Vaccine · 2020
Safety profile of rotavirus vaccines among individuals aged ≥8 months of age, United States, vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), 2006-2019.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haber Penina, Tate Jacqueline, Marquez Paige L, Moro Pedro L, Parashar Umesh
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In 2006 and 2008, two live, oral rotavirus vaccines, RotaTeq (RV5) and Rotarix (RV1), were introduced into the routine immunization program in the United States. A previous rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, was associated with an increased risk of intussusception, with data suggesting an age-dependent variation in risk. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) currently recommends that RV5 or RV1 immunization be initiated by age 14 weeks and 6 days and completed by 8 months 0 days.
METHODS: We searched for U.S. VAERS reports of RV5, RV1, or unknown rotavirus vaccine brand among individuals aged ≥8 months. We analyzed reports by 2 age groups (individuals aged ≥8 months-≤5 years and ≥6 years), vaccine brand name, adverse event (AE) reported, classification of seriousness (death, non-death serious, and non-serious) and mode of exposure (direct vs. indirect exposure). For serious reports we reviewed available medical records and assigned a primary diagnosis.
RESULTS: VAERS received a total of 344 U.S. reports following rotavirus vaccination among individuals ≥8 months of age, 32 (9.3%) were serious. In the younger age-group, 307 (99%) of 309 reports followed direct vaccination of the child. In contrast, in individuals aged ≥6 years, 21 (60%) of 35 reports were via potential indirect exposure to a vaccinated child. The frequently reported AEs in the younger age-group were inappropriate schedule of drug administration 104 (34%) and drug administered to patient of inappropriate age 45 (15%); in the older group these were accidental exposure 9 (26%) and eye irritation 7 (20%). No difference in the safety profile was observed between RV1 and RV5.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any unexpected AEs for RV vaccines among individuals aged ≥8 months. Health care providers should adhere to the ACIP recommended schedule and older individuals should apply necessary precautions to prevent potential secondary exposure from vaccinated children.
METHODS: We searched for U.S. VAERS reports of RV5, RV1, or unknown rotavirus vaccine brand among individuals aged ≥8 months. We analyzed reports by 2 age groups (individuals aged ≥8 months-≤5 years and ≥6 years), vaccine brand name, adverse event (AE) reported, classification of seriousness (death, non-death serious, and non-serious) and mode of exposure (direct vs. indirect exposure). For serious reports we reviewed available medical records and assigned a primary diagnosis.
RESULTS: VAERS received a total of 344 U.S. reports following rotavirus vaccination among individuals ≥8 months of age, 32 (9.3%) were serious. In the younger age-group, 307 (99%) of 309 reports followed direct vaccination of the child. In contrast, in individuals aged ≥6 years, 21 (60%) of 35 reports were via potential indirect exposure to a vaccinated child. The frequently reported AEs in the younger age-group were inappropriate schedule of drug administration 104 (34%) and drug administered to patient of inappropriate age 45 (15%); in the older group these were accidental exposure 9 (26%) and eye irritation 7 (20%). No difference in the safety profile was observed between RV1 and RV5.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any unexpected AEs for RV vaccines among individuals aged ≥8 months. Health care providers should adhere to the ACIP recommended schedule and older individuals should apply necessary precautions to prevent potential secondary exposure from vaccinated children.