Common Questions About Infectious Mononucleosis

 

Epstein-Barr is a ubiquitous virus that infects 95% of the world population at some point in life. Although Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections are often asymptomatic, some patients present with the clinical syndrome of infectious mononucleosis (IM). The syndrome most commonly occurs between 15 and 24 years of age. It should be suspected in patients presenting with sore throat, fever, tonsillar enlargement, fatigue, lymphadenopathy, pharyngeal inflammation, and palatal petechiae. A heterophile antibody test is the best initial test for diagnosis of EBV infection, with 71% to 90% accuracy for diagnosing IM. However, the test has a 25% false-negative rate in the first week of illness. IM is unlikely if the lymphocyte count is less than 4,000 mm3. The presence of EBV-specific immunoglobulin M antibodies confirms infection, but the test is more costly and results take longer than the heterophile antibody test. Symptomatic relief is the mainstay of treatment. Glucocorticoids and antivirals do not reduce the length or severity of illness. Splenic rupture is an uncommon complication of IM. Because physical activity within the first three weeks of illness may increase the risk of splenic rupture, athletic participation is not recommended during this time. Children are at the highest risk of airway obstruction, which is the most common cause of hospitalization from IM. Patients with immunosuppression are more likely to have fulminant EBV infection.

Approximately 95% of adults worldwide are infected with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). The infection is often asymptomatic, but some develop the clinical syndrome of infectious mononucleosis (IM). This article reviews common questions about patients with this syndrome.

View/Print Table

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendationEvidence ratingReferences

IM should be suspected in patients presenting with sore throat, fever, fatigue, tonsillar enlargement, lymphadenopathy (posterior cervical, axillary, or inguinal), pharyngeal inflammation, and palatal petechiae, especially in those between 15 and 24 years of age.

C

6, 8, 10, 12

Heterophile antibody testing is the best initial test for diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection because it is fast, inexpensive, and has high specificity.

C

12, 17, 19, 23

Glucocorticoids and antiviral medications do not meaningfully affect the duration or clinical course of IM.

A

2427

Athletic participation should be restricted for the first three weeks of illness in patients with IM to decrease the risk of splenic rupture.

C

28


IM = infectious mononucleosis.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, go to http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendationEvidence ratingReferences

IM should be suspected in patients presenting with sore throat, fever, fatigue, tonsillar enlargement, lymphadenopathy (posterior cervical, axillary, or inguinal), pharyngeal inflammation, and palatal petechiae, especially in those between 15 and 24 years of age.

C

6, 8, 10, 12

Heterophile antibody testing is the best initial test for diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection because it is fast, inexpensive, and has high specificity.

C

12, 17, 19, 23

Glucocorticoids and antiviral medications do not meaningfully affect the duration or clinical course of IM.

A

2427

Athletic participation should be restricted for the first three weeks of illness in patients with IM to decrease the risk of splenic rupture.

C

28


IM = infectious mononucleosis.

A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, go to http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.

Who Is Most Likely to Present with IM, and How Often Does It Occur?

The incidence is highest between 15 and 24 years of age. The annual incidence in the general population is approximately five cases per 1,000 persons; however, in a practice with a large young adult population, the incidence can approach nine to 48 cases per 1,000 persons annually.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

More than 90% of adults worldwide are seropositive for EBV antibodies by 35 years of age. IM most commonly affects those who acquire primary EBV in their teenage years. There is no gender predisposition, yearly cycle, or seasonal variation in the incidence of the syndrome.1

Annually, 10% to 20% of EBV-naive persons become infected, and 30% to 50% develop IM. Those 15 to 24 years of age have the highest annual incidence at 0.5%.1 In young adults, the rate of developing IM from primary EBV infection is estimated at 50%, with a range between 26% and 74%.24

Studies have demonstrated an annual incidence of 0.9% to 4.8% in young adults, and of 0.9% in military personnel.2,3,5 The incidence is even higher in freshmen university students.6

Primary infection in childhood is less prevalent in areas of higher socioeconomic status and better sanitary conditions.7,8 However, in developing countries and locations with lower socioeconomic status, most EBV infections occur in childhood. Infection is rare during the first year of life because of passive immunity received from maternal antibodies.8 The incidence of EBV infection in teenagers has decreased over recent years.9 In older adults, EBV infection often does not progress to IM.10 The annual incidence of IM in those younger than 10 years or older than 30 years is less than one case per 1,000 persons.11

How Does IM Present Clinically?

Children can present with nonspecific or no symptoms. Young adults tend to present with sore throat, posterior cervical lymphadenopathy, fever, and tonsillar enlargement. Pharyngeal inflammation and palatal petechiae are more common in adolescents. Older adults are more likely to develop jaundice and less likely to have lymphadenopathy, sore throat, and splenomegaly.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Up to 98% of all patients with IM have sore throat, lymphadenopathy, fever, fatigue, and tonsillar enlargement.12,13 Pharyngeal inflammation (85%) and transient palatal petechiae (50%) are also common.12 Bilateral posterior cervical lymphadenopathy is typical, but anterior cervical lymphadenopathy is possible.8 Children can present with nonspecific or no symptoms, which can lead to missed diagnoses.1,8,11 A 2013 study of college students demonstrated that sore throat (93%), cervical lymphadenopathy (76%), and fatigue (66%) were the most common symptoms in students who developed symptomatic primary IM.6 Adults older than 60 years have a higher rate of jaundice (26% vs. 8% in young adults) and are less likely to present with lymph-adenopathy, sore throat, and splenomegaly.10,1315

Table 1 includes the differential diagnosis of IM.16

View/Print Table

Table 1.

Differential Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis

DiagnosisKey distinguishing features

Acute human immunodeficiency virus infection

Mucocutaneous lesions, rash, diarrhea, weight loss, nausea, vomiting

Cytomegalovirus infection

Paired IgG serology shows a fourfold increase in antibody titers and a significant elevation in IgM (at least 30% of IgG value)

Streptococcal pharyngitis

Absence of splenomegaly or hepatomegaly; fatigue is less prominent

Toxoplasmosis

Recent history of eating undercooked meat or cleaning a cat's litter box

Other viral pharyngitis

Lymphadenopathy, tonsillar exudates, fever, and absence of cough are less likely than with streptococcal pharyngitis or infectious mononucleosis


IgG = immunoglobulin G; IgM = immunoglobulin M.

Adapted with permission from Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(7):1281.

Table 1.

Differential Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis

DiagnosisKey distinguishing features

Acute human immunodeficiency virus infection

Mucocutaneous lesions, rash, diarrhea, weight loss, nausea, vomiting

Cytomegalovirus infection

Paired IgG serology shows a fourfold increase in antibody titers and a significant elevation in IgM (at least 30% of IgG value)

Streptococcal pharyngitis

Absence of splenomegaly or hepatomegaly; fatigue is less prominent

Toxoplasmosis

Recent history of eating undercooked meat or cleaning a cat's litter box

Other viral pharyngitis

Lymphadenopathy, tonsillar exudates, fever, and absence of cough are less likely than with streptococcal pharyngitis or infectious mononucleosis


IgG = immunoglobulin G; IgM = immunoglobulin M.

Adapted with permission from Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(7):1281.

What Are the Pros and Cons of Physical Examination and Diagnostic Tests?

Physical examination findings of palatal petechiae, posterior cervical lymphadenopathy, axillary lymphadenopathy, and inguinal lymphadenopathy increase the likelihood of a positive heterophile antibody test result. If IM is suspected, heterophile antibody testing is the best initial diagnostic test because it is fast and inexpensive. A negative test result does not exclude IM, especially during the first week of illness. EBV-specific antibody testing after a negative heterophile antibody screen can be performed to confirm the presence or absence of IM, but it is costly and results take longer. IM is unlikely if the lymphocyte count is less than 4,000 mm3(4.0 × 109per L). Figure 1 is an algorithm for the management of suspected IM.

View/Print Figure

Diagnosis and Treatment of Epstein-Barr Virus IM

Figure 1.

Algorithm for the management of suspected infectious mononucleosis (IM).

Diagnosis and Treatment of Epstein-Barr Virus IM


Figure 1.

Algorithm for the management of suspected infectious mononucleosis (IM).

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Patients with a sore throat are statistically more likely to have physical examination findings of palatal petechiae, posterior cervical lymphadenopathy, axillary lymphadenopathy, and inguinal lymphadenopathy if they have a positive heterophile test result (Table 210), compared with those who have a negative test result.10,17 Heterophile antibodies are present in 80% to 90% of persons with clinical and hematologic symptoms of IM.18 Heterophile testing is rapid and inexpensive, with 71% to 90% accuracy for diagnosing IM. However, the test has a 25% false-negative rate in the first week of illness.12,17,19 Heterophile testing has a sensitivity of 63% to 84% and specificity of 84% to 100%.19

View/Print Table

Table 2.

Clinical Predictors of a Positive Heterophile Antibody Test Result

Clinical presentationLikelihood ratio of a positive result

Axillary lymphadenopathy

21

Posterior cervical lymphadenopathy

12

Palatal petechiae

5.8

Inguinal lymphadenopathy

2.9


Adapted with permission from Aronson MD, Komaroff AL, Pass TM, Ervin CT, Branch WT. Heterophil antibody in adults with sore throat: frequency and clinical presentation. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96(4):507.

Table 2.

Clinical Predictors of a Positive Heterophile Antibody Test Result

Clinical presentationLikelihood ratio of a positive result

Axillary lymphadenopathy

21

Posterior cervical lymphadenopathy

12

Palatal petechiae

5.8

Inguinal lymphadenopathy

2.9


Adapted with permission from Aronson MD, Komaroff AL, Pass TM, Ervin CT, Branch WT. Heterophil antibody in adults with sore throat: frequency and clinical presentation. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96(4):507.

A lymphocyte count of less than 4,000 mm3 has a 99% negative predictive value for IM.20,21 The Hoagland criteria state that lymphocytes accounting for at least 50% and atypical lymphocytes accounting for at least 10% of the differential are characteristic of IM.12 A prospective study of patients with heterophile antibody–positive IM showed a sensitivity of 61.3% and specificity of 95% for Hoagland criteria.22 Atypical lymphocytes greater than 10% of the differential in isolation had a specificity of 92.3%.22

Testing for EBV-specific antibodies has a 97% sensitivity and 94% specificity for diagnosing EBV compared with heterophile antibody testing, but results take longer and the test is more costly.23 The presence of EBV viral capsid antigen immunoglobulin M antibodies confirms IM, whereas its absence excludes the syndrome. Viral capsid antigen immunoglobulin G for EBV confirms immunity from prior infection. Antibody testing is most beneficial when heterophile antibody screening results are negative and IM is still suspected.23

Is There Benefit to Treatment Other Than Supportive Care?

Glucocorticoids decrease the severity of sore throat associated with IM only in the first 12 hours of treatment. These medications have not been shown to decrease the severity or length of illness, and are not superior to other analgesic modalities for throat pain. Antiviral therapy with acyclovir (Zovirax) is not effective in decreasing the length or severity of IM, as monotherapy or in combination with glucocorticoid therapy. Valacyclovir (Valtrex) can decrease oral viral shedding, but this does not translate to any clinical benefit.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A Cochrane review analyzed glucocorticoid therapy for patients with mild to severe IM. Patients were treated with glucocorticoid monotherapy or in combination with antivirals. There was a significant decrease in sore throat symptoms within 12 hours of illness, but the effect did not last beyond that. There was no evidence that glucocorticoids decrease the course or severity of illness.24

Studies have failed to show any effect of antiviral therapy on length or severity of illness.25 A meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate clinical effectiveness of acyclovir for IM.26 A study of valacyclovir in college students showed a decrease in oral viral shedding in the treatment arm compared with the control arm, but no difference in clinical symptoms.27

Which Patients Are at Greatest Risk of Complications From IM?

Splenic rupture is an uncommon complication. Physical activity of any intensity within the first three weeks of illness may increase this risk. Young children are at highest risk of airway obstruction because of palatal and nasopharyngeal tonsil hypertrophy. Airway obstruction is the most common cause of hospitalization from IM. Patients with immunosuppression are more likely to have fulminant EBV infection. They experience an uncontrolled lymphoproliferative response and hemophagocytic syndrome. Patients with X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome also have a greater risk of complications from EBV infection, with two-thirds dying from the infection. Table 3 lists other potential complications.16

View/Print Table

Table 3.

Potential Complications of Infectious Mononucleosis

Acute interstitial nephritis

Cranial nerve palsies

Encephalitis

Hemolytic anemia

Meningitis

Mononeuropathies

Myocarditis and cardiac conduction abnormalities

Neurologic abnormalities

Retrobulbar neuritis

Thrombocytopenia

Upper airway obstruction


Adapted with permission from Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(7):1285.

Table 3.

Potential Complications of Infectious Mononucleosis

Acute interstitial nephritis

Cranial nerve palsies

Encephalitis

Hemolytic anemia

Meningitis

Mononeuropathies

Myocarditis and cardiac conduction abnormalities

Neurologic abnormalities

Retrobulbar neuritis

Thrombocytopenia

Upper airway obstruction


Adapted with permission from Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(7):1285.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Splenic rupture occurs in 0.1% to 0.5% of patients with IM. The risk is increased in the first three weeks of illness. Although the risk is higher with physical activity, it may also be related to the Valsalva maneuver. Consensus statements on athletic participation in patients with IM recommend against athletic participation for the first three weeks of illness.28

Airway compromise occurs in less than 5% of persons with IM.29 A case series of 36 children hospitalized with the syndrome showed a trend toward a higher risk of needing consultation for airway management in children younger than six years.30

Patients who are immunocompromised or have X-linked lymphoproliferative disorders are at highest risk of fulminant EBV infection.29 A registry of 157 males with X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome demonstrated a 96% mortality rate after the development of fulminant EBV IM.31

Data Sources: We searched Essential Evidence Plus, PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Medline using the terms infectious mononucleosis, mononucleosis, and Epstein Barr. Search dates: December 2013, and March to June 2014.

The Authors

show all author info

JASON WOMACK, MD, is director of the Sports Medicine Fellowship and an assistant professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers University's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J....

MARISSA JIMENEZ, DO, is an instructor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers University's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Address correspondence to Jason Womack, MD, Rutgers University, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 1 Robert Wood Johnson Pl., MEB Second floor, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (e-mail: womackja@rwjms.rutgers.edu). Reprints are not available from the authors.

REFERENCES

show all references

1. Luzuriaga K, Sullivan JL. Infectious mononucleosis [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2010;363(15):1486]. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(21):1993–2000....

2. Crawford DH, Macsween KF, Higgins CD, et al. A cohort study among university students: identification of risk factors for Epstein-Barr virus seroconversion and infectious mononucleosis [published correction appears in Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(6):805]. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(3):276–282.

3. Niederman JC, Evans AS, Subrahmanyan L, McCollum RW. Prevalence, incidence and persistence of EB virus antibody in young adults. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(7):361–365.

4. Sawyer RN, Evans AS, Niederman JC, McCollum RW. Prospective studies of a group of Yale University freshmen. I. Occurrence of infectious mononucleosis. J Infect Dis. 1971;123(3):263–270.

5. Candy B, Chalder T, Cleare AJ, Wessely S, White PD, Hotopf M. Recovery from infectious mononucleosis: a case for more than symptomatic therapy? A systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(483):844–851.

6. Balfour HH Jr, et al. Behavioral, virologic, and immunologic factors associated with acquisition and severity of primary Epstein-Barr virus infection in university students [published correction appears in J Infect Dis. 2013;207(12):1940]. J Infect Dis. 2013;207(1):80–88.

7. Takeuchi K, Tanaka-Taya K, Kazuyama Y, et al. Prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus in Japan: trends and future prediction. Pathol Int. 2006;56(3):112–116.

8. Grose CM. The many faces of infectious mononucleosis: the spectrum of Epstein-Barr virus infection in children. Pediatr Rev. 1985;7(2):35–44.

9. Balfour HH Jr, Sifakis F, Sliman JA, Knight JA, Schmeling DO, Thomas W. Age-specific prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus infection among individuals aged 6–19 years in the United States and factors affecting its acquisition. J Infect Dis. 2013;208(8):1286–1293.

10. Aronson MD, Komaroff AL, Pass TM, Ervin CT, Branch WT. Heterophil antibody in adults with sore throat: frequency and clinical presentation. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96(4):505–508.

11. Fry J. Infectious mononucleosis: some new observations from a 15-year study. J Fam Pract. 1980;10(6):1087–1089.

12. Hoagland RJ. Infectious mononucleosis. Prim Care. 1975;2(2):295–307.

13. Schmader KE, van der Horst CM, Klotman ME. Epstein-Barr virus and the elderly host. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11(1):64–73.

14. Axelrod P, Finestone AJ. Infectious mononucleosis in older adults. Am Fam Physician. 1990;42(6):1599–1606.

15. Losavio AD, Te HS. Epstein-Barr virus: an unusual cause of cholestatic hepatitis in older adults. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2007;3(2):101–105.

16. Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70(7):1279–1287.

17. Hurt C, Tammaro D. Diagnostic evaluation of mononucleosis-like illnesses. Am J Med. 2007;120(10):911.e1.–8.

18. Nikoskelainen J, Leikola J, Klemola E. IgM antibodies specific for Epstein-Barr virus in infectious mononucleosis without heterophil antibodies. Br Med J. 1974;4(5936):72–75.

19. Linderholm M, Boman J, Juto P, Linde A. Comparative evaluation of nine kits for rapid diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis and Epstein-Barr virus-specific serology. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32(1):259–261.

20. Biggs TC, Hayes SM, Bird JH, Harries PG, Salib RJ. Use of the lymphocyte count as a diagnostic screen in adults with suspected Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(10):2401–2404.

21. Lennon P, O'Neill JP, Fenton JE, O'Dwyer T. Challenging the use of the lymphocyte to white cell count ratio in the diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis by analysis of a large cohort of Monospot test results. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35(5):397–401.

22. Brigden ML, Au S, Thompson S, Brigden S, Doyle P, Tsaparas Y. Infectious mononucleosis in an outpatient population: diagnostic utility of 2 automated hematology analyzers and the sensitivity and specificity of Hoagland's criteria in heterophile-positive patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123(10):875–881.

23. Bell AT, Fortune B, Sheeler R. Clinical inquiries. What test is the best for diagnosing infectious mononucleosis? J Fam Pract. 2006;55(9):799–802.

24. Candy B, Hotopf M. Steroids for symptom control in infectious mononucleosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004402.

25. Rafailidis PI, Mavros MN, Kapaskelis A, Falagas ME. Antiviral treatment for severe EBV infections in apparently immunocompetent patients. J Clin Virol. 2010;49(3):151–157.

26. Torre D, Tambini R. Acyclovir for treatment of infectious mononucleosis: a meta-analysis. Scand J Infect Dis. 1999;31(6):543–547.

27. Balfour HH Jr, Hokanson KM, Schacherer RM, et al. A virologic pilot study of valacyclovir in infectious mononucleosis. J Clin Virol. 2007;39(1):16–21.

28. Putukian M, O'Connor FG, Stricker P, et al. Mononucleosis and athletic participation: an evidence-based subject review. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(4):309–315.

29. Jenson HB. Acute complications of Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2000;12(3):263–268.

30. Wohl DL, Isaacson JE. Airway obstruction in children with infectious mononucleosis. Ear Nose Throat J. 1995;74(9):630–638.

31. Seemayer TA, Gross TG, Egeler RM, et al. X-linked lymphoproliferative disease: twenty-five years after the discovery. Pediatr Res. 1995;38(4):471–478.


 

Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


More in AFP


Related Content


More in Pubmed

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Dec 1, 2016

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article