4.4 Review

Review of global rotavirus strain prevalence data from six years post vaccine licensure surveillance: Is there evidence of strain selection from vaccine pressure?

期刊

INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 446-461

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.08.017

关键词

Surveillance; Rotarix; RotaTeq; Genotype; Rotavirus

资金

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) [T100727]
  2. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  3. 'Erdos Pal' scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comprehensive reviews of pre licensure rotavirus strain prevalence data indicated the global importance of six rotavirus genotypes, G1P[8], G2P[4], G3P[8], G4P[8], G9P[8] and G12P[8]. Since 2006, two vaccines, the monovalent Rotarix (RV1) and the pentavalent RotaTeq (RV5) have been available in over 100 countries worldwide. Of these, 60 countries have already introduced either RV1 or RV5 in their national immunization programs. Post licensure vaccine effectiveness is closely monitored worldwide. This review aimed at describing the global changes in rotavirus strain prevalence over time. The genotype distribution of the nearly 47,000 strains that were characterized during 2007-2012 showed similar picture to that seen in the preceding period. An intriguing finding was the transient predominance of heterotypic strains, mainly in countries using RV1. Unusual and novel antigen combinations continue to emerge, including some causing local outbreaks, even in vaccinated populations. In addition, vaccine strains have been found in both vaccinated infants and their contacts and there is evidence for genetic interaction between vaccine and wild-type strains. In conclusion, the post-vaccine introduction strain prevalence data do not show any consistent pattern indicative of selection pressure resulting from vaccine use, although the increased detection rate of heterotypic G2P[4] strains in some countries following RV1 vaccination is unusual and this issue requires further monitoring. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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