4.5 Review

15-year experience with rotavirus vaccination in Mexico: a systematic literature review

Journal

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
Volume 17, Issue 10, Pages 3623-3637

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1936859

Keywords

acute diarrhea; rotavirus gastroenteritis; Mexico; rotavirus vaccine; systematic review; immunogenicity; health economics; disease burden; intussusception

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA [HO-19-20101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic review in Mexico after 15 years of rotavirus vaccination found that the vaccines are safe, effective, and have positive impact on reducing the burden of all-cause diarrhea mortality and morbidity. Local evidence supports the continued use of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico.
A systematic review was conducted in Mexico to consolidate and evaluate evidence after 15 years of rotavirus vaccination, according to the National Immunization Program. Five databases were screened to identify published articles (January 2000-February 2020) with evidence on all clinical and epidemiological endpoints (e.g. immunogenicity, safety, efficacy, impact/effectiveness) of rotavirus vaccination in Mexico. Twenty-two articles were identified (observational studies including health-economic models: 17; randomized controlled trials: 5). Fourteen studies evaluated a human attenuated vaccine (HRV), four studies evaluated both vaccines, and only two evaluated a bovine-human reassortant vaccine, with local efficacy data only for HRV. Local evidence shows vaccines are safe, immunogenic, efficacious, and provide an acceptable risk-benefit profile. The benefits of both vaccines in alleviating the burden of all-cause diarrhea mortality and morbidity are documented in several local post-licensure studies. Findings signify overall benefits of rotavirus vaccination and support the continued use of rotavirus vaccine in Mexico.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available