One year after the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil: from hypotheses to evidence

• Published in: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
• Main Authors: Carlos Alexandre Antunes de Brito, Marli Tenorio Cordeiro
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
• Subjects: Zika; Microcephaly; Neurological cases; Epidemiology; Review; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Arctic; Pacific; Barré
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0328-2016; https://doaj.org/article/81fb3bb791744603872e95e2e75d630d

Abstract Zika virusis an arbovirus of the Flaviviridae family with two major strains, an Asian and an African strain. The main vectors involved in the transmission of Zika virus are the Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Despite its identification, discovered in 1947 in the Zika forest in Uganda, only isolated and sporadic occurrences of human infection were reported within a largely asymptomatic proportion of individuals. The first reported outbreak occurred in 2007 in the Yap Island, which belongs to the Federated States of Micronesia in the Pacific Ocean, and in French Polynesia, where high attack rates occurred and the first cases of associated Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported. From November 2014 to early 2015, the Northeast states of Brazil reported the first outbreaks of Zika virus infection, with laboratory confirmation of Zika virus circulation in April 2015. In the second quarter of 2015, the association between Zika virus infection and neurological symptoms was confirmed in adults. Moreover, in October 2015 a novel suspicion was raised based on clinical and epidemiological observations: that an association between Zika virus infection and neonatal microcephaly may exist. A year after the first reports on Zika virus in Brazil, many hypotheses and much evidence on the patterns of involvement of the disease and its complications have been produced, both in this country and others; other hypotheses still need to be clarified. This review is a synthesis of a new chapter in the history of medicine; it outlines the main results produced.