4.5 Article

Distribution of Rotavirus Genotypes After Introduction of Rotavirus Vaccines, Rotarix (R) and RotaTeq (R), into the National Immunization Program of Australia

Journal

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages S48-S53

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181fefd90

Keywords

RotaTeq; Rotarix rotavirus; strain; surveillance; Australia

Funding

  1. Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging
  2. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Melbourne, Australia)
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [607347]
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories
  6. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  7. GSK Biologicals (Melbourne, Australia)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Rotavirus vaccines, RotaTeq and Rotarix, were introduced into the Australian National Immunization Program on July 1, 2007. The simultaneous introduction in different Australian states and territories provides a unique opportunity to compare the affect of each vaccine on the types of circulating rotavirus strains. This report describes the rotavirus genotypes responsible for the hospitalization of children during the first 2-year period after vaccine introduction. Methods: A total of 764 rotavirus-associated diarrheal cases were collected from children presenting to hospital in 10 Australian centers. Rotavirus genotype was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. Results: G1P[8] was the dominant genotype nationally (52%), followed by G2P[4] (19.8%), G9P[8] (12.2%), and G3P[8] (11%). Differences in the prevalence rates of G2P[4] and G3P[8] were seen in the various states. G2P[4] strains were more prevalent in states using Rotarix, whereas G3P[8] strains were more prevalent in states using RotaTeq. Conclusions: Differences in rotavirus genotypes were observed across Australia, which suggest that different immune pressures are exerted by the different vaccines, but do not necessarily imply lack of protection by either vaccine. These differences may simply be related to the variation that can occur because of natural annual fluctuation in rotavirus strain prevalence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available