Ulrike Uhlig1, Karel Kostev, Volker Schuster, Sibylle Koletzko, Holm H Uhlig. 1. From the *Department of Pediatrics, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom; †University Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Martin Luther University, Halle; ‡Institute of Medical Statistics, Frankfurt/Main; §University Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Leipzig, Leipzig; ¶Dr von Hauner Children's Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and ‖Translational Gastroenterology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although rotavirus (RV) vaccination was licensed in 2006, it was not included into the officially recommended German childhood vaccination schedule until 2013. Local differences in health policies in the past led to large differences in vaccination coverage rate among the federal states of Germany. This enables an ecologic study of RV vaccine effectiveness. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective analysis of RV vaccination use, RV notification and hospitalization among 0 to 5-year-old children in Germany during 2006 to 2011/2012. We compared effectiveness of the 2 RV vaccines, Rotateq and Rotarix, in an ambulatory setting and analyzed potential side effects. RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction in RV notifications since introduction of RV vaccination. In areas attaining vaccine coverage of 64%, RV-related hospital admissions of 0 and 1-year-old children decreased by 60% compared with 19% reduction in the low vaccination coverage area. Decrease in RV-related hospitalizations of 0 and 1-year-old children was specific and significantly associated with vaccination coverage of the individual federal state (P < 0.0001, r = -0.68). There was no overall increase in intussusception rate or Kawasaki disease-related hospital admissions since introduction of RV vaccination. The 2 licensed RV vaccines had similar effectiveness in the ambulatory setting. CONCLUSIONS: Postmarketing data suggest that RV vaccination is efficient in reducing RV-related hospitalizations. There is no apparent difference in effectiveness for Rotarix and Rotateq.
BACKGROUND: Although rotavirus (RV) vaccination was licensed in 2006, it was not included into the officially recommended German childhood vaccination schedule until 2013. Local differences in health policies in the past led to large differences in vaccination coverage rate among the federal states of Germany. This enables an ecologic study of RV vaccine effectiveness. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective analysis of RV vaccination use, RV notification and hospitalization among 0 to 5-year-old children in Germany during 2006 to 2011/2012. We compared effectiveness of the 2 RV vaccines, Rotateq and Rotarix, in an ambulatory setting and analyzed potential side effects. RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction in RV notifications since introduction of RV vaccination. In areas attaining vaccine coverage of 64%, RV-related hospital admissions of 0 and 1-year-old children decreased by 60% compared with 19% reduction in the low vaccination coverage area. Decrease in RV-related hospitalizations of 0 and 1-year-old children was specific and significantly associated with vaccination coverage of the individual federal state (P < 0.0001, r = -0.68). There was no overall increase in intussusception rate or Kawasaki disease-related hospital admissions since introduction of RV vaccination. The 2 licensed RV vaccines had similar effectiveness in the ambulatory setting. CONCLUSIONS: Postmarketing data suggest that RV vaccination is efficient in reducing RV-related hospitalizations. There is no apparent difference in effectiveness for Rotarix and Rotateq.
Authors: Natália Gibim Mellone; Marcus Tolentino Silva; Mariana Del Grossi Paglia; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Sílvio Barberato-Filho; Fernando de Sá Del Fiol; Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Daniel Hungerford; Roberto Vivancos; Jonathan M Read; Miren Iturriza-Gόmara; Neil French; Nigel A Cunliffe Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 8.775