Continued Evidence of the Impact of Rotavirus Vaccine in Children Less Than 3 Years of Age From the United States New Vaccine Surveillance Network: A Multisite Active Surveillance Program, 2006-2016.

BACKGROUND: Since 2006, the New Vaccine Surveillance Network has conducted active, population-based surveillance for acute gastroenteritis (AGE) hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in 3 United States counties. Trends in the epidemiology and disease burden of rotavirus hospitalizations and ED visits were examined from 2006 to 2016. METHODS: Children < 3 years of age hospitalized or visiting the ED with AGE were enrolled from January 2006 through June 2016. Bulk stool specimens were collected and tested for rotavirus. Rotavirus-associated hospitalization and ED visit rates were calculated annually with 2006-2007 defined as the prevaccine period and 2008-2016 as the postvaccine period. Rotavirus genotype trends were compared over time. RESULTS: Over 11 seasons, 6954 children with AGE were enrolled and submitted a stool specimen (2187 hospitalized and 4767 in the ED). Comparing pre- and postvaccine periods, the proportion of children with rotavirus dramatically declined for hospitalization (49% vs 10%) and ED visits (49% vs 8%). In the postvaccine era, a biennial pattern of rotavirus rates was observed, with a trend toward an older median age. G1P[8] (63%) was the predominant genotype in the prevaccine period with a significantly lower proportion (7%) in the postvaccine period (P < .001). G2P[4] remained stable (8% to 14%) in both periods, whereas G3P[8] and G12P[8] increased in proportion from pre- to postvaccine periods (1% to 25% and 17% to 40%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiology and disease burden of rotavirus has been altered by rotavirus vaccination with a biennial disease pattern, sustained low rates of rotavirus in children < 3 years of age, and a shift in the residual genotypes from G1P[8] to other genotypes.

Association of Rotavirus Vaccination With Inpatient and Emergency Department Visits Among Children Seeking Care for Acute Gastroenteritis, 2010-2016.

Importance: Rotavirus vaccines have been recommended for universal US infant immunization for more than 10 years, and understanding their effectiveness is key to the continued success of the US rotavirus vaccine immunization program. Objective: To assess the association of RotaTeq (RV5) and Rotarix (RV1) with inpatient and emergency department (ED) visits for rotavirus infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control vaccine effectiveness study was performed at inpatient and ED clinical settings in 7 US pediatric medical institutions from November 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016. Children younger than 5 years seeking medical care for acute gastroenteritis were enrolled. Clinical and epidemiologic data, vaccination verification, and results of stool sample tests for laboratory-confirmed rotavirus were collected. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness for preventing rotavirus-associated inpatient and ED visits over time for each licensed vaccine, stratified by clinical severity and age. Results: Among the 10 813 children included (5927 boys [54.8%] and 4886 girls [45.2%]; median [range] age, 21 [8-59] months), RV5 and RV1 analyses found that compared with controls, rotavirus-positive cases were more often white (RV5, 535 [62.2%] vs 3310 [57.7%]; RV1, 163 [43.1%] vs 864 [35.1%]), privately insured (RV5, 620 [72.1%] vs 4388 [76.5%]; RV1, 305 [80.7%] vs 2140 [87.0%]), and older (median [range] age for RV5, 26 [8-59] months vs 21 [8-59] months; median [range] age for RV1, 22 [8-59] months vs 19 [8-59] months) but did not differ by sex. Among 1193 rotavirus-positive cases and 9620 rotavirus-negative controls, at least 1 dose of any rotavirus vaccine was 82% (95% CI, 77%-86%) protective against rotavirus-associated inpatient visits and 75% (95% CI, 71%-79%) protective against rotavirus-associated ED visits. No statistically significant difference during this 7-year period was observed for either rotavirus vaccine. Vaccine effectiveness against inpatient and ED visits was 81% (95% CI, 78%-84%) for RV5 (3 doses) and 78% (95% CI, 72%-82%) for RV1 (2 doses) among the study population. A mixed course of both vaccines provided 86% (95% CI, 74%-93%) protection. Rotavirus patients who were not vaccinated had severe infections 4 times more often than those who were vaccinated (74 of 426 [17.4%] vs 28 of 605 [4.6%]; P < .001), and any dose of rotavirus vaccine was 65% (95% CI, 56%-73%) effective against mild infections, 81% (95% CI, 76%-84%) against moderate infections, and 91% (95% CI, 85%-95%) against severe infections. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from this large postlicensure study of rotavirus vaccine performance in the United States from 2010 to 2016 suggests that RV5 and RV1 rotavirus vaccines continue to perform well, particularly in preventing inpatient visits and severe infections and among younger children.

Long-term Consistency in Rotavirus Vaccine Protection: RV5 and RV1 Vaccine Effectiveness in US Children, 2012-2013.

BACKGROUND: Using a multicenter, active surveillance network from 2 rotavirus seasons (2012 and 2013), we assessed the vaccine effectiveness of RV5 (RotaTeq) and RV1 (Rotarix) rotavirus vaccines in preventing rotavirus gastroenteritis hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits for numerous demographic and secular strata. METHODS: We enrolled children hospitalized or visiting the ED with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) for the 2012 and 2013 seasons at 7 medical institutions. Stool specimens were tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay and genotyped, and rotavirus vaccination histories were compared for rotavirus-positive cases and rotavirus-negative AGE controls. We calculated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) for preventing rotavirus associated hospitalizations and ED visits for each vaccine, stratified by vaccine dose, season, clinical setting, age, predominant genotype, and ethnicity. RESULTS: RV5-specific VE analyses included 2961 subjects, 402 rotavirus cases (14%) and 2559 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV1-specific VE analyses included 904 subjects, 100 rotavirus cases (11%), and 804 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. Over the 2 rotavirus seasons, the VE for a complete 3-dose vaccination with RV5 was 80% (confidence interval [CI], 74%-84%), and VE for a complete 2-dose vaccination with RV1 was 80% (CI, 68%-88%).Statistically significant VE was observed for each year of life for which sufficient data allowed analysis (7 years for RV5 and 3 years for RV1). Both vaccines provided statistically significant genotype-specific protection against predominant circulating rotavirus strains. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, geographically and demographically diverse sample of US children, we observed that RV5 and RV1 rotavirus vaccines each provided a lasting and broadly heterologous protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis.

Effectiveness of pentavalent and monovalent rotavirus vaccines in concurrent use among US children <5 years of age, 2009-2011.

BACKGROUND: We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) for RotaTeq (RV5; 3 doses) and Rotarix (RV1; 2 doses) at reducing rotavirus acute gastroenteritis (AGE) inpatient and emergency department (ED) visits in US children. METHODS: We enrolled children <5 years of age hospitalized or visiting the ED with AGE symptoms from November 2009-June 2010 and from November 2010-June 2011 at 7 medical institutions. Fecal specimens were tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay and genotyped. Vaccination among laboratory-confirmed rotavirus cases was compared with rotavirus-negative AGE controls. Regression models calculated VE estimates for each vaccine, age, ethnicity, genotype, and clinical setting. RESULTS: RV5-specific analyses included 359 rotavirus cases and 1811 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV1-specific analyses included 60 rotavirus cases and 155 rotavirus-negative AGE controls. RV5 and RV1 were 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78%-88%) and 70% (95% CI, 39%-86%) effective, respectively, against rotavirus-associated ED visits and hospitalizations combined. By clinical setting, RV5 VE against ED and inpatient rotavirus-associated visits was 81% (95% CI, 70%-84%) and 86% (95% CI, 74%-91%), respectively. RV1 was 78% (95% CI, 46%-91%) effective against ED rotavirus disease; study power was insufficient to evaluate inpatient RV1 VE. No waning of immunity was evident during the first 4 years of life for RV5, nor during the first 2 years of life for RV1. RV5 provided genotype-specific protection against each of the predominant strains (G1P[8], G2P[4], G3P[8], G12P[8]), while RV1 VE was statistically significant for the most common genotype, G3P[8]. CONCLUSIONS: Both RV5 and RV1 significantly protected against medically attended rotavirus gastroenteritis in this real-world assessment.

Performance of an algorithm for assessing smallpox risk among patients with rashes that may be confused with smallpox.

After the 2001 anthrax bioterror attacks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed an algorithm to evaluate patients rapidly for suspected smallpox. A prospective, multicenter study examined the performance of this algorithm in assessing patients with an acute, generalized vesicular or pustular rash (AGVPR) admitted to emergency departments and inpatient units of 12 acute-care hospitals in 6 states. Of 26,747 patients (3.5% of all admissions) with rashlike conditions screened, 89 (1.2 patients per 10,000 admissions) had an AGVPR. Physicians or study staff classified none of 73 enrolled patients as being at high risk for having smallpox; 72 (99%) were classified as being at low risk, and 1 was classified as being at moderate risk. The discharge diagnosis for 55 (75%) of these 73 participants was varicella illness. Use of the algorithm did not result in misclassification of AGVPR as high risk for smallpox. The algorithm is a highly specific tool for clinical evaluation of suspected smallpox disease.

Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries.

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other positive and negative effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to prevent or control dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. The related systematic reviews are linked by a common conceptual approach. These reviews form the basis of recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) about the use of these selected interventions. The Task Force recommendations are presented in this supplement.