0.5 mg/kg, or an equivalent dose of methylprednisolone acetate, every 8 hours for at least 24 to 48 hours.

Most patients given SCT by their PCP continued taking steroids after presentation to the ED. However, similar consistency was not present with antibiotic use. Of the 137 patients evaluated by their PCP on an occasion before their ED presentation, 63 (46.0%) were taking antibiotics at that time. While treatment would have been considered to have failed in all of these patients because of their subsequent ED presentation, fewer than half (28 of 63 [44.4%]) of this group were thought to have disease warranting antibiotic therapy when seen in the ED. The overall antibiotic use rate by the ED or hospital was 35.4% (73/206). Of the 206 patients included in the study, 108 (52.4%) received antibiotic therapy at some time during their illness. As would be expected, all of the patients who tested positive for group A β-hemolytic streptococcus were in this group. However, after subtracting the 27 patients who were treated either for positive cultures or other infectious indications (eg, peritonsillar abscess, pneumonia), a significant number of patients (81 of 179 [45%]) still received antibiotic therapy during the course of their illness. Although we found no consistent justification for the use of antibiotics, one recurring “indication” was the concern for bacterial superinfection with the use of steroids without antibiotics.

Sixty-four of 206 patients (31.1%) required inpatient admission. Indications for admission included severe and persistent symptoms, dehydration, hyperpyrexia, concern for airway obstruction, and other systemic complications. Average hospital length of stay was 4.6 days. Otolaryngology consultation was obtained in 37 (18.0%) of 206 patients. The reported disease complication rate was 5.3% (11/206) and included peritonsillar abscess in 4 patients, splenic rupture in 2, pneumonia in 2, and idiothrombocytopenic purpura, empyema, and mediastinal abscess in 1 patient each. Surgical intervention was required in 15 patients (7.3%) and included tonsillectomy in 7 patients, drainage of peritonsillar abscess in 4, splenectomy in 2, and thoracotomy in 2.

Examination of the reported clinical indications for SCT use showed that “airway concern” was cited in just 7 of 88 (8.0%) patients, and idiothrombocytopenic purpura in 1 patient. For the remaining 81 patients (92.0%) the treatment indications listed were poor oral intake or severe dysphagia or odynophagia, persistent symptoms, repeat visits, or reasons not elucidated on the medical record (Figure).

Patient groups with and without SCT were compared for sex, age, disease severity, history of a previous visit, hospital admission rates, otolaryngology consultation, and complications of IM. No positive correlation between SCT and sex, age, or any other clinical characteristics used to diagnose IM (eg, fever, duration of symptoms, tonsillar hypertrophy) was identified.

However, analysis of SCT based on history of a previous visit revealed that patients seen by their PCP on an occasion before ED presentation were more likely to receive steroids than were those seen for the first time. Similarly, patients admitted to the hospital were nearly twice as likely to receive steroids as those managed as outpatients (Table 1). These patients were most likely those with the most severe clinical symptoms.

Patients seen by otolaryngologists were also more likely to receive SCT. Indeed, 83.8% (31/37) of patients seen by an otolaryngologist during their illness received steroids, whereas only 33.7% (57/169) of patients not seen by an otolaryngologist received steroids (P<.001; Table 1). As might be expected, analysis of the patients seen by otolaryngologists revealed increased rates of dehydration, dysphagia or odynophagia, tonsillar exudate, and tonsillar hypertrophy. However, the increased use of SCT by otolaryngologists was not supported by an increased rate of airway obstruction in these patients. Concern for possible airway compromise was mentioned in only 3 (8.1%) of 37 patients.

In an effort to compare clinical course and outcomes between SCT and non-SCT groups, rates of hospital admission, length of stay, and incidence of complications were compared, and no significant differences were identified (Table 2). More patients treated with SCT before presentation to our institution (patients prescribed SCT by their PCP) were eventually admitted than were those not prescribed SCT. Although this difference is not statistically significant (P = .26), the apparent higher rate of admission for patients with a history of SCT is probably explained by the fact that this group of patients generally had slightly higher rates of dehydration, tonsillar hypertrophy, and tonsillar exudate.

As for the question of steroids and infectious complications, SCT use has been implicated previously in the development of infectious complications of IM,68 although little evidence exists to support this claim. Examination of justifications given by practitioners in this study for the use of prophylactic antibiotic therapy suggests persistent concern in this regard. Indeed, the most commonly cited justification for antibiotic therapy when no clear indication existed was concern about possible bacterial superinfection with the use of SCT. However, as shown in Table 2, no significant difference in complication rates between SCT and non-SCT groups was identified. It is interesting, however, that 4 of the 8 infectious complications of IM (3 peritonsillar abscesses and 1 mediastinal abscess) developed in the relatively small group of 17 patients who received SCT but no antibiotics from their PCP at initial presentation. Of the remaining complications, none occurred in the group treated by their PCP initially with SCT and antibiotics. Femur head necrosis, a rare but previously described complication of short-term SCT, was not found in any patient during or after the study.14

COMMENT

Although IM is usually a self-limited illness, clinicians continue to search for ways to decrease the severity and duration of the symptoms. Corticosteroids have long been considered a potentially promising solution to this problem. Empirical reports of therapeutic benefit abound, and many studies have attempted to either corroborate or dispute these claims. Early studies by Prout and Dalrymple,1 Bender,2 and Klein et al3 randomly assigned large populations of college students with IM to receive SCT or placebo with or without antibiotics. These studies generally concluded that patients given SCT had decreased duration of fever and shorter duration of symptoms. Although more recent studies15 have noted similar results, studies by Collins et al4 and most recently by Tynell et al5 found no improvement in duration of illness, sore throat, weight loss, or absence from school or work.

While controversy surrounds the issue of steroids and uncomplicated IM, clinicians universally agree that SCT is indicated in the case of airway obstruction secondary to IM. Several authors have described their success in averting emergency surgical procedures (eg, tonsillectomy, tracheostomy) with the use of SCT and intravenous fluids in patients with impending airway obstruction.1618

The question of SCT use in IM is not just relevant because of the potential for improvement of symptoms. Transient depression of non–EBV-specific cell-mediated immune functions early in the course of IM is well documented.7,12 In addition, corticosteroids impair cell-mediated immunity by decreasing the numbers and sensitivity of circulating lymphocytes and monocytes.19 In studying the immune response in patients with IM, Fleisher et al6 noted delayed appearance of EBV-associated nuclear antigen in patients given SCT. Although no studies have shown an increase in IM-associated complications with SCT, experts have frequently warned against “possible adverse consequences” of steroid use in the setting of IM.68 In addition, reports of infectious complications associated with IM frequently implicate corticosteroids as possible contributing factors.2022 However, a review of these case reports revealed no consistent patterns of corticosteroid use.2029 Furthermore, the aforementioned complication of SCT, femur head necrosis, has never been described after SCT for IM.

Despite all of the suspicions about SCT, no differences in complication rates have been reported. Our similar complication rate between treated and nontreated groups agrees with previous findings. However, it must be remembered that, despite the apparent similarity in complication rates, dosages, duration of SCT, and the use of concurrent antibiotic therapy differed significantly among the treated population, making comparison more difficult. Also, the observation that a seemingly disproportionate number of infectious complications (4/8) developed in the subset of patients treated initially with SCT without antibiotic therapy raises questions about whether there is justification for the concern of suppressed immunity and subsequent bacterial superinfection so often cited by practitioners.

Major references and review articles consistently recommend against the use of SCT in most patients with IM.7,1012,30 However, our study suggests that SCT may be used much more broadly and routinely than might otherwise be expected. Reasons for this discrepancy and the merits of this practice are probably difficult to describe. One explanation may be that patients demand results and clinicians prescribe in response to demand. The significant use of antibiotics in the setting of negative streptococcal cultures, as in this study, and the increased use of SCT when patients returned with persistent symptoms support this hypothesis.

Another contributing factor may be that treatment patterns are based partially on evidence-based medicine, but also to a large extent on each practitioner’s personal training, clinical judgment, and experience. This was highlighted in an editorial by Disney,31 who empirically noted dramatic differences in symptom relief in his patients who were treated with corticosteroids. He asserted, as have many other clinicians, that he would continue to offer his patients what was, to him, an obviously beneficial treatment despite what the literature might say.

Finally, the apparent increased use of SCT by otolaryngologists may be partially accounted for by their heightened awareness of serious infectious and airway complications of any type of pharyngitis. This theory is supported in that most patients seen by otolaryngologists had significant tonsillar hypertrophy.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of IM has been and will continue to be a subject of controversy and debate. While recommendations and clinical studies dealing with IM are abundant, no recent studies have examined management practices and related outcomes. Our study corroborates previous assessments of typical symptoms, presentation, findings, and overall outcomes of IM.5,9,10 In addition, we assert that, despite recommendations to the contrary, much more liberal use of corticosteroids is the norm at this institution. Factors associated with corticosteroid use include a history of more than 1 visit, inpatient admission, and otolaryngologic consultation. No apparent increases or decreases in the incidence of complications, rates of admission, or length of hospital stay were noted with treatment. However, prospective randomized trials are necessary to definitively assert these findings. Nevertheless, published trials are just one factor contributing to the complex and sometimes difficult task of managing illness. The art of medicine will always be a balance between objective evidence and the experience and wisdom of the practitioner.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Scott K. Thompson, MD, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Campus Box 629, Rochester, NY 14642 (Scott_Thompson@urmc.rochester.edu).

Submitted for Publication: July 8, 2004; final revision received April 26, 2005; accepted May 19, 2005.

References
1.
Prout  CDalrymple  W A double-blind study of eighty-two cases of infectious mononucleosis treated with corticosteroids. J Am Coll Health Assoc 1966;1562- 66
PubMed
2.
Bender  CE The value of corticosteroids in the treatment of infectious mononucleosis. JAMA 1967;199529- 531
PubMedArticle
3.
Klein  EMCochran  JFBuck  RL The effects of short-term corticosteroid therapy on the symptoms of infectious mononucleosis pharyngotonsillitis: a double-blind study. J Am Coll Health Assoc 1969;17446- 452
PubMed
4.
Collins  MFleisher  GKreisberg  JFager  S Role of steroids in the treatment of infectious mononucleosis in the ambulatory college student. J Am Coll Health 1984;33101- 105
PubMedArticle
5.
Tynell  EAurelius  EBrandell  A  et al.  Acyclovir and prednisolone treatment of acute infectious mononucleosis: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Infect Dis 1996;174324- 331
PubMedArticle
6.
Fleisher  GRCollins  MFager  S Humoral immune response in infectious mononucleosis: late emergence of anti-EA(R) and the effects of corticosteroid therapy. J Adolesc Health Care 1985;6424- 428
PubMedArticle
7.
Peter  JRay  CG Infectious mononucleosis. Pediatr Rev 1998;19276- 279
PubMedArticle
8.
Portman  MIngall  DWestenfelder  GYogev  R Peritonsillar abscess complicating infectious mononucleosis. J Pediatr 1984;104742- 744
PubMedArticle
9.
Brady  MT Epstein-Barr virus infections (infectious mononucleosis).  In Rudolph  CD, ed. Rudolph’s Pediatrics. Vol 2. 21st ed. Philadelphia, Pa: McGraw-Hill; 2002:1035-1039
10.
Godshall  SEKirchner  JT Infectious mononucleosis: complexities of a common syndrome. Postgrad Med 2000;107175- 179, 183-184, 186Article
11.
Cozad  J Infectious mononucleosis. Nurse Pract 1996;2114- 27
PubMedArticle
12.
Schooley  RT Epstein-Barr virus (infectious mononucleosis).  In Mandell  GE, Bennett  JE, Dolin  R, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Churchill Livingstone; 2000:1599-1613.
13.
Henke  CEKurland  LTElveback  LR Infectious mononucleosis in Rochester, Minnesota, 1950 through 1969. Am J Epidemiol 1973;98483- 490
PubMed
14.
van Schaardenburg  Dvan den Brink  HRWieringa  HJ Short-term steroid therapy, sometimes with long-term sequelae. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001;1451769- 1773
PubMed
15.
Brandfonbrener  AEpstein  AWu  SPhair  J Corticosteroid therapy in Epstein-Barr virus infection: effect on lymphocyte class, subset, and response to early antigen. Arch Intern Med 1986;146337- 339
PubMedArticle
16.
Wohl  DLIsaacson  JE Airway obstruction in children with infectious mononucleosis. Ear Nose Throat J 1995;74630- 638
PubMed
17.
Snyderman  NLStool  SE Management of airway obstruction in children with infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1982;90168- 170
PubMed
18.
Sudderick  RMNarula  AA Steroids for airway problems in glandular fever. J Laryngol Otol 1987;101673- 675
PubMedArticle
19.
Seale  JPCompton  MR Side effects of corticosteroid agents. Med J Aust 1986;144139- 142
PubMed
20.
Handler  SDWarren  WS Peritonsillar abscess: a complication of corticosteroid treatment in infectious mononucleosis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1979;1265- 268
PubMedArticle
21.
Burstin  PPMarshall  CL Infectious mononucleosis and bilateral peritonsillar abscesses resulting in airway obstruction. J Laryngol Otol 1998;1121186- 1188
PubMed
22.
Gruber  BMhoon  EE Bilateral deep space neck abscesses complicating infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987;9766- 68
PubMed
23.
Feigin  RDDunkle LM, Infectious mononucleosis complicated by opportunistic bacterial infection: case report. Mo Med 1976;73473- 475
PubMed
24.
Johnsen  T Infectious mononucleosis and peritonsillar abscess. J Laryngol Otol 1981;95873- 876
PubMedArticle
25.
Johnsen  TKatholm  MStangerup  SE Otolaryngological complications in infectious mononucleosis. J Laryngol Otol 1984;98999- 1001
PubMedArticle
26.
Ganzel  TMGoldman  JLPadhya  TA Otolaryngologic clinical patterns in pediatric infectious mononucleosis. Am J Otolaryngol 1996;17397- 400
PubMedArticle
27.
Westmore  GA Cervical abscess: a life-threatening complication of infectious mononucleosis. J Laryngol Otol 1990;104358- 359
PubMedArticle
28.
Kopec  SEIrwin  RSMello  CJUmali  CB Bilateral anaerobic empyemas complicating infectious mononucleosis. Chest 1997;112883- 885
PubMedArticle
29.
Andrianakis  IAKotanidou  ANPitaridis  MT  et al.  Life-threatening bilateral empyema and mediastinitis complicating infectious mononucleosis. Intensive Care Med 2002;28663- 664
PubMedArticle
30.
Derkay  CSBramhall  TC Epstein-Barr viral infectious mononucleosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113334- 337
PubMedArticle
31.
Disney  FA Corticosteroids for infectious mononucleosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988;7820- 821
PubMedArticle
×