Key result
Rotavirus vaccines (RV1 and RV5) decreased acute gastroenteritis deaths and hospitalizations in young children, with rare adverse events such as intussusception occurring at rates <1 in 50,000.
Why the study?
Do rotavirus vaccines reduce acute gastroenteritis and related complications in young children?
Do rotavirus vaccines reduce acute gastroenteritis and related complications in young children?
Rotavirus vaccines are safe and highly effective in reducing severe gastroenteritis, hospitalizations, and deaths in young children in real-world settings.
Supports routine pediatric immunization; leaves open optimal implementation in diverse global settings.
Rotaviruses are the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in young children worldwide. Both licensed rotavirus vaccines (Rotarix™ [RV1] and RotaTeq™ [RV5]) are effective and safe. Studies from countries that have included RV1 or RV5 in the national immunization programs have demonstrated their safety and sustained efficacy under real-life circumstances. A significant decline in acute gastroenteritis-related deaths among Latin American children was observed after the introduction of RV1 and RV5 vaccines. Both vaccines were able to decrease the number of cases of rotavirus acute gastroenteritis and of severe rotavirus diseases. Vaccination was also associated with a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations and outpatient visits for all-cause acute gastroenteritis. Indirect protection after infant mass vaccination has been strongly suggested. Moreover, postlicensure safety studies assessed rare adverse events (rates <1 in 50,000), such as intussusception.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lepage et al. (2012) conducted a review in Acute gastroenteritis. Rotavirus vaccines (Rotarix and RotaTeq) was evaluated. Rotavirus vaccines (RV1 and RV5) decreased acute gastroenteritis deaths and hospitalizations in young children, with rare adverse events such as intussusception occurring at rates <1 in 50,000.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: