4.6 Article

Orthohantavirus Survey in Indigenous Lands in a Savannah-Like Biome, Brazil

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13061122

关键词

hantavirus infections; hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome; Indigenous population

类别

资金

  1. FUNDACAO DE AMPARO A PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE MATO GROSSO (FAPEMAT) [005/2015]
  2. FIOCRUZ
  3. COORDENACAODE APERFEICOAMENTO DE PESSOAL DE NIVEL SUPERIOR (CAPES)-Brasil
  4. Conselho Nacional para o Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [404762/2016-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the seroprevalence of orthohantavirus infections in the Utiariti Indigenous land in the Brazilian Amazon, revealing prevalence rates of 12.4% in 2014 and 13.4% in 2015. Analysis of paired samples from 110 Indigenous individuals who participated in both study stages identified four individuals who seroconverted during the study period.
In Brazil, the first confirmed cases of hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome in Indigenous populations occurred in 2001. The purpose of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of orthohantavirus infections in the Utiariti Indigenous land located in the southeastern region of the Brazilian Amazon. In December 2014 and 2015, a survey was conducted using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in nine villages belonging to the Haliti-Paresi Indigenous communities. A total of 301 participants were enrolled in the study. Of the two study cohorts, the one from 2014 showed a prevalence of 12.4%, whereas the one from 2015 had a serum prevalence of 13.4%. Analysis of the paired samples of 110 Indigenous people who participated in both stages of the study enabled identification of four individuals who had seroconverted during the study period. Identifying the circulation of orthohantaviruses in the Utiariti Indigenous land highlights a serious public health problem in viral expansion and highlights the need to implement preventive measures appropriate to the sociocultural reality of these communities.

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

4.6
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