Search

Background: Estimates of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the United States appear higher in years with more rotavirus activity. We hypothesized rotavirus VE is constant over time but appears to vary as a function of temporal variation in local rotavirus cases and/or misclassified diagnoses., Methods: We analyzed 6 years of data from eight US surveillance sites on 8- to 59-month olds with acute gastroenteritis symptoms. Children's stool samples were tested via enzyme immunoassay (EIA); rotavirus-positive results were confirmed with molecular testing at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We defined rotavirus gastroenteritis cases by either positive on-site EIA results alone or positive EIA with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmation. For each case definition, we estimated VE against any rotavirus gastroenteritis, moderate-to-severe disease, and hospitalization using two mixed-effect regression models: the first including year plus a year-vaccination interaction, and the second including the annual percent of rotavirus-positive tests plus a percent positive-vaccination interaction. We used multiple overimputation to bias-adjust for misclassification of cases defined by positive EIA alone., Results: Estimates of annual rotavirus VE against all outcomes fluctuated temporally, particularly when we defined cases by on-site EIA alone and used a year-vaccination interaction. Use of confirmatory testing to define cases reduced, but did not eliminate, fluctuations. Temporal fluctuations in VE estimates further attenuated when we used a percent positive-vaccination interaction. Fluctuations persisted until bias-adjustment for diagnostic misclassification., Conclusions: Both controlling for time-varying rotavirus activity and bias-adjusting for diagnostic misclassification are critical for estimating the most valid annual rotavirus VE., Competing Interests: Disclosure: J.A.E. has research support from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline and consults for Sanofi Pasteur and Meissa Vaccines. G.A.W. received an honorarium from Merck for authorship of chapters in the Merck Manual. M.M.M. has laboratory agreements with Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi. C.J.H. has research support from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Astra-Zeneca and has received honoraria from Frontline Medical Communications for contributions to Pediatric News. J.E.S. has research support from Merck. T.L.L. is a member of the Amgen Methods Advisory Council, for which he receives consulting fees and travel support. B.A.L. reports grants and personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and personal fees from World Health Organization, outside the subject of the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Rotavirus vaccines have been recommended for universal US infant immunization for more than 10 years, and understanding their effectiveness is key to the continued success of the US rotavirus vaccine immunization program., Objective: To assess the association of RotaTeq (RV5) and Rotarix (RV1) with inpatient and emergency department (ED) visits for rotavirus infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control vaccine effectiveness study was performed at inpatient and ED clinical settings in 7 US pediatric medical institutions from November 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016. Children younger than 5 years seeking medical care for acute gastroenteritis were enrolled. Clinical and epidemiologic data, vaccination verification, and results of stool sample tests for laboratory-confirmed rotavirus were collected. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness for preventing rotavirus-associated inpatient and ED visits over time for each licensed vaccine, stratified by clinical severity and age., Results: Among the 10 813 children included (5927 boys [54.8%] and 4886 girls [45.2%]; median [range] age, 21 [8-59] months), RV5 and RV1 analyses found that compared with controls, rotavirus-positive cases were more often white (RV5, 535 [62.2%] vs 3310 [57.7%]; RV1, 163 [43.1%] vs 864 [35.1%]), privately insured (RV5, 620 [72.1%] vs 4388 [76.5%]; RV1, 305 [80.7%] vs 2140 [87.0%]), and older (median [range] age for RV5, 26 [8-59] months vs 21 [8-59] months; median [range] age for RV1, 22 [8-59] months vs 19 [8-59] months) but did not differ by sex. Among 1193 rotavirus-positive cases and 9620 rotavirus-negative controls, at least 1 dose of any rotavirus vaccine was 82% (95% CI, 77%-86%) protective against rotavirus-associated inpatient visits and 75% (95% CI, 71%-79%) protective against rotavirus-associated ED visits. No statistically significant difference during this 7-year period was observed for either rotavirus vaccine. Vaccine effectiveness against inpatient and ED visits was 81% (95% CI, 78%-84%) for RV5 (3 doses) and 78% (95% CI, 72%-82%) for RV1 (2 doses) among the study population. A mixed course of both vaccines provided 86% (95% CI, 74%-93%) protection. Rotavirus patients who were not vaccinated had severe infections 4 times more often than those who were vaccinated (74 of 426 [17.4%] vs 28 of 605 [4.6%]; P < .001), and any dose of rotavirus vaccine was 65% (95% CI, 56%-73%) effective against mild infections, 81% (95% CI, 76%-84%) against moderate infections, and 91% (95% CI, 85%-95%) against severe infections., Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from this large postlicensure study of rotavirus vaccine performance in the United States from 2010 to 2016 suggests that RV5 and RV1 rotavirus vaccines continue to perform well, particularly in preventing inpatient visits and severe infections and among younger children.

Background: Rotavirus vaccines (RVVs) were included in the US immunization program in 2006 and are coadministered with the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, yet their coverage lags behind DTaP. We assessed timing, initiation, and completion of the RVV series among children enrolled in active gastroenteritis surveillance at 7 US medical institutions during 2014-2016., Methods: We compared coverage and timing of each vaccine series and analyzed characteristics associated with RVV initiation and completion. We report odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from multivariable logistic regression models., Results: We enrolled 10 603 children. In 2015, ≥1 dose coverage was 91% for RVV and 97% for DTaP. Seven percent of children received their first DTaP vaccine at age ≥15 weeks versus 4% for RVV ( P ≤ .001). Recent birth years (2013-2016) were associated with higher odds of RVV initiation (OR = 5.72; 95% CI 4.43-7.39), whereas preterm birth (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.24-0.41), older age at DTaP initiation (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80-0.91), income between $50 000 and $100 000 (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.40-0.78), and higher maternal education (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.36-0.74) were associated with lower odds. Once RVV was initiated, recent birth years (2013-2016; OR = 1.57 [95% CI 1.32-1.88]) and higher maternal education (OR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.07-1.60) were associated with higher odds of RVV completion, whereas preterm birth (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.94), African American race (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.97) and public or no insurance (OR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.93) were associated with lower odds. Regional differences existed., Conclusions: RVV coverage remains lower than that for the DTaP vaccine. Timely DTaP administration may help improve RVV coverage., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Halasa received vaccines from Sanofi Pasteur for 1 of her studies and was a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Moderna; Dr Englund reports research support to her institution for clinical studies by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck; Dr Bernstein has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Wyeth Laboratories; Dr Harrison was an investigator on research projects for which his institution received grant funds from Merck, Pfizer, Cubist, Allergan, Regeneron, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline; he also received travel funds and an honorarium to present scientific data to Pfizer’s research team at their corporate headquarters; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Group A rotaviruses (RVA) are a significant cause of pediatric gastroenteritis worldwide. The New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) has conducted active surveillance for RVA at pediatric hospitals and emergency departments at 3-7 geographically diverse sites in the United States since 2006., Methods: Over 6 consecutive years, from 2008 to 2013, 1523 samples from NVSN sites that were tested positive by a Rotaclone enzyme immunoassay were submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for genotyping., Results: In the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons, genotype G3P[8] was the predominant genotype throughout the network, with a 46%-84% prevalence. In the 2012 season, G12P[8] replaced G3P[8] as the most common genotype, with a 70% prevalence, and this trend persisted in 2013 (68.0% prevalence). Vaccine (RotaTeq; Rotarix) strains were detected in 0.6%-3.4% of genotyped samples each season. Uncommon and unusual strains (eg, G8P[4], G3P[24], G2P[8], G3P[4], G3P[6], G24P[14], G4P[6], and G9P[4]) were detected sporadically over the study period. Year, study site, and race were found to be significant predictors of genotype., Conclusions: Continued active surveillance is needed to monitor RVA genotypes in the United States and to detect potential changes since vaccine licensure., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. D. I. B. has a patent and received royalties for what is now Rotarix vaccine. M. M. M. has laboratory service agreements with GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Using a multicenter, active surveillance network from 2 rotavirus seasons (2012 and 2013), we assessed the vaccine effectiveness of RV5 (RotaTeq) and RV1 (Rotarix) rotavirus vaccines in preventing rotavirus gastroenteritis hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits for numerous demographic and secular strata., Methods: We enrolled children hospitalized or visiting the ED with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) for the 2012 and 2013 seasons at 7 medical institutions. Stool specimens were tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay and genotyped, and rotavirus vaccination histories were compared for rotavirus-positive cases and rotavirus-negative AGE controls. We calculated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) for preventing rotavirus associated hospitalizations and ED visits for each vaccine, stratified by vaccine dose, season, clinical setting, age, predominant genotype, and ethnicity., Results: RV5-specific VE analyses included 2961 subjects, 402 rotavirus cases (14%) and 2559 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV1-specific VE analyses included 904 subjects, 100 rotavirus cases (11%), and 804 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. Over the 2 rotavirus seasons, the VE for a complete 3-dose vaccination with RV5 was 80% (confidence interval [CI], 74%-84%), and VE for a complete 2-dose vaccination with RV1 was 80% (CI, 68%-88%).Statistically significant VE was observed for each year of life for which sufficient data allowed analysis (7 years for RV5 and 3 years for RV1). Both vaccines provided statistically significant genotype-specific protection against predominant circulating rotavirus strains., Conclusions: In this large, geographically and demographically diverse sample of US children, we observed that RV5 and RV1 rotavirus vaccines each provided a lasting and broadly heterologous protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

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: As the most common cause of severe diarrhea among children, rotavirus has a significant economic impact. Previous studies focused on the direct medical costs of rotavirus infections; however, nonmedical costs account for the majority of the financial burden from this disease. Herein, we report the results from the largest prospective study in the United States determining the nonmedical costs of severe rotavirus infections., Methods: Prospective, active, gastroenteritis case surveillance was conducted between November 1997 and December 1999 at 3 pediatric medical centers. Rotavirus infection was identified for 548 children admitted between 2 weeks and 5 years of age. Detailed information about nonmedical costs during the prehospitalization, hospitalization and posthospitalization periods was obtained through interviews., Results: The average nonmedical cost per case of rotavirus disease was USD $448.77, including $359.04 for missed work, $56.66 for transportation, $11.90 for oral rehydration solutions, $9.59 for diapers, $6.83 for child care changes, $3.82 for special foods and $0.93 for formula changes. More than one-half of these expenses (53%) occurred outside the hospitalization period, and 80% of the cost was attributable to missed work., Conclusions: With an estimated 50,000 hospitalizations attributable to rotavirus each year in the United States, the nonmedical costs of severe rotavirus infections may exceed USD $22 million annually. Previous cost effectiveness analyses of rotavirus vaccines substantially underestimated this burden, suggesting that the nonmedical costs associated with mild to moderate rotavirus disease have been similarly underestimated. These findings are needed to assess accurately the cost effectiveness of future rotavirus immunization strategies.

Background Rotavirus is a leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in children and is highly transmissible. In this study, we assessed the presence of AGE in household contacts (HHCs) of pediatric patients with laboratory-confirmed rotavirus. Methods Between December 2011 and June 2016, children aged 14 days to 11 years with AGE were enrolled at 1 of 7 hospitals or emergency departments as part of the New Vaccine Surveillance Network. Parental interviews, medical and vaccination records, and stool specimens were collected at enrollment. Stool was tested for rotavirus by an enzyme immunoassay and confirmed by real-time or conventional reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay or repeated enzyme immunoassay. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted to assess AGE in HHCs the week after the enrolled child's illness. A mixed-effects multivariate model was used to calculate odds ratios. Results Overall, 829 rotavirus-positive subjects and 8858 rotavirus-negative subjects were enrolled. Households of rotavirus-positive subjects were more likely to report AGE illness in ≥1 HHC than were rotavirus-negative households (35% vs 20%, respectively; P <.0001). A total of 466 (16%) HHCs of rotavirus-positive subjects reported AGE illness. Of the 466 ill HHCs, 107 (23%) sought healthcare; 6 (6%) of these encounters resulted in hospitalization. HHCs who were <5 years old (odds ratio, 2.2 [ P =.004]) were more likely to report AGE illness than those in other age groups. In addition, 144 households reported out-of-pocket expenses (median, $20; range, $2–$640) necessary to care for an ill HHC. Conclusions Rotavirus-associated AGE in children can lead to significant disease burden in HHCs, especially in children aged <5 years. Prevention of pediatric rotavirus illness, notably through vaccination, can prevent additional illnesses in HHCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]