Why the study?
Does the introduction of a monovalent (G1P[8]) rotavirus vaccine reduce the rate of rotavirus-related infantile diarrhea in Brazil?
Does the introduction of a monovalent (G1P[8]) rotavirus vaccine reduce the rate of rotavirus-related infantile diarrhea in Brazil?
The introduction of the monovalent rotavirus vaccine in Brazil was associated with a marked and sustained reduction in rotavirus-related infantile diarrhea cases.
Supports local vaccine-associated rotavirus reduction; leaves open causality and national generalizability from observational data.
Rotaviruses are the main cause of infantile acute diarrhea, and a monovalent (G1P[8]) vaccine against the virus was introduced into the Brazilian National Immunization Program for all infants in March 2006. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate and genotype distribution of rotavirus causing infantile diarrhea in the Triângulo Mineiro region of Brazil during 2011-2012 and to assess the impact of local vaccination. Fecal specimens were analyzed for detection and characterization of rotavirus using polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, reverse transcription followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and PCR-genotyping assays. Overall, rotavirus was diagnosed in 1.7% (6/348) of cases. Rotavirus positivity rates decreased 88% [95% confidence intervals (CI)=15.2, 98.3%; P=0.026] in 2011 and 78% (95%CI=30.6, 93.0%; P=0.007) in 2012 when compared with available data for baseline years (2005/2006) in Uberaba. In Uberlândia, reductions of 95.3% (95%CI=66.0, 99.4%; P=0.002) in 2011, and 94.2% (95%CI=56.4, 99.2%; P=0.004) in 2012 were also observed compared with data for 2008. The circulation of rotavirus G2P[4] strains decreased during the period under study, and strains related to the P[8] genotype reemerged in the region. This study showed a marked and sustained reduction of rotavirus-related cases, with a lack of rotavirus in the 2011 and 2012 seasons, suggesting a positive impact of the vaccination program.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dulgheroff et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: