4.4 Article

Prevalence of diphtheria and tetanus antibodies and circulation of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in Sao Paulo, Brazil

期刊

出版社

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-879X2006005000184

关键词

diphtheria; tetanus; Corynebacterium diphtheriae; vaccine; immunization; antibody

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduction of routine vaccination against tetanus and diphtheria in Brazil has decreased the incidence and changed the epidemiology of both diseases. We then investigated the prevalence of Corynebacterium diphtheriae carrier status and diphtheria and tetanus immunity in Sao Paulo, Brazil. From November 2001 to March 2003, 374 individuals were tested for the presence of C. diphtheriae in the naso-oropharynx and of serum diphtheria and tetanus antibodies. Participants were all healthy individuals without acute or chronic pathologies and they were stratified by age as follows: 0-12 months and 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-24, 25-39, 40-59, and >= 60 years. Antibodies were assessed using a double-antigen ELISA. C. diphtheriae species were identified by biochemical analysis and toxigenicity was assessed by the Elek test. For diphtheria, full protection (antibodies >= 0.1 IU/mL) was present in 84% of the individuals, 15% had basic protection ( antibodies >= 0.01 and <0.1 IU/mL) and 1% were susceptible (antibodies <0.01 IU/mL). Full tetanus protection (antibodies >= 0.1 IU/mL) was present in 79% of the participants, 18% had basic protection ( antibodies >= 0.01 and <0.1 IU/mL) and 3% were susceptible ( antibodies <0.01 IU/mL). The geometric mean of diphtheria and tetanus antibodies reached the highest values at 5-9 years and decreased until the 40-59-year age range, increasing again in individuals over 60 years. Three participants (0.8%) were carriers of C. diphtheriae, all non-toxigenic strains. The present results demonstrate the clear need of periodic booster for tetanus and diphtheria vaccine in adolescents and adults after primary immunization in childhood.

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