Vaccine · 2011
Intussusception following rotavirus vaccine administration: post-marketing surveillance in the National Immunization Program in Australia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Buttery J P, Danchin M H, Lee K J, Carlin J B, McIntyre P B, Elliott E J, Booy R, Bines J E, PAEDS/APSU Study Group
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In Australia, post-marketing surveillance for intussusception following vaccination commenced with funding of RotaTeq(®) and Rotarix(®) vaccines under the National Immunization Program (NIP) in July 2007.
METHODS: Two active surveillance mechanisms (hospital-based case ascertainment and monthly reports from paediatricians) identified intussusception cases between 1st July 2007 and 31st December 2008 in four states. Linkage to vaccination records identified cases occurring within 1-7 and 1-21 days of rotavirus vaccination. Expected cases within the post-vaccination windows were calculated by applying rates of intussusception from national hospitalisation data over 6 years (mid-2000 to mid-2006), by age and state, to numbers vaccinated (by dose) according to the Australian Childhood Immunization Register.
RESULTS: Combining exposure windows associated with all doses of rotavirus vaccine from 1 to 9 months of age, there was no evidence of an increased risk of intussusception following vaccination for either vaccine. However, in infants 1 to <3 months of age, there was suggestive evidence of excess intussusception cases 1-7 and 1-21 days following dose 1 (1-7 days: RotaTeq(®) relative risk (RR)=5.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1,15.4; Rotarix(®) RR 3.5, 95% CI 0.7,10.1; 1-21 days: RotaTeq(®) RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3, 7.6; Rotarix(®)RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.4, 3.9). There was no evidence that clinical outcome of intussusception occurring within 21 days of rotavirus vaccination differed from that in cases occurring later post-vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Although we found no overall increase in intussusception following receipt of rotavirus vaccine, there was some evidence of an elevated risk following the first dose of both vaccines. Larger population-based studies using linked databases are required to provide more definitive evidence.
METHODS: Two active surveillance mechanisms (hospital-based case ascertainment and monthly reports from paediatricians) identified intussusception cases between 1st July 2007 and 31st December 2008 in four states. Linkage to vaccination records identified cases occurring within 1-7 and 1-21 days of rotavirus vaccination. Expected cases within the post-vaccination windows were calculated by applying rates of intussusception from national hospitalisation data over 6 years (mid-2000 to mid-2006), by age and state, to numbers vaccinated (by dose) according to the Australian Childhood Immunization Register.
RESULTS: Combining exposure windows associated with all doses of rotavirus vaccine from 1 to 9 months of age, there was no evidence of an increased risk of intussusception following vaccination for either vaccine. However, in infants 1 to <3 months of age, there was suggestive evidence of excess intussusception cases 1-7 and 1-21 days following dose 1 (1-7 days: RotaTeq(®) relative risk (RR)=5.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1,15.4; Rotarix(®) RR 3.5, 95% CI 0.7,10.1; 1-21 days: RotaTeq(®) RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3, 7.6; Rotarix(®)RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.4, 3.9). There was no evidence that clinical outcome of intussusception occurring within 21 days of rotavirus vaccination differed from that in cases occurring later post-vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Although we found no overall increase in intussusception following receipt of rotavirus vaccine, there was some evidence of an elevated risk following the first dose of both vaccines. Larger population-based studies using linked databases are required to provide more definitive evidence.