Landscaping analysis of immunization progress and program structures in selected middle income Southeast Asian countries.

This study examined the performance and structures of national immunization program in five middle-income Southeast Asian countries - Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Viet Nam, and Myanmar, and analyzed how the different structures relate to the difference in program performance to identify effective strategies in the study countries that facilitated good immunization performance. Data were derived from published literature, and WHO/UNICEF/Gavi databases, with 2010 as the baseline year. UMICs Malaysia and Thailand maintained ≥90 % coverage from 2010 to 2020 and even during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. LMICs Viet Nam and donor-supported Myanmar also achieved 80-90 % coverage for most routine vaccines in 2020. The Philippines have not reached ≥90 % coverage since 2010, with the maximum only 72 % (MCV1 and Polio3) in 2020. All study countries prioritize immunization and increased government financing since 2010 by minimum 91 % in Malaysia and 1897 % in Myanmar. However, Myanmar still largely depended on donor support with government financing only 32 % of immunization costs in 2021. The Philippines funds 100 % of immunization costs and ensures sustainable financing for the NIP through earmarked "sin tax" revenues from alcohol and tobacco. Donor support influenced new vaccine introductions among the study countries, with Gavi countries Myanmar and Viet Nam introducing more new vaccines, compared to Gavi-ineligible Malaysia and Thailand. The Philippines reported vaccine stock-outs every year amounting to 28 stock-outs events from 2010 to 2019, compared to only 1-4 stockouts in the other study countries. Donor support, innovative financing, and domestic vaccine manufacturing all play an important role in the efficient delivery of immunization services as demonstrated by the several new vaccine introductions and high immunization rates in Myanmar though Gavi and UNICEF support, additional annual $1.2 billion budget for health and immunization from "sin taxes" in the Philippines, and lack of stockouts for vaccines sourced at affordable prices from domestic manufacturers in Viet Nam.

Vaccination strategies for people living with inborn errors of metabolism in Brazil

Abstract Objective: Through a literature review, make recommendations regarding immunizations in people living with Inborn Error of Metabolism (IEM) in Brazil, assess the possible impact on metabolic decompensations after immunization, and if this specific population may have an impaired immune response to vaccines. Source of data: The MeSH Terms vaccination OR vaccine OR immunization associated with the term inborn error of metabolism AND recommendation were used in combination with search databases. Only articles published after 1990, in the languages English, Spanish, French or Portuguese, human-related were included. Synthesis of data: A total of 44 articles were included to make the following recommendations. Individuals with IEMs need to be up to date with their immunizations. Regarding which vaccines should be offered, children and adults should follow the routine immunization schedules locally available, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The only exception is the rotavirus vaccine for hereditary fructose intolerance. The benefit of immunization outweighs the very low risk of metabolic decompensation. Since not all patients will have an adequate immune response, measuring antibody conversion and titers is recommended Conclusions: All patients should receive age-appropriate immunizations in their respective schedules without delays. The only situation when vaccination may be contraindicated is with oral rotavirus vaccine in hereditary fructose intolerance. Monitoring the levels of antibodies should be done to detect any immune dysfunction or the necessity for boosters. A personalized immunization schedule is ideal for patients with IEMs. The reference organizations could improve their recommendations to address all IEMs, not only some of them.

The need and challenges for development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases

Abstract Objective: To identify and describe learnings from past pandemics and to suggest a framework for vaccine development as part of epi/pandemic readiness. Source of data: Articles/ reviews/letters on pandemic preparedness/ vaccines published between 2005 and 2022 in PubMed, MEDLINE, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, Research Square, Gates Open Research; who. int, cepi.net, visualcapitalist.com, airfinity.com, ted.com websites; press releases. Summary of findings: Disease pandemics caused by emerging pathogens impacted the social development, health and wealth of most societies in human history. In an outbreak, the first months determine its course. To block an exponential spread and the development of an epi/ pandemic early, vaccine availability in sufficient quantities is of paramount importance. It is inevitable that new human viruses will emerge. Any future pandemic will come likely from RNA viruses through zoonotic or vector transmission, but we cannot predict when or where "Disease X" will strike. Public health, scientific and societal readiness plans need to include: continuous identification of new viruses in common mammalian reservoir hosts; continuous epidemiological surveillance, including wastewater sampling; establishment of prototype vaccine libraries against various virus families sharing functional and structural properties; testing of various and innovative vaccine platforms including mRNA, vector, nasal or oral vaccines for suitability by virus family; functional clinical trial sites and laboratory networks in various geographies; more efficient phasing of preclinical and clinical activities; global harmonization and streamlining of regulatory requirements including pre-established protocols; and societal preparedness including combating any pandemic of misinformation. Conclusions: "Outbreaks are unavoidable, pandemics are optional".

The role of a genetically stable, novel oral type 2 poliovirus vaccine in the poliomyelitis endgame / Utilidad de una nueva vacuna antipoliomielítica oral del serotipo 2 genéticamente estable contra el poliovirus de tipo 2 en la erradicación de la poliomielitis / O papel de uma nova vacina oral contra o poliovírus tipo 2, geneticamente estável, no estágio final da eliminação da poliomielite

ABSTRACT Poliovirus infection causes paralysis in up to 1 in 200 infected persons. The use of safe and effective inactivated poliovirus vaccines and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) means that only two pockets of wild-type poliovirus type 1 remain, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, OPVs can revert to virulence, causing outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV). During 2020-2022, cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) was responsible for 97-99% of poliomyelitis cases, mainly in Africa. Between January and August 2022, cVDPV2 was detected in sewage samples in Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where a case of acute flaccid paralysis caused by cVDPV2 also occurred. The Pan American Health Organization has warned that Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Peru are at very high risk for the reintroduction of poliovirus and an additional eight countries in Latin America are at high risk, following dropping vaccination rates (average 80% coverage in 2022). Sabin type 2 monovalent OPV has been used to control VDPV2 outbreaks, but its use could also lead to outbreaks. To address this issue, a more genetically stable, novel OPV2 (nOPV2) was developed against cVDPV2 and in 2020 was granted World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing. Rolling out a novel vaccine under the Emergency Use Listing in mass settings to contain outbreaks requires unique local regulatory and operational preparedness.

RESUMEN La infección por poliovirus ocasiona parálisis en hasta 1 de cada 200 personas infectadas. La utilización de vacunas con poliovirus inactivados y de vacunas antipoliomielíticas orales con poliovirus vivos atenuados (OPV) seguras y eficaces ha logrado que solo queden dos focos de poliovirus salvaje de tipo 1, en Afganistán y Pakistán. Sin embargo, las vacunas con OPV pueden revertir a la virulencia y producir brotes de poliovirus circulantes de origen vacunal (cVDPV). Durante el período 2020-2022, el cVDPV de tipo 2 (cVDPV2) fue la causa del 97-99% de los casos de poliomielitis, sobre todo en África. Entre enero y agosto del 2022, se encontró el cVDPV2 en muestras de aguas residuales en Estados Unidos de América, donde se produjo un caso de parálisis flácida aguda por el cVDPV2, Israel y Reino Unido y. La Organización Panamericana de la Salud ha advertido que, tras la caída de las tasas de vacunación (con una cobertura promedio del 80% en el 2022), Brasil, Haití, Perú y República Dominicana corren un riesgo muy alto de reintroducción del poliovirus, en tanto que otros ocho países de América Latina se encuentran en una situación de alto riesgo. La OPV monovalente de tipo 2 de Sabin se ha utilizado para controlar los brotes de VDPV2, pero su empleo también podría ocasionar brotes. Para hacer frente a este problema, se creó una nueva OPV2 (nOPV2) contra el cVDPV2, genéticamente más estable, que en el 2020 se incluyó en la lista de uso en emergencias de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El despliegue a gran escala de una nueva vacuna incluida en la lista de uso en emergencias con el fin de contener los brotes exige una extraordinaria preparación regulatoria y operativa local.

RESUMO A infecção pelo poliovírus causa paralisia em 1 de cada 200 pessoas infectadas. O uso de vacinas seguras e eficazes, tanto vacinas inativadas contra o poliovírus quanto vacinas orais contendo poliovírus atenuado (VOP), significa que restam apenas dois bolsões de poliovírus selvagem tipo 1, um no Afeganistão e outro no Paquistão. No entanto, a VOP pode reverter à virulência, causando surtos de poliovírus circulante derivado de vacina (cPVDV). No período 2020-2022, o cPVDV tipo 2 (cPVDV2) foi responsável por 97% a 99% dos casos de poliomielite, principalmente na África. Entre janeiro e agosto de 2022, o cPVDV2 foi detectado em amostras de esgoto em Israel, no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos da América, onde também houve um caso de paralisia flácida aguda causada pelo cPVDV2. A Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde alertou que, devido à queda nas taxas de vacinação (cobertura média de 80% em 2022), o Brasil, o Haiti, o Peru e a República Dominicana correm um risco muito alto de reintrodução do poliovírus e outros oito países da América Latina correm um risco alto. A VOP monovalente Sabin tipo 2 tem sido usada para controlar surtos de PVDV2, mas seu uso também pode levar a surtos. Para resolver esse problema, foi desenvolvida uma nova VOP2 (nVOP2), mais estável geneticamente, para combater o cPVDV2. Em 2020, a nVOP2 entrou na Lista de Uso Emergencial da Organização Mundial da Saúde. A distribuição de uma nova vacina incluída na Lista de Uso Emergencial em contextos de massa para conter surtos requer medidas originais de preparação operacional e regulatória em âmbito local.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccination in previous recipients of two doses of CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine in Brazil (RHH-001): a phase 4, non-inferiority, single blind, randomised study.

INTRODUCTION: The inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac) has been widely used in a two-dose schedule. We assessed whether a third dose of the homologous or a different vaccine could boost immune responses. METHODS: RHH-001 is a phase 4, participant masked, two centre, safety and immunogenicity study of Brazilian adults (18 years and older) in São Paulo or Salvador who had received two doses of CoronaVac 6 months previously. The third heterologous dose was of either a recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S, Janssen), an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech), or a recombinant adenoviral-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca), compared with a third homologous dose of CoronaVac. Participants were randomly assigned (5:6:5:5) by a RedCAP computer randomisation system stratified by site, age group (18-60 years or 61 years and over), and day of randomisation, with a block size of 42. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of anti-spike IgG antibodies 28 days after the booster dose in the heterologous boost groups compared with homologous regimen, using a non-inferiority margin for the geometric mean ratio (heterologous vs homologous) of 0·67. Secondary outcomes included neutralising antibody titres at day 28, local and systemic reactogenicity profiles, adverse events, and serious adverse events. This study was registered with Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, number RBR-9nn3scw. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, and Sept 1, 2021, 1240 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, of whom 1239 were vaccinated and 1205 were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. Antibody concentrations were low before administration of a booster dose with detectable neutralising antibodies of 20·4% (95% CI 12·8-30·1) in adults aged 18-60 years and 8·9% (4·2-16·2) in adults 61 years or older. From baseline to day 28 after the booster vaccine, all groups had a substantial rise in IgG antibody concentrations: the geometric fold-rise was 77 (95% CI 67-88) for Ad26.COV2-S, 152 (134-173) for BNT162b2, 90 (77-104) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 12 (11-14) for CoronaVac. All heterologous regimens had anti-spike IgG responses at day 28 that were superior to homologous booster responses: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 6·7 (95% CI 5·8-7·7) for Ad26.COV2-S, 13·4 (11·6-15·3) for BNT162b2, and 7·0 (6·1-8·1) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All heterologous boost regimens induced high concentrations of pseudovirus neutralising antibodies. At day 28, all groups except for the homologous boost in the older adults reached 100% seropositivity: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 8·7 (95% CI 5·9-12·9) for Ad26.COV2-S vaccine, 21·5 (14·5-31·9) for BNT162b2, and 10·6 (7·2-15·6) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Live virus neutralising antibodies were also boosted against delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron variants (B.1.1.529). There were five serious adverse events. Three of which were considered possibly related to the vaccine received: one in the BNT162b2 group and two in the Ad26.COV2-S group. All participants recovered and were discharged home. INTERPRETATION: Antibody concentrations were low at 6 months after previous immunisation with two doses of CoronaVac. However, all four vaccines administered as a third dose induced a significant increase in binding and neutralising antibodies, which could improve protection against infection. Heterologous boosting resulted in more robust immune responses than homologous boosting and might enhance protection. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Brazil.

Safety and immunogenicity of S-Trimer (SCB-2019), a protein subunit vaccine candidate for COVID-19 in healthy adults: a phase 1, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: As part of the accelerated development of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we report a dose-finding and adjuvant justification study of SCB-2019, a protein subunit vaccine candidate containing a stabilised trimeric form of the spike (S)-protein (S-Trimer) combined with two different adjuvants. METHODS: Our study is a phase 1, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at a specialised clinical trials centre in Australia. We enrolled healthy adult volunteers in two age groups: younger adults (aged 18-54 years) and older adults (aged 55-75 years). Participants were randomly allocated either vaccine or placebo using a list prepared by the study funder. Participants were to receive two doses of SCB-2019 (either 3 µg, 9 µg, or 30 µg) or a placebo (0·9% NaCl) 21 days apart. SCB-2019 either had no adjuvant (S-Trimer protein alone) or was adjuvanted with AS03 or CpG/Alum. The assigned treatment was administered in opaque syringes to maintain masking of assignments. Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days after each vaccination. Humoral responses were measured as SCB-2019 binding IgG antibodies and ACE2-competitive blocking IgG antibodies by ELISA and as neutralising antibodies by wild-type SARS-CoV-2 microneutralisation assay. Cellular responses to pooled S-protein peptides were measured by flow-cytometric intracellular cytokine staining. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04405908; this is an interim analysis and the study is continuing. FINDINGS: Between June 19 and Sept 23, 2020, 151 volunteers were enrolled; three people withdrew, two for personal reasons and one with an unrelated serious adverse event (pituitary adenoma). 148 participants had at least 4 weeks of follow-up after dose two and were included in this analysis (database lock, Oct 23, 2020). Vaccination was well tolerated, with two grade 3 solicited adverse events (pain in 9 µg AS03-adjuvanted and 9 µg CpG/Alum-adjuvanted groups). Most local adverse events were mild injection-site pain, and local events were more frequent with SCB-2019 formulations containing AS03 adjuvant (44-69%) than with those containing CpG/Alum adjuvant (6-44%) or no adjuvant (3-13%). Systemic adverse events were more frequent in younger adults (38%) than in older adults (17%) after the first dose but increased to similar levels in both age groups after the second dose (30% in older and 34% in younger adults). SCB-2019 with no adjuvant elicited minimal immune responses (three seroconversions by day 50), but SCB-2019 with fixed doses of either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants induced high titres and seroconversion rates of binding and neutralising antibodies in both younger and older adults (anti-SCB-2019 IgG antibody geometric mean titres at day 36 were 1567-4452 with AS03 and 174-2440 with CpG/Alum). Titres in all AS03 dose groups and the CpG/Alum 30 µg group were higher than were those recorded in a panel of convalescent serum samples from patients with COVID-19. Both adjuvanted SCB-2019 formulations elicited T-helper-1-biased CD4+ T-cell responses. INTERPRETATION: The SCB-2019 vaccine, comprising S-Trimer protein formulated with either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants, elicited robust humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, with high viral neutralising activity. Both adjuvanted vaccine formulations were well tolerated and are suitable for further clinical development. FUNDING: Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant with influenza vaccine in young children.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccines is known to be poor in infants and young children. METHODS: We studied the effect of the adjuvant MF59, an oil-in-water emulsion, on the efficacy of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in 4707 healthy children 6 to less than 72 months of age who had not previously been vaccinated against influenza. The children were randomly assigned to three study groups, each of which received the assigned vaccines in two doses, 28 days apart, during two consecutive influenza seasons. Two of the groups were given age-appropriate doses of TIV either with or without the MF59 adjuvant, and the third group was given control (noninfluenza) vaccines to assess their absolute and relative efficacy against influenza-like illness, as confirmed by means of polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay. RESULTS: Attack rates of influenza-like illness across both influenza seasons were 0.7%, 2.8%, and 4.7% in the adjuvant, nonadjuvant, and control vaccine groups, respectively. The absolute vaccine efficacy rates against all influenza strains (94 of 110 cases were due to vaccine-matched H3N2 viruses) were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74 to 93) for the MF59-adjuvant vaccine (ATIV) and 43% (95% CI, 15 to 61) for the vaccine without the adjuvant (TIV); the relative vaccine efficacy rate for ATIV versus TIV was 75% (95% CI, 55 to 87). The efficacy rates for ATIV were 79% (95% CI, 55 to 90) in children 6 to less than 36 months of age and 92% (95% CI, 77 to 97) in those 36 to less than 72 months of age, as compared with 40% (95% CI, -6 to 66) and 45% (95% CI, 6 to 68), respectively, for TIV. Antibody responses were higher with ATIV and remained so through day 181. The rates of systemic and local reactions to the influenza vaccines with and without the adjuvant were similar in the younger age group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.09), but systemic events in the older age group were more frequent after administration of ATIV (63%) than after administration of TIV (44%) or the control vaccine (50%). Serious adverse events were distributed evenly across the three vaccine groups. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant is efficacious against PCR-confirmed influenza in infants and young children. (Funded by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00644059.).

Segurança, imunogenicidade e eficácia protetora de duas doses da vacina RIX4414 contendo rotavírus atenuado de origem humana / Safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of two doses of RIX4414 live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in healthy Brazilian infants

OBJETIVO: Determinar a segurança, imunogenicidade e eficácia de duas doses da vacina contra o rotavírus em lactentes brasileiros saudáveis. MÉTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo randomizado, multicêntrico, duplo-cego e controlado por placebo no Brasil, México e Venezuela. Os lactentes receberam duas doses orais de vacina ou placebo aos 2 e 4 meses de idade, juntamente com as imunizações de rotina, exceto a vacina oral contra poliomielite (VOP). O presente estudo relata apenas os resultados obtidos em Belém, Brasil, onde o número de indivíduos por grupo e os títulos da vacina viral foram os seguintes: 194 (104,7 unidades formadoras de focos - UFF), 196 (10(5,2) UFF), 194 (10(5,8) UFF) e 194 (placebo). A resposta de anticorpos anti-rotavírus (anti-RV) foi avaliada em 307 indivíduos. A gravidade clínica dos episódios de gastroenterite (GE) foi determinada através de um escore com 20 pontos, onde um valor > 11 foi considerado como GE grave. RESULTADOS: As taxas de sintomas gerais solicitados foram semelhantes tanto nos indivíduos que receberam a vacina como naqueles a quem se administrou placebo. Aos 2 meses após a segunda dose, ocorreu resposta em termos de IgA sérica para RV em 54,7 a 74,4 por cento dos vacinados. Não houve interferência na imunogenicidade das vacinas de rotina. A eficácia da vacina contra qualquer gastroenterite por rotavírus (GERV) foi de 63,5 por cento (IC95 por cento 20,8-84,4) para a maior concentração (10(5,8) UFF). A eficácia foi de 81,5 por cento (IC95 por cento 44,5-95,4) contra GERV grave. Em sua maior concentração (10(5,8) UFF), a RIX4414 conferiu uma proteção de 79,8 por cento (IC95 por cento 26,4-96,3) contra GERV grave causada pela amostra G9. CONCLUSÕES: A RIX4414 foi altamente imunogênica com baixa reatogenicidade, e não interferiu na resposta sérica à difteria, tétano, coqueluche, hepatite B e antígenos Hib. Duas doses da RIX4414 conferiram proteção significativa contra a GE grave causada pelo RV.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of two doses of rotavirus vaccine in healthy Brazilian infants. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. Infants received two oral doses of vaccine or placebo at 2 and 4 months of age, concurrently with routine immunizations, except for oral poliomyelitis vaccine (OPV). This paper reports results from Belém, Brazil, where the number of subjects per group and the viral vaccine titers were: 194 (10(4.7) focus forming units - FFU), 196 (10(5.2) FFU), 194 (10(5.8) FFU) and 194 (placebo). Anti-rotavirus (anti-RV) antibody response was assessed in 307 subjects. Clinical severity of gastroenteritis episodes was measured using a 20-point scoring system with a score of > 11 defined as severe GE. RESULTS: The rates of solicited general symptoms were similar in vaccine and placebo recipients. At 2 months after the second dose, a serum IgA response to RV occurred in 54.7 to 74.4 percent of vaccinees. No interference was seen in the immunogenicity of routine vaccines. Vaccine efficacy against any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) was 63.5 percent (95 percentCI 20.8-84.4) for the highest concentration (10(5.8) FFU). Efficacy was 81.5 percent (95 percentCI 44.5-95.4) against severe RVGE. At its highest concentration (10(5.8) FFU), RIX4414 provided 79.8 percent (95 percentCI 26.4-96.3) protection against severe RVGE by G9 strain. CONCLUSIONS: RIX4414 was highly immunogenic with a low reactogenicity profile and did not interfere with seroresponse to diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Hib antigens. Two doses of RIX4414 provided significant protection against severe GE caused by RV.

Soroprevalência para hepatite A e hepatite B em quatro centros no Brasil / Hepatitis A and hepatiti B seroprevalence in four centers in Brazil

Avaliou-se a prevalência de anticorpos para as hepatites A e B em 3.653 indivíduos, em quatro regiöes brasileiras. As prevalências de anti-VHA e de anti-HBc foram 64,7 por cento e 7,9 por cento, respectivamente. Prevalências mais elevadas de anti-VHA (92,8 por cento)e de anti-HBc (21,4 por cento) foram observadas na regiäo Norte. Em outras regiöes, prevalências de anti-VHA acima de 90 por cento foram alcancadas apenas em idades mais avançadas, indicando uma endemicidade intermediária e prevalência significativamente mais elevada foi observada no grupo de baixo nível sócio-econômico, entre 1 e 30 anos. Para o anti-HBc observou-se um aumento na prevalência entre adolescentes e uma prevalência significativamente mais elevada no grupo de baixo nível sócio-econômico, entre 1 e 20 anos. Prevalência de 3,1 por cento foi encontrada em crianças de 1 ano, sugerindo a transmissäo vertical. Os principais resultados deste estudo, indicam que pré-adolescente/adolescentes de algumas cidades brasileiras estäo em risco para as hepatites A e B, mas por diferentes motivos

Soroepidemiologia da varicela no Brasil - resultados de um estudo prospectivo trasnversal / Soroepidemiology of Varicella in Brazil - results of a porospective, cross-sectional study

Objetivos: A varicela tem conseqüências mais gravaes em adolescentes e adultos. Recentes relatos da Europa e da Ásia mostram um número crescente de adolescentes e adultos jovens soronegativos. Como são poucos os dados sobre a prevalência de anti-VZV no Brasil e com o objetivo de definir estratégias para a imunização contra a varicela, ralizamos um estudo de sroroprevalência para o VZV (vírus varicela zoster) em diferentes partes do Brasil. Métodos: Este estudo soroepidemiológico, transversal e popupacional foi realizado em quatro diferentes regiões do Brasil. A população estudada foi estratificada por sexo, idade e situação socioeconômica. Anticorpos Ig G, anti-VZV foram analisados pelo método ELISA. Resultados: Foram incluídos no estudo 3.879 indivíduos de 1 a 40 anos. A taxa de soropositividade do anti-VZV em todos os grupos etários e centros no Brasil foi de 85,4 por cento. Evidenciou-se uma forte correlação com a idade. Especialmente no Sudeste e Sul, a soroprevalência foi menor no grupo etário de 1-5 anos (44,5 por cento e 57,8 por cento, respectivamente). Na região Norte esta taxa foi de 88,9 por cento. No geral, a infecção pelo VZV foi independente do nível socioeconômico, entretanto nos grupos etários jovens (1-10 anos) a soroprevalência foi significativamente menor nas classes alta/média, na maioria das regões. A história clínica de varicela se correlacionou com a soropositividade anti-VZV, tendo um valor preditivo de 95,1 por cento. Conclusões: Na pré-adolescência, uma proporção substancial da população brasileira é susceptível à varicela e uma parcela considerável de adolescentes e adultos jovens permanecem soronegativos e, conseqüentemente, em risco