Rotavirus is a significant cause of severe infantile gastroenteritis in Northeastern Brazil, with G1 being the predominant serotype, highlighting the need for multivalent vaccines.
Rotavirus was associated with diarrhea in Northeastern Brazil; leaves open whether current vaccines cover predominant local strains.
During June 1997-June 1999 rotavirus infection was screened in infants aged up to 2 years and hospitalised with acute diarrhoea in São Luís, Northeastern Brazil. Altogether, 128 stool samples were collected from diarrhoeic patients and additional 122 faecal specimens from age and temporal matched inpatients without diarrhoea were obtained; rotavirus positivity rates for these groups were 32.0% (41/128) and 9.8% (12/122), respectively (p < 0.001). Both electropherotyping and serotyping could be performed in 42 (79.2%) of the 53 rotavirus-positive stool samples. Long and short electropherotypes were detected at similar rates--38.1% and 40.5% of specimens, respectively. Overall, a G serotype could be assigned for 35 (83.3%) of specimens, the majority of them (66.7%) bearing G1-serotype specificity. Taking both electropherotypes and serotypes together, G1 rotavirus strains displaying long and short RNA patterns accounted for 30.9% and 19.0% of tested specimens, respectively; all G2 strains had short electropherotype. Rotavirus gastroenteritis was detected year-round and, in 1998, the incidence rates tended to be higher during the second semester than in the first semester: 45.2% and 26.1% (p = 0.13), respectively. Rotavirus infections peaked at the second semester of life with frequencies of 30.1% and 13.5% for diarrhoeic children and controls, respectively. While the six rotavirus strains bearing G2-type specificity were circulating throughout the whole study period, G1 serotypes (n = 27) emerged as from June 1998 onwards, 20 (74.1%) of which clustering in 1998. These data underscore the importance of rotaviruses in the aetiology of severe infantile gastroenteritis in Northeastern Brazil and sustain the concept that a future vaccine should confer protection against more than one serotype.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luz et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: