Retrospective Case-Control Study of 2017 G2P[4] Rotavirus Epidemic in Rural and Remote Australia.
case control
rotavirus
rotavirus vaccines
vaccine effectiveness
Journal
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-0817
Titre abrégé: Pathogens
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101596317
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2020
26 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
24
08
2020
revised:
22
09
2020
accepted:
22
09
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
1
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A widespread G2P[4] rotavirus epidemic in rural and remote Australia provided an opportunity to evaluate the performance of Rotarix and RotaTeq rotavirus vaccines, ten years after their incorporation into Australia's National Immunisation Program. We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis. Vaccine-eligible children with laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection were identified from jurisdictional notifiable infectious disease databases and individually matched to controls from the national immunisation register, based on date of birth, Aboriginal status and location of residence. 171 cases met the inclusion criteria; most were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (80%) and the median age was 19 months. Of these cases, 65% and 25% were fully or partially vaccinated, compared to 71% and 21% of controls. Evidence that cases were less likely than controls to have received a rotavirus vaccine dose was weak, OR 0.79 (95% CI, 0.46-1.34). On pre-specified subgroup analysis, there was some evidence of protection among children <12 months (OR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.02]), and among fully vs. partially vaccinated children (OR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.42-1.01]). Despite the known effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination, a protective effect of either rotavirus vaccine during a G2P[4] outbreak in these settings among predominantly Aboriginal children was weak, highlighting the ongoing need for a more effective rotavirus vaccine and public health strategies to better protect Aboriginal children.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A widespread G2P[4] rotavirus epidemic in rural and remote Australia provided an opportunity to evaluate the performance of Rotarix and RotaTeq rotavirus vaccines, ten years after their incorporation into Australia's National Immunisation Program.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis. Vaccine-eligible children with laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection were identified from jurisdictional notifiable infectious disease databases and individually matched to controls from the national immunisation register, based on date of birth, Aboriginal status and location of residence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
171 cases met the inclusion criteria; most were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (80%) and the median age was 19 months. Of these cases, 65% and 25% were fully or partially vaccinated, compared to 71% and 21% of controls. Evidence that cases were less likely than controls to have received a rotavirus vaccine dose was weak, OR 0.79 (95% CI, 0.46-1.34). On pre-specified subgroup analysis, there was some evidence of protection among children <12 months (OR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.02]), and among fully vs. partially vaccinated children (OR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.42-1.01]).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the known effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination, a protective effect of either rotavirus vaccine during a G2P[4] outbreak in these settings among predominantly Aboriginal children was weak, highlighting the ongoing need for a more effective rotavirus vaccine and public health strategies to better protect Aboriginal children.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32993048
pii: pathogens9100790
doi: 10.3390/pathogens9100790
pmc: PMC7601783
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : Post-Graduate Scholarship Grant 1134095
Organisme : Royal Australasian College of Physicians
ID : Paediatrics and Child Health Division NHMRC Scholarship
Organisme : Australian Academy of Science
ID : Douglas and Lola Douglas Scholarship
Références
Lancet. 2010 Aug 21;376(9741):615-23
pubmed: 20692031
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2018 Feb;17(2):145-161
pubmed: 29252042
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 15;52(2):191-9
pubmed: 21288843
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Sep;14(9):847-56
pubmed: 25082561
Vaccine. 2010 Nov 3;28(47):7507-13
pubmed: 20851085
Pediatrics. 2002 Dec;110(6):e67
pubmed: 12456934
Aust Vet J. 2012 Apr;90(4):122-9
pubmed: 22443326
Vaccine. 2012 Jan 11;30(3):539-43
pubmed: 22122860
Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):
pubmed: 31530719
Vaccine. 2019 Sep 16;37(39):5835-5843
pubmed: 31443995
J Infect Dis. 2010 Feb 1;201(3):363-9
pubmed: 20047501
Vaccine. 2019 Sep 24;37(41):6048-6053
pubmed: 31473003
Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2003;27(3):357-61
pubmed: 14510061
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 28;362(4):289-98
pubmed: 20107214
Vaccine. 2013 Dec 16;31(52):6170-1
pubmed: 23746456
Med J Aust. 2012 Oct 15;197(8):453-7
pubmed: 23072242
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018 Mar;37(3):e63-e65
pubmed: 29189673
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(1):13-20
pubmed: 23487388
Hum Vaccin. 2010 Jun;6(6):450-4
pubmed: 20448471
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 14;9(11):e032549
pubmed: 31727664
Vaccine. 2018 Jun 27;36(28):4062-4069
pubmed: 29861181
J Infect Dis. 2013 Jul 15;208(2):284-94
pubmed: 23596320
Infect Genet Evol. 2014 Dec;28:446-61
pubmed: 25224179
Lancet. 2010 Aug 21;376(9741):606-14
pubmed: 20692030
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Sep;8(9):e1195-e1202
pubmed: 32827481
Epidemiol Rev. 1988;10:212-41
pubmed: 3066628
Pediatrics. 2010 Sep;126(3):e506-12
pubmed: 20732946
JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Oct 1;172(10):958-965
pubmed: 30105384
J Infect Dis. 2018 Jul 13;218(4):546-554
pubmed: 29790933