-
PloS One 2021Acute gastroenteritis (AGE), characterized by diarrhea and vomiting, is an important cause of global mortality, accounting for 9% of all deaths in children under five... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Acute gastroenteritis (AGE), characterized by diarrhea and vomiting, is an important cause of global mortality, accounting for 9% of all deaths in children under five years of age. Since the reduction of rotavirus in countries that have included rotavirus vaccines in their national immunization programs, other viruses such as norovirus and sapovirus have emerged as more common causes of AGE. Due to widespread use of real-time RT-PCR testing, sapovirus has been increasingly reported as the etiologic agent in both AGE outbreaks and sporadic AGE cases. We aimed to assess the role of sapovirus as a cause of endemic AGE worldwide by conducting a systematic review of published studies that used molecular diagnostics to assess the prevalence of sapovirus among individuals with AGE symptoms. Of 106 articles included, the pooled sapovirus prevalence was 3.4%, with highest prevalence among children <5 years of age (4.4%) and among individuals in community settings (7.1%). Compared to studies that used conventional RT-PCR, RT-qPCR assays had a higher pooled prevalence (5.6%). Among individuals without AGE symptoms, the pooled sapovirus prevalence was 2.7%. These results highlight the relative contribution of sapovirus to cases of AGE, especially in community settings and among children <5 years of age.
Topics: Gastroenteritis; Humans
PubMed: 34411109
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255436 -
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &... Dec 2021A vaccine introduction process should be systematic and transparent and take into account many factors, including cost-effectiveness evidence. This study aimed to assess...
INTRODUCTION
A vaccine introduction process should be systematic and transparent and take into account many factors, including cost-effectiveness evidence. This study aimed to assess quantity, characteristic, and quality of economic evaluation (EE) studies on vaccines performed in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.
AREAS COVERED
PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched since inception to December 2019 to identify published EE studies of vaccines, which were conducted in the 26 MENA countries. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
EXPERT OPINION
Of the 616 studies identified, 46 were included in the review. Most studies (65%) were conducted in Iran, Israel, and Turkey. The most commonly evaluated vaccines were rotavirus vaccine (n = 15; 33%), human Papillomavirus vaccine (n = 8; 17%), and pneumococcal vaccine (n = 7; 15%). We classified 5 (11%), 27 (59%), 12 (26%), and 2 (4%) studies as excellent, good, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. There were limited cost-effectiveness evidences in the region. It is imperative to have local guidelines on good practice and reporting, availability of local data, and funding sources to improve quantity and quality of EE studies of vaccines in the region, thereby, facilitating transparent and consistent decision-making processes.
Topics: Africa, Northern; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Middle East; Policy Making; Vaccines
PubMed: 34252335
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1954508 -
Vaccine Jul 2021Older children and adults are susceptible to rotavirus, but the extent to which rotavirus affects this population is not fully understood, hindering accuracy of global... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Older children and adults are susceptible to rotavirus, but the extent to which rotavirus affects this population is not fully understood, hindering accuracy of global rotavirus estimations.
OBJECTIVE
To determine what proportion of diarrhea cases are due to rotavirus among persons ≥ 5 years old and to estimate this proportion by age strata.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that reported on conditional rotavirus prevalence (i.e., percent of diarrhea due to rotavirus) in persons ≥ 5 years old who were symptomatic with diarrhea/gastroenteritis and had laboratory confirmation for rotavirus infection. Studies on nosocomial infections and outbreak investigations were excluded. We collected age group-specific conditional rotavirus prevalence and other variables, such as study geography, study setting, and study type. We calculated pooled conditional rotavirus prevalence, corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), heterogeneity (I) estimates, and prediction intervals (PI).
RESULTS
Sixty-six studies from 32 countries met the inclusion criteria. Conditional rotavirus prevalence ranged from 0% to 30% across the studies. The total pooled prevalence of rotavirus among persons ≥ 5 years old with diarrhea was 7.6% (95% CI: 6.2-9.2%, I = 99.6%, PI: 0-24%). The pooled prevalence of rotavirus among older children and adolescents was 8.7% (95% CI: 6.2-11.7%, I = 96%, PI:0-27%), among younger adults was 5.4% (95% CI: 1.4-11.8%, I = 96%, PI:0-31%), and among older adults was 4.7% (95% CI: 2.8-7.0%, I = 96%, PI:0-16%). Pooled conditional rotavirus prevalences did not differ by other variables.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of rotavirus among persons ≥ 5 years old with diarrhea, we found relatively low pooled conditional rotavirus prevalence compared to what is typically reported for children < 5 years; however, results should be interpreted with caution as the wide prediction intervals suggest large heterogeneity.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Feces; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Prevalence; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections
PubMed: 34244008
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.073 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Oct 2021A systematic review was conducted in Mexico to consolidate and evaluate evidence after 15 years of rotavirus vaccination, according to the National Immunization...
A systematic review was conducted in Mexico to consolidate and evaluate evidence after 15 years of rotavirus vaccination, according to the National Immunization Program. Five databases were screened to identify published articles (January 2000-February 2020) with evidence on all clinical and epidemiological endpoints (e.g. immunogenicity, safety, efficacy, impact/effectiveness) of rotavirus vaccination in Mexico. Twenty-two articles were identified (observational studies including health-economic models: 17; randomized controlled trials: 5). Fourteen studies evaluated a human attenuated vaccine (HRV), four studies evaluated both vaccines, and only two evaluated a bovine-human reassortant vaccine, with local efficacy data only for HRV. Local evidence shows vaccines are safe, immunogenic, efficacious, and provide an acceptable risk-benefit profile. The benefits of both vaccines in alleviating the burden of all-cause diarrhea mortality and morbidity are documented in several local post-licensure studies. Findings signify overall benefits of rotavirus vaccination and support the continued use of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Humans; Infant; Mexico; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 34187326
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1936859 -
Vaccine Jun 2021The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) makes recommendations for vaccines in Canada. To inform considerations for equity when making recommendations, the...
INTRODUCTION
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) makes recommendations for vaccines in Canada. To inform considerations for equity when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that may influence vaccine equity. To inform the matrix we mapped the evidence for PROGRESS And Other factors potentially associated with unequal levels of illness or death from vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and systematically reviewed the evidence for interventions aimed at reducing inequities.
METHODS
In October 2019 we searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. Our primary outcomes were VPD-related hospitalizations and deaths. Secondary outcomes were differential vaccine access, and exposure, susceptibility, severity, and consequences of VPDs. Two reviewers appraised the certainty of evidence. We mapped the evidence for PROGRESS And Other factors and summarized the findings descriptively. We summarized the interventions narratively.
RESULTS
We identified 413 studies reporting on PROGRESS And Other factors. The most commonly investigated factors included age (n = 374, 89%), pre-existing conditions (n = 179, 42%), and gender identity or sex (n = 144, 34%). We identified 2 trials investigating the effects of interventions. One (n = 1249) provided very low certainty evidence that staff vaccination policies may reduce hospitalizations and deaths from influenza among private care home residents. The other (n not reported) provided very low certainty evidence that universal vaccination by nurses in clinics may reduce hospitalizations for rotavirus gastroenteritis compared with vaccination by physicians or no intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a large body of studies reporting on hospitalizations and deaths from VPDs stratified by PROGRESS And Other factors. We found only two trials examining the effects of interventions on hospitalization for or mortality from VPDs. This review has been helpful to NACI and will be helpful to similar organizations aiming to systematically identify and target health inequities through the development of vaccine program recommendations.
Topics: Canada; Female; Gender Identity; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Vaccination
PubMed: 34092425
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.054 -
Vaccine Jun 2021Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.
METHODS
We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).
RESULTS
Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Topics: Adult; Child; Diphtheria; Female; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Pregnancy; United States; Vaccination
PubMed: 34049735
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.079 -
JAMA Pediatrics Jul 2021Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of Rotavirus Vaccines With Reduction in Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Children Younger Than 5 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies.
IMPORTANCE
Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after introduction are noteworthy.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of different rotavirus vaccines by synthesizing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
Relevant studies published in 4 databases: Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until July 1, 2020, using search terms including "rotavirus" and "vaccin*."
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies involving more than 100 children younger than 5 years that reported the effectiveness, safety, or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
A random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), risk differences, and 95% CIs. Adjusted indirect treatment comparison was performed to assess the differences in the protection of Rotarix and RotaTeq.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization. Safety-associated outcomes involved serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis of 20 RCTs and 38 case-control studies revealed that Rotarix (RV1) significantly reduced RVGE (RR, 0.316 [95% CI, 0.224-0.345]) and RVGE hospitalization risk (OR, 0.347 [95% CI, 0.279-0.432]) among children fully vaccinated; RotaTeq (RV5) had similar outcomes (RVGE: RR, 0.350 [95% CI, 0.275-0.445]; RVGE hospitalization risk: OR, 0.272 [95% CI, 0.197-0.376]). Rotavirus vaccines also demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. Additionally, no significant differences in the protection of RV1 and RV5 against rotavirus disease were noted in adjusted indirect comparisons. Moderate associations were found between reduced RVGE risk and Rotavac (RR, 0.664 [95% CI, 0.548-0.804]), Rotasiil (RR, 0.705 [95% CI, 0.605-0.821]), and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (RR, 0.407 [95% CI, 0.332-0.499]). All rotavirus vaccines demonstrated no risk of serious adverse events. A positive correlation was also found between immunogenicity and vaccine protection (eg, association of RVGE with RV1: coefficient, -1.599; adjusted R2, 99.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The high protection and low risk of serious adverse events for rotavirus vaccines in children who were fully vaccinated emphasized the importance of worldwide introduction of rotavirus vaccination. Similar protection provided by Rotarix and RotaTeq relieves the pressure of vaccines selection for health care authorities.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 33970192
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0347 -
Vaccine May 2021Rotavirus (RV) infection is the leading cause of diarrhoea-associated morbidity and mortality globally among children under 5 years of age. RV vaccination is available,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rotavirus (RV) infection is the leading cause of diarrhoea-associated morbidity and mortality globally among children under 5 years of age. RV vaccination is available, but has not been implemented in many national immunisation plans, especially in highly developed countries. This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence and incidence of health care use for RV gastroenteritis (RVGE) among children aged under 5 years in highly developed countries without routine RV vaccination.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 1 2000 to December 17 2018 for publications reporting on incidence or prevalence of RVGE-related health care use in children below 5 years of age: primary care and emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalisations, nosocomial infections and deaths. We included only studies with laboratory-confirmed RV infection, undertaken in highly developed countries with no RV routine vaccination plans. We used random effects meta-analysis to generate summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals.
RESULTS
We screened 4033 abstracts and included 74 studies from 21 countries. Average incidence rates of RVGE per 100 000 person-years were: 2484 (95% CI 697-5366) primary care visits, 1890 (1597-2207) ED visits, 500 (422-584) hospitalisations, 34 (20-51) nosocomial infections and 0.04 (0.02-0.07) deaths. Average proportions of cases of acute gastroenteritis caused by RV were: 21% (95% CI 16-26%) for primary care visits; 32% (25-38%) for ED visits; 41% (36-47%) for hospitalisations, 29% (25-34%) for nosocomial infections and 12% (8-18%) for deaths. Results varied widely between and within countries, and heterogeneity was high (I > 90%) in most models.
CONCLUSION
RV in children under 5 years causes many healthcare visits and hospitalisations, with low mortality, in highly developed countries without routine RV vaccination. The health care use estimates for RVGE obtained by this study can be used to model RV vaccine cost-effectiveness in highly developed countries.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Developed Countries; Humans; Infant; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 33934916
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.039 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Jun 2021To evaluate rotavirus (RV) disease burden and circulating strains of RV among Chinese children younger than 5-years old who had diarrhea from 2011 to 2018. PubMed, Web... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To evaluate rotavirus (RV) disease burden and circulating strains of RV among Chinese children younger than 5-years old who had diarrhea from 2011 to 2018. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI and WANFANG databases were systematically searched to identify studies that reported RV prevalence in mainland China. After data extraction, a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model was applied to estimate RV positivity and proportions of G and P types. Statistical analysis was conducted using R software. We initially reviewed 1323 studies, and identified 69 studies that were eligible. The overall proportion of RV gastroenteritis (RVGE) among children under 5-years old who presented with diarrhea and sought medical care was 34.0% (95% CI: 31.3, 36.8), and RV positivity was higher among inpatients (39.7%) than outpatients (23.9%). Western areas of China had the highest proportion of RVGE (42.7%), and RV positivity was highest for children who were 6 months-old to 2 years-old. The most prevalent G types were G3 (26.1%), G9 (17.5%), and G1 (12.8%), the most prevalent P type was P[8] (56.8%) and the most prevalent G-P combination was G9P[8] (20.9%). RV continues to be a main cause of acute gastroenteritis in Chinese children who are younger than 5 years old. Following the introduction of an RV vaccine in 2011, monitoring of the disease burden of RV diarrhea and circulating strains in China remain important for assessments of vaccine efficacy.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; China; Gastroenteritis; Genotype; Humans; Infant; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 33651653
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1849519 -
Vaccine Jan 2021Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include considerations for vaccine acceptability when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that influence acceptability. To inform and validate the matrix, we systematically reviewed evidence for factors that influence vaccine acceptability, and for interventions aimed at improving acceptability.
METHODS
On 10-11 October 2018 we searched four bibliographic databases, the Theses Canada Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. From each study, we extracted information about the participants, intervention or exposure, comparator, and relevant outcomes. Due to heterogeneity in the reported factors and acceptability indicators we synthesized the findings narratively. We appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. For each vaccine-preventable disease we populated a matrix of factors for which there was evidence of an influence on acceptability.
RESULTS
One hundred studies (>1 million participants) contributed data relevant to the public, 16 (6191 participants) to healthcare providers, and three (84 participants) to policymakers. There were 43 intervention studies (~2 million participants). Across vaccines, we identified low certainty evidence for 70 factors relevant to the general population, 56 to high-risk groups, and 30 to healthcare providers. The perceived safety and importance of the vaccine, vaccination history, and receiving a recommendation from a healthcare provider were common influential factors. We found low certainty evidence that reminders for childhood vaccines and policies or delivery models for rotavirus vaccines could improve uptake and coverage. Evidence for other interventions was of very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
The NACI vaccine acceptability matrix is useful for categorizing acceptability factors for the general public. Reminder systems may improve the uptake of childhood vaccines. Policies that make the rotavirus vaccine universally available and easily accessible may improve coverage.
FUNDING
This systematic review was completed under contract to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Contract #4600001536.
Topics: Canada; Child; Humans; Immunization; Reminder Systems; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 33257103
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.038