BACKGROUND: We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) for RotaTeq (RV5; 3 doses) and Rotarix (RV1; 2 doses) at reducing rotavirus acute gastroenteritis (AGE) inpatient and emergency department (ED) visits in US children. METHODS: We enrolled children <5 years of age hospitalized or visiting the ED with AGE symptoms from November 2009-June 2010 and from November 2010-June 2011 at 7 medical institutions. Fecal specimens were tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay and genotyped. Vaccination among laboratory-confirmed rotavirus cases was compared with rotavirus-negative AGE controls. Regression models calculated VE estimates for each vaccine, age, ethnicity, genotype, and clinical setting. RESULTS: RV5-specific analyses included 359 rotavirus cases and 1811 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV1-specific analyses included 60 rotavirus cases and 155 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV5 and RV1 were 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78%-88%) and 70% (95% CI, 39%-86%) effective, respectively, against rotavirus-associated ED visits and hospitalizations combined. By clinical setting, RV5 VE against ED and inpatient rotavirus-associated visits was 81% (95% CI, 70%-84%) and 86% (95% CI, 74%-91%), respectively. RV1 was 78% (95% CI, 46%-91%) effective against ED rotavirus disease; study power was insufficient to evaluate inpatient RV1 VE. No waning of immunity was evident during the first 4 years of life for RV5, nor during the first 2 years of life for RV1. RV5 provided genotype-specific protection against each of the predominant strains (G1P[8], G2P[4], G3P[8], G12P[8]), while RV1 VE was statistically significant for the most common genotype, G3P[8]. CONCLUSIONS: Both RV5 and RV1 significantly protected against medically attended rotavirus gastroenteritis in this real-world assessment.
BACKGROUND: We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) for RotaTeq (RV5; 3 doses) and Rotarix (RV1; 2 doses) at reducing rotavirus acute gastroenteritis (AGE) inpatient and emergency department (ED) visits in US children. METHODS: We enrolled children <5 years of age hospitalized or visiting the ED with AGE symptoms from November 2009-June 2010 and from November 2010-June 2011 at 7 medical institutions. Fecal specimens were tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay and genotyped. Vaccination among laboratory-confirmed rotavirus cases was compared with rotavirus-negative AGE controls. Regression models calculated VE estimates for each vaccine, age, ethnicity, genotype, and clinical setting. RESULTS: RV5-specific analyses included 359 rotavirus cases and 1811 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV1-specific analyses included 60 rotavirus cases and 155 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV5 and RV1 were 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78%-88%) and 70% (95% CI, 39%-86%) effective, respectively, against rotavirus-associated ED visits and hospitalizations combined. By clinical setting, RV5 VE against ED and inpatient rotavirus-associated visits was 81% (95% CI, 70%-84%) and 86% (95% CI, 74%-91%), respectively. RV1 was 78% (95% CI, 46%-91%) effective against ED rotavirus disease; study power was insufficient to evaluate inpatient RV1 VE. No waning of immunity was evident during the first 4 years of life for RV5, nor during the first 2 years of life for RV1. RV5 provided genotype-specific protection against each of the predominant strains (G1P[8], G2P[4], G3P[8], G12P[8]), while RV1 VE was statistically significant for the most common genotype, G3P[8]. CONCLUSIONS: Both RV5 and RV1 significantly protected against medically attended rotavirus gastroenteritis in this real-world assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
New Vaccine Surveillance Network; RotaTeq; rotavirus; vaccine
Authors: Jacqueline E Tate; Catherine A Panozzo; Daniel C Payne; Manish M Patel; Margaret M Cortese; Ashley L Fowlkes; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-07-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marc-Alain Widdowson; Martin I Meltzer; Xinzhi Zhang; Joseph S Bresee; Umesh D Parashar; Roger I Glass Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Julie A Boom; Jacqueline E Tate; Leila C Sahni; Marcia A Rench; Jennifer J Hull; Jon R Gentsch; Manish M Patel; Carol J Baker; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Daniel C Payne; Mary Allen Staat; Kathryn M Edwards; Peter G Szilagyi; Jon R Gentsch; Lauren J Stockman; Aaron T Curns; Marie Griffin; Geoffrey A Weinberg; Caroline B Hall; Gerry Fairbrother; James Alexander; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: T Vesikari; A Karvonen; R Prymula; V Schuster; J C Tejedor; R Cohen; F Meurice; H H Han; S Damaso; A Bouckenooghe Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-11-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel C Payne; Peter G Szilagyi; Mary Allen Staat; Kathryn M Edwards; Jon R Gentsch; Geoffrey A Weinberg; Caroline B Hall; Aaron T Curns; Haley Clayton; Marie R Griffin; Gerry Fairbrother; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Andrej Steyer; Monika Jevšnik; Miroslav Petrovec; Marko Pokorn; Štefan Grosek; Adela Fratnik Steyer; Barbara Šoba; Tina Uršič; Tjaša Cerar Kišek; Marko Kolenc; Marija Trkov; Petra Šparl; Raja Duraisamy; W Ian Lipkin; Sara Terzić; Mojca Kolnik; Tatjana Mrvič; Amit Kapoor; Franc Strle Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Catherine Yen; Jacqueline E Tate; Terri B Hyde; Margaret M Cortese; Benjamin A Lopman; Baoming Jiang; Roger I Glass; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rebecca L Currier; Daniel C Payne; Mary A Staat; Rangaraj Selvarangan; S Hannah Shirley; Natasha Halasa; Julie A Boom; Janet A Englund; Peter G Szilagyi; Christopher J Harrison; Eileen J Klein; Geoffrey A Weinberg; Mary E Wikswo; Umesh Parashar; Jan Vinjé; Ardythe L Morrow Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Joann F Gruber; Sylvia Becker-Dreps; Michael G Hudgens; M Alan Brookhart; James C Thomas; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.822