4.5 Article

Relative frequency, Possible Risk Factors, Viral Codetection Rates, and Seasonality of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Among Children With Lower Respiratory Tract Infection in Northeastern Brazil

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 95, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003090

关键词

-

资金

  1. AbbVie Farmaceutica Brasil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies, each limited to a single major city, have investigated the prevalence and seasonal patterns of different viruses among children with low respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in Northeastern Brazil. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and of 7 other viruses in children for LRTI in 4 capitals from this region, and investigate their association with several risk factors, including meteorological data. From April 2012 to March 2013, 507 children, aged up to 24 months and hospitalized with LRTI in one of the participating centers at Aracaju, Salvador, Recife, and Maceio, had a sample of nasopharyngeal aspirate collected and analyzed for the following viruses by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction followed by hybridization on low-density microarrays: RSV, influenza, parainfluenza, adenovirus, rhinovirus, metapneumovirus, bocavirus, and coronavirus. The result was positive in 66.5% of cases, RSV was the most common virus (40.2%). Except for rhinovirus (17%), all other virus had frequency rates lower than 6%. Viral coinfections were detected in 13.8% of samples. Possible related risk factors for RSV infection were low age upon entry, attendance of daycare, low gestational age, and low educational level of the father. The relative frequency of viral infections was associated with increasing temperature and decreasing humidity separately, but the results also suggested both associated with increased frequency of RSV. Some of these findings differ from those reported for other regions in Brazil and may be used to guide policies that address LRTI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据