SUMMARYTo examine the role of enteric adenoviruses (EAV) in an urban area of Buenos Aires (Argentina), we prospectively studied faecal samples from 49 families of newborns. These were monitored weekly for diarrhoea for 2 years.A total of 180 samples from cases of diarrhoea and 766 samples obtained during diarrhoea-free periods were studied by dot-blot hybridization with an EAV-specific DNA probe. EAV were found in 6/180 (33 %) cases of diarrhoea and 6/766 (0-8 %) asymptomatic samples (P < 0015). Incidence of EAV was 3*9 cases per 100 person-years in children < 60 months old. EAV-related diarrhoeas were slight and of short duration. In addition, 129 faeces from hospital out-patients, 1-30 months old, were also studied. EAV' was identified in 7/129 cases (54 %). These cases were 9.5 + 35 months old and the diarrhoea was mild or severe, of 3 + 15 days of duration.We suggest that EAV are low-risk causes of diarrhoea under natural conditions, although a few children may develop more severe diarrhoea. The diagnosis of EAV needs to be considered in these patients.
INTRODIUCTIONAt present, 47 adenovirus (AV) serotypes have been identified. Group F comprises types 40 and 41; the enteric adenovirus (EAV). These have been implicated as the second most common cause of viral gastroenteritis in infants and young children, after rotavirus [1][2][3]. Most AV serotypes may be excreted in faeces, sometimes for long periods, as with AN' group C [4]. The role of AV other than EAV' in gastroenteritis has recently been suspected [5], although their causal role has not been proved.EAV are difficult to culture and alternative methods, such as immunoassay techniques [6], DNA restriction analysis [7] or molecular hybridization [8], are currently used for diagnosis. EAV usually infect and cause symptoms in children up to 3 years old, but mainly in those 2 years old or younger [9]. Some aetiologic studies of hospitalized and outpatient subjects with diarrhoea have been carried out recently [10][11][12]. Although these studies are necessary in order to determine the importance of the aetiologic agent, the epidemiological results are relevant 21 2