> Details

Cortese, Margaret M.; Immergluck, Lilly Cheng; Held, Melissa; Jain, Shabnam; Chan, Trisha; Grizas, Alexandra P.; Khizer, Saadia; Barrett, Carol; Quaye, Osbourne; Mijatovic-Rustempasic, Slavica; Gautam, Rashi; Bowen, Michael D.; Moore, Jessica; Tate, Jacqueline E.; Parashar, Umesh D.; Vázquez, Marietta

Effectiveness of Monovalent and Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Effectiveness of Monovalent and Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine
  • Contributor: Cortese, Margaret M.; Immergluck, Lilly Cheng; Held, Melissa; Jain, Shabnam; Chan, Trisha; Grizas, Alexandra P.; Khizer, Saadia; Barrett, Carol; Quaye, Osbourne; Mijatovic-Rustempasic, Slavica; Gautam, Rashi; Bowen, Michael D.; Moore, Jessica; Tate, Jacqueline E.; Parashar, Umesh D.; Vázquez, Marietta
  • Published: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 2013
  • Published in: Pediatrics, 132 (2013) 1, Seite e25-e33
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-3804
  • ISSN: 0031-4005; 1098-4275
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: OBJECTIVE: Previous US evaluations have not assessed monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1, a G1P[8] human rotavirus strain) effectiveness, because of its later introduction (2008). Using case-control methodology, we measured the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the 2-dose RV1 and 3-dose pentavalent vaccine (RV5) series against rotavirus disease resulting in hospital emergency department or inpatient care. METHODS: Children were eligible for enrollment if they presented to 1 of 5 hospitals (3 in Georgia, 2 in Connecticut) with diarrhea of ≤10 days’ duration during January through June 2010 or 2011, and were born after RV1 introduction. Stools were collected; immunization records were obtained from providers and state electronic immunization information system (IIS). Case-subjects (children testing rotavirus antigen-positive) were compared with 2 control groups: children testing rotavirus negative and children selected from IIS. RESULTS: Overall, 165 rotavirus-case subjects and 428 rotavirus-negative controls were enrolled. Using the rotavirus-negative controls, RV1 VE was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80 to 95) and RV5 VE was 92% (CI 75 to 97) among children aged ≥8 months. The RV1 VE against G2P[4] disease was high (94%, CI 78 to 98), as was that against G1P[8] disease (89%, CI 70 to 96). RV1 effectiveness was sustained among children aged 12 through 23 months (VE 91%; CI 75 to 96). VE point estimates using IIS controls were similar to those using rotavirus-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: RV1 and RV5 were both highly effective against severe rotavirus disease. RV1 conferred sustained protection during the first 2 years of life and demonstrated high effectiveness against G2P[4] (heterotypic) disease.