Dataset Information

Population effectiveness of the pentavalent and monovalent rotavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

ABSTRACT: Rotavirus was the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in infants and young children prior to the introduction of routine vaccination. Since 2006 there have been two licensed vaccines available; with successful clinical trials leading the World Health Organization to recommend rotavirus vaccination for all children worldwide. In order to inform immunisation policy we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to assess population effectiveness against acute gastroenteritis.We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cinhal and Academic Search Premier and grey literature sources for studies published between January 2006 and April 2014. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were observational measuring population effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination against health care attendances for rotavirus gastroenteritis or AGE. To evaluate study quality we use used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies, categorising studies by risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. If two or more studies reported a measure of vaccine effectiveness (VE), we conducted a random effects meta-analysis. We stratified analyses by World Bank country income level and used study quality in sensitivity analyses.We identified 30 studies, 19 were from high-income countries and 11 from middle-income countries. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for laboratory confirmed rotavirus gastroenteritis was highest in high-income countries (89% VE; 95% CI 84-92%) compared to middle-income countries (74% VE; 95% CI 67-80%). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for those receiving the complete vaccine schedule (81% VE; 95% CI 75-86%) compared to partial schedule (62% VE; 95% CI 55-69%). Two studies from high-income countries measured VE against community consultations for AGE with a pooled estimate of 40% (95% CI 13-58%; 2 studies).We found strong evidence to further support the continued use of rotavirus vaccines. Vaccine effectiveness was similar to that reported in clinical trials for both high and middle-income countries. There is limited data from Low income settings at present. There was lower effectiveness against milder disease. Further studies, should continue to report effectiveness against AGE and less-severe rotavirus disease because as evidenced by pre-vaccine introduction studies this is likely to contribute the greatest burden on healthcare resources, particularly in high-income countries.

SUBMITTER: Hungerford D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5556361 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:S. pneumoniae can cause a wide spectrum of diseases, including invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia. Two types of pneumococcal vaccines are indicated for use in adults: 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PPV23) and a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).To systematically review the literature assessing pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness (VE) against community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults among the general population, the immunocompromised and subjects with underlying risk factors in real-world settings.We searched for peer-reviewed observational studies published between 1980 and 2015 in Pubmed, SciELO or LILACS, with pneumococcal VE estimates against CAP, pneumococcal CAP or nonbacteremic pneumococcal CAP. Meta-analyses and meta-regression for VE against CAP requiring hospitalization in the general population was performed.1159 unique articles were retrieved of which 33 were included. No studies evaluating PCV13 effectiveness were found. Wide ranges in PPV23 effectiveness estimates for any-CAP were observed among adults ?65 years (-143% to 60%). The meta-analyzed VE estimate for any-CAP requiring hospitalization in the general population was 10.2% (95%CI: -12.6; 33.0). The meta-regression indicates that VE against any-CAP requiring hospitalization is significantly lower in studies with a maximum time since vaccination ?60 months vs. <60 months and in countries with the pediatric PCV vaccine available on the private market. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously due to the high influence of two studies. The VE estimates for pneumococcal CAP hospitalization ranged from 32% (95%CI: -18; 61) to 51% (95%CI: 16; 71) in the general population.Wide ranges in PPV23 effectiveness estimates for any-CAP were observed, likely due to a great diversity of study populations, circulation of S. pneumoniae serotypes, coverage of pediatric pneumococcal vaccination, case definition and time since vaccination. Despite some evidence for short-term protection, effectiveness of PPV23 against CAP was not consistent in the general population, the immunocompromised and subjects with underlying risk factors.

Project description:ImportanceRotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after introduction are noteworthy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of different rotavirus vaccines by synthesizing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.Data sourcesRelevant 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 selectionRandomized 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 synthesisA 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 measuresThe primary outcomes were RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization. Safety-associated outcomes involved serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.ResultsA 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 relevanceThe 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine factors associated with parents' uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines for their children. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Cochrane Library, AIDSLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Ovid MEDLINE, Scholars Portal, Social Sciences Citation Index and Dissertation Abstracts International from inception through November 2017. METHODS:We included studies that sampled parents and assessed uptake of HPV vaccines for their children (?18 years) and/or sociodemographics, knowledge, attitudes or other factors associated with uptake. Study risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis and conducted moderation analyses to examine variance in uptake by sex of child and parent. RESULTS:Seventy-nine studies on 840?838 parents across 15 countries were included. The pooled proportion of parents' uptake of HPV vaccines for their children was 41.5% (range: 0.7%-92.8%), twofold higher for girls (46.5%) than for boys (20.3%). In the meta-analysis of 62 studies, physician recommendation (r=0.46 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.56)) had the greatest influence on parents' uptake, followed by HPV vaccine safety concerns (r=-0.31 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.16)), routine child preventive check-up, past 12?months (r=0.22 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.33)) and parents' belief in vaccines (r=0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.29)). Health insurance-covered HPV vaccination (r=0.16 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29)) and lower out-of-pocket cost (r=-0.15 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.07)) had significant effects on uptake. We found significant moderator effects for sex of child. CONCLUSIONS:Findings indicate suboptimal levels of HPV vaccine uptake, twofold lower among boys, that may be improved by increasing physician recommendations, addressing parental safety concerns and promoting parents' positive beliefs about vaccines, in addition to expanding insurance coverage and reducing out-of-pocket costs. Limitations of this meta-analysis include the lack of intervention studies and high risk of bias in most studies reviewed. Further studies should disaggregate HPV vaccine uptake by sex of child and parent.

Project description:BackgroundEfficacy of statins has been extensively studied, with much less information reported on their unintended effects. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on unintended effects is often insufficient to support hypotheses generated from observational studies. We aimed to systematically assess unintended effects of statins from observational studies in general populations with comparison of the findings where possible with those derived from randomized trials.MethodsMedline (1998 to January 2012, week 3) and Embase (1998 to 2012, week 6) were searched using the standard BMJ Cohort studies filter. The search was supplemented with reference lists of all identified studies and contact with experts in the field. We included prospective studies with a sample size larger than 1,000 participants, case control (of any size) and routine health service linkage studies of over at least one year duration. Studies in subgroups of patients or follow-up of patient case series were excluded, as well as hospital-based cohort studies.ResultsNinety studies were identified, reporting on 48 different unintended effects. Statins were associated with lower risks of dementia and cognitive impairment, venous thrombo-embolism, fractures and pneumonia, but these findings were attenuated in analyses restricted to higher quality studies (respectively: OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.02)); and marked heterogeneity of effects across studies remained. Statin use was not related to any increased risk of depression, common eye diseases, renal disorders or arthritis. There was evidence of an increased risk of myopathy, raised liver enzymes and diabetes (respectively: OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.61); OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.47 to 1.62); OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.73)).ConclusionsOur systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs. The absolute excess risk of the observed harmful unintended effects of statins is very small compared to the beneficial effects of statins on major cardiovascular events.

Dataset Information

Population effectiveness of the pentavalent and monovalent rotavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets