Norovirus infection in Belarus: occurrence and molecular epidemiology.

The objective of the study is to analyze molecular epidemiologic surveillance for norovirus infection in Belarus over the past five years (2009-2013). Laboratory diagnostics was carried out by RT-PCR in 684 patients. Two regions of norovirus genome, localized in RNA-polymerase and capsid protein genes, were used for phylogenetic analysis. Noroviruses were predominant causative agents in adults and second only to rotaviruses in children, they also prevailed among aetiological agents of outbreaks (66.7% of outbreaks). In 2009-2013, the major norovirus genotype was GII.4 (58.3% of all genotyped isolates). Genovariant GII.4 2006b circulated in 2009 and 2010, genovariant GII.4 2009 New Orleans - in 2010 and 2012. In addition to GII.4, genotypes GII.6 (16.6%), GII.2 (4.1%), GII.3 (2.2%), and recombinant genotypes GII.g-GII.12 and GII.g-GII.1 (10.4% and 8.3%, respectively) circulated in Belarus. The findings indicate a significant contribution of noroviruses in development of sporadic morbidity and outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis in Belarus. Outbreaks or prominent increases of sporadic morbidity were mostly due to the emergence of a new genotype, or an epidemic genovariant.

Evaluation of switching or simultaneous use of biologic treatment in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and severe asthma. Considerations in clinical decision making.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 targeting biologics have reached the market first for asthma and since 2019 also for CRSwNP. As clear guidelines and predictors for optimal biological choice are missing, patients are sometimes required to switch biologic therapy in order to find the optimal treatment result. In this paper, we evaluate reasons for switching biologics and the treatment effects after each sequential switch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients who switched from one biologic to another for their treatment of CRSwNP and asthma were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients experienced satisfactory control of CRSwNP, but insufficient control of severe asthma. Fifty-one patients experienced satisfactory control of severe asthma, but insufficient control of CRSwNP/EOM. Twenty-eight patients experienced insufficient control of both upper and lower airways. Thirteen patients had to switch because of side effects. Furthermore, two cases are described to clarify clinical decision-making. DISCUSSION: For abovementioned patients, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to find the best suitable biologic. It seems ineffective to switch to a second anti-IL5 treatment if the first one is not successful. Most patients that failed omalizumab and/or an anti-IL-5 treatment are well controlled on dupilumab. Therefore, we suggest to use dupilumab as first choice when switching biologic agents.