Search

Brazil was heavily affected by COVID-19 both with death toll and economically, with absence of a centralized Federal Government response. Tuberculosis (TB) notifications decreased in 2020 but partial recovery was observed in 2021. We have previously shown a sharp (93%) reduction in TB preventive treatment notifications among five Brazilian cities with more than 1,000 notifications in 2021. We hypothesized TB preventive treatment would also recover. We updated the previous analysis by adding other cities that hold more than a 1,000 notifications until 2022. Data aggregated by 2-week periods were extracted from the Information System for Notifying People Undergoing Treatment for LTBI (IL-TB). Biweekly percentage change (BPC) of notifications until October 2022 and outcomes until July 2022 (in the two weeks of TB preventive treatment initiation) were analyzed using Joinpoint software. A total of 39,701 notifications in 11 cities were included, 66% from São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We found a significant increase of TB preventive treatment notifications in the beginning of 2021 (BPC range 1.4-49.6), with sustained progression in seven out of the 11 cities. Overall, median completion rates were 65%. In most cities, a gradual and steady decrease of treatment completion rates was found, except for Rio de Janeiro and Manaus (Amazonas State, Brazil), where a BPC of 1.5 and 1.2, respectively, was followed by a sustained increase. Notifications and completion proportions of TB preventive treatment were heterogeneous, which partly reflects the heterogeneity in local response to the pandemic. We found that notifications were recovered, and that the sharp 2021 decrease was no longer observed, which suggests delays in notification. In conclusion, the sharp reductions in TB preventive treatment completion rates in most cities might have been caused by delays in reporting; however, the sustained and progressive decrease are a concern.

Background: To evaluate the influence of previous physical activity (PA) during childhood, adolescence, and current PA practice on the production of antibodies and inflammatory response between the first and second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine., Methods: Fifty-nine men and 56 women were evaluated before the first vaccine, and 12 weeks later, blood samples were taken to quantify production of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies and cytokines. Previous PA during childhood and adolescence was self-referred, and current PA was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire., Results: A positive and significant association was observed only between PA practice during adolescence and an increase in antibody production in adulthood (β = 2012.077, 95% confidence interval, 257.7953-3766.358, P = .025). Individuals who practiced PA during adolescence showed higher production of antibodies between the first and second vaccine dose compared to nonpractitioners (P = .025) and those that accumulated ≥150 minutes per week of current moderate-vigorous PA (MVPA), and presented higher antibody production in relation to who did <150 minutes per week of MVPA (P = .046). Individuals that were practitioners during childhood produced higher G-CSF (P = .047), and those that accumulated ≥150 minutes per week of current MVPA demonstrated lower IP-10 levels (P = .033). However, PA practitioners during adolescence presented higher G-CSF (P = .025), IL-17 (P = .038), IL-1RA (P = .005), IL-1β (P = .020), and IL-2 (P = .026) levels., Conclusion: Our results suggest that adults that accumulated at least 150 minutes of MVPA per week or practiced PA during adolescence developed an improved immune and inflammatory response against COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective in reducing the risk of complications. However, the uptake is still below targets worldwide. This study aimed to explore the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among pregnant women since data on this topic is scarce in low-to-middle-income countries. A retrospective cohort study included linked data on COVID-19 vaccination and pregnant women who delivered a singleton live birth from August 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022, in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with vaccination during pregnancy, applying a hierarchical model and describing odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Of 65,304 pregnant women included in the study, 53.0% (95% CI, 52-53%) received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Higher uptake was observed among women aged older than 34 (aOR 1.21, 95%CI 1.15-1.28), black (aOR 1.10, 1.04-1.16), or parda/brown skin colour (aOR 1.05, 1.01-1.09), with less than eight years of education (aOR 1.09, 1.02-1.17), living without a partner (aOR 2.24, 2.16-2.34), more than six antenatal care appointments (aOR 1.92, 1.75-2.09), and having a previous child loss (OR 1.06, 1.02-1.11). These results highlight the need for targeted educational campaigns, trustful communication, and accessibility strategies for specific populations to improve vaccination uptake during pregnancy., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Objectives: Evatuate if Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine could be used as a tool against SARS-CoV-2 based on the concept of trained immunity., Methods: A multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial recruited health care workers (HCWs) in Brazil. The incidence rates of COVID-19, clinical manifestations, absenteeism, and adverse events among HCWs receiving BCG vaccine (Moreau or Moscow strains) or placebo were compared. BCG vaccine-mediated immune response before and after implementing specific vaccines for COVID-19 (CoronaVac or COVISHIELD) was analyzed. Cox proportional hazard and linear mixed effect modeling were used., Results: A total of 264 volunteers were included for analysis (BCG = 134 and placebo = 130). The placebo group presented a COVID-19 cumulative incidence of 0.75% vs 0.52% of BCG. The Moreau strain also presented a higher incidence rate (1.60% × 0.22%). BCG did not show a protective hazard ratio against COVID-19. In addition, the log (immunoglobulin G) level against SARS-CoV-2 presented a higher increase in the BCG group, whether or not participants had COVID-19, but also without statistical significance., Conclusion: Our results suggest that BCG has a tendency of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and higher immunoglobulin G levels than placebo. The clinical trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT04659941)., Competing Interests: Declaration Of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron's emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear., Methods and Findings: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose., Conclusions: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: VdAO, VB, MLB, and MB-N are employees of Fiocruz, a federal public institution, which manufactures Vaxzevria in Brazil, through a full technology transfer agreement with AstraZeneca. Fiocruz allocates all its manufactured products to the Ministry of Health for the public health service use. SVK was a member of the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity, the Cabinet Office’s International Best Practice Advisory Group, and was co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19. CR is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group, Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. CR reports the followings: “Research Grants to Strathclyde University from Public Health Scotland, UK Medical Research Council, Scotland Chief Scientist Office, Health Data Research UK. Advisory Bodies: Member of UK SPI-M committee, Scottish Government Scientific Advisory Committee, MHRA Covid vaccine benefit and risk expert working group.” IR is the member of the Advisory scientific committee on COVID-19 of the Government of Croatia and co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Global Health. AS is an Academic Editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board, and is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group and its Standing Committee on Pandemics; he is also a member of the UK Government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Risk Stratification Subgroup and a member of AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce. All roles are unremunerated. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2023 Cerqueira-Silva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: There is consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have statistical and clinical significant efficacy to prevent incident and severe cases of COVID-19, although different outcomes were analyzed and different risk reductions were observed. However, randomized control trials (RCT) were not designed or powered to assess whether the vaccines prevent deaths, even though this was a secondary or exploratory outcome across many studies. Early real-world observational data suggest that these vaccines are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Our objective is to summarize and appraise-the existing evidence on the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently approved for full or limited use to prevent all-cause and COVID-19-attributed mortality., Methods: The population consists of persons with a record of vaccination status and the outcome of interest. Randomized controlled trials, comparative cohort and case-control studies reporting vaccination with any of the vaccines approved (intervention) will be eligible. The primary outcome will be all cause deaths. COVID-19-attributed deaths and deaths attributable to the vaccination (adverse event deaths) will be secondary outcomes. We will compare deaths occurring in vaccinated persons versus those non-vaccinated or having received placebo. Studies in any language will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen for inclusion and assess quality of studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the ROBINS-1 tool, as appropriate. Hazard ratios will be calculated. Assessment of statistical heterogeneity amongst the studies will be done using I2 and prediction intervals, as well as visual inspection of the forest plots. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot and Egger statistical test if we have more than 10 studies in a forest plot. We have followed the PRISMA-Protocol checklist for the current protocol, which is registered at Prospero (York University, CRD42021262211)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among individuals without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with previous infection is less clear. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection, hospitalisation, and death for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: Using national COVID-19 notification, hospitalisation, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we did a test-negative, case-control study to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac [Sinovac], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca], Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen], and BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech]) for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched cases with RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 with up to ten controls with negative RT-PCR tests who presented with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests done at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity and the odds of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines., Findings: Between Feb 24, 2020, and Nov 11, 2021, we identified 213 457 individuals who had a subsequent, symptomatic illness with RT-PCR testing done at least 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and after the vaccination programme started. Among these, 30 910 (14·5%) had a positive RT-PCR test consistent with reinfection, and we matched 22 566 of these cases with 145 055 negative RT-PCR tests from 68 426 individuals as controls. Among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 39·4% (95% CI 36·1-42·6) for CoronaVac, 56·0% (51·4-60·2) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 44·0% (31·5-54·2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64·8% (54·9-72·4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalisation or death 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 81·3% (75·3-85·8) for CoronaVac, 89·9% (83·5-93·8) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 57·7% (-2·6 to 82·5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89·7% (54·3-97·7) for BNT162b2., Interpretation: All four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The provision of a full vaccine series to individuals after recovery from COVID-19 might reduce morbidity and mortality., Funding: Brazilian National Research Council, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Generalitat de Catalunya., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MB-N reports grants from the Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme from JBS. AIK reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Serimmune; and grants and personal fees from Tata Medical Devices, outside the submitted work. VdAO, VSB, MLB, JC, and MB-N are employees of Fiocruz, a federal public institution, which manufactures Vaxzevria (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine) in Brazil through a full technology transfer agreement with AstraZeneca. Fiocruz allocates all its manufactured products to the Ministry of Health for public health use. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: More doses of CoronaVac have been administered worldwide than any other COVID-19 vaccine. However, the effectiveness of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines in pregnant women is still unknown. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 in pregnant women in Brazil., Methods: We conducted a test-negative design study in all pregnant women aged 18-49 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil from March 15, 2021, to October 03, 2021, linking records of negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests to national vaccination records. We also linked records of test-positive cases with notifications of severe, hospitalised or fatal COVID-19. Using logistic regression, we estimated the adjusted odds ratio and VE against symptomatic COVID-19 and against severe COVID-19 by comparing vaccine status in test-negative subjects to test-positive symptomatic cases and severe cases., Results: Of the 19,838 tested pregnant women, 7424 (37.4%) tested positive for COVID-19 and 588 (7.9%) had severe disease. Only 83% of pregnant women who received the first dose of CoronaVac completed the vaccination scheme. A single dose of the CoronaVac vaccine was not effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. The effectiveness of two doses of CoronaVac was 41% (95% CI 27.1-52.2) against symptomatic COVID-19 and 85% (95% CI 59.5-94.8) against severe COVID-19., Conclusions: A complete regimen of CoronaVac in pregnant women was effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and highly effective against severe illness in a setting that combined high disease burden and marked COVID-19-related maternal deaths., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon)., Methods: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs., Findings: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks., Interpretation: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19., Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro., Translation: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SVK is a member of the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity, the Cabinet Office's International Best Practice Advisory Group, and was co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on Ethnicity and COVID-19. CR reports grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Public Health Scotland, during the conduct of the study, and is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group, Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Vaccine Benefit and Risk Working Group. AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer's COVID-19 Advisory Group and its Standing Committee on Pandemics; he is also a member of the UK Government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Risk Stratification Subgroup and a member of AstraZeneca's Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce. All roles are unremunerated. VdAO, VB, MLB, and MB-N are employees of Fiocruz, a federal public institution, which manufactures Vaxzevria in Brazil, through a full technology transfer agreement with AstraZeneca. Fiocruz allocates all its manufactured products to the Ministry of Health for the public health service use. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness is conducted with real-world data. They are essential to monitor the performance of vaccination programmes over time, and in the context of the emergence of new variants. Until now, the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has been assessed based on classic methods, such as cohort and test-negative case-control studies, which may often not allow for adequate control of inherent biases in the assignment of vaccination campaigns. The aim of this review was to discuss the study designs available to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, highlighting quasi-experimental studies, which seek to mimic randomized trials, by introducing an exogenous component to allocate to treatment, in addition to the advantages, limitations, and applicability in the context of Brazilian data. The use of quasi-experimental approaches, such as interrupted time series, difference-in-differences, propensity scores, instrumental variables, and regression discontinuity design, are relevant due to the possibility of providing more accurate estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. This is especially important in scenarios such as the Brazilian, which characterized by the use of various vaccines, with the respective numbers and intervals between doses, applied to different age groups, and introduced at different times during the pandemic.

Introduction: Rio de Janeiro has hardly experienced coronavirus disease., Methods: Here, 87,442 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were reported among Rio de Janeiro residents (March to September 2020)., Results: Overall, RT-PCR positivity of 44.6% decreased over time towards 20%. Positivity was greater among males (OR=1.22; 95%CI:1.19-1.26); Black (OR=1.10; 95%CI:1.02-1.19), Brown (OR=1.16; 95%CI:1.10-1.22), and indigenous people (OR=2.11; 95%CI:0.88-5.03) compared to Whites and increased with age; with epidemic spread from the capital to inland regions., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 keeps spreading in Rio de Janeiro, and reopening of activities may fuel the epidemic.

• There is a spatial concentration of cases of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in brazil. • The disease, however, expanded territorially in brazil in the 21st century. • The number of priority municipalities for control actions showed an upward trend. • Spatio-temporal clusters of high-risk were higher in the north and northeast regions. • The identified risk areas should be prioritized for VL control actions. Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a pressing public health problem in Brazil. The proper implementation of disease control programs in priority areas is a challenge for healthcare managers. The present study aimed to analyze the spatio-temporal distribution and identify high risk areas of VL occurrence in the Brazilian territory. We analyzed data regarding new cases with confirmed diagnosis of VL in Brazilian municipalities, from 2001 to 2020, extracted from the Brazilian Information System for Notifiable Diseases. The Local Index of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) was used to identify contiguous areas with high incidence rates in different periods of the temporal series. Clusters of high spatio-temporal relative risks were identified using the scan statistics. The accumulated incidence rate in the analyzed period was 33.53 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The number of municipalities that reported cases showed an upward trend from 2001 onward, although there was a decrease in 2019 and 2020. According to LISA, the number of municipalities considered a priority increased in Brazil and in most states. Priority municipalities were predominantly concentrated in the states of Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, and Mato Grosso do Sul, in addition to more specific areas of Pará, Ceará, Piauí, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Bahia, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, and Roraima. The spatio-temporal clusters of high-risk areas varied throughout the time series and were relatively higher in the North and Northeast regions. Recent high-risk areas were found in Roraima and municipalities in northeastern states. VL expanded territorially in Brazil in the 21st century. However, there is still a considerable spatial concentration of cases. The areas identified in the present study should be prioritized for disease control actions. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]