Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33357507›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021

Community transmission of rotavirus infection in a vaccinated population in Blantyre, Malawi: a prospective household cohort study.

Aisleen Bennett, Louisa Pollock, Naor Bar-Zeev, Joseph A Lewnard, Khuzwayo C Jere, Benjamin Lopman, Miren Iturriza-Gomara, Virginia E Pitzer, Nigel A Cunliffe

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rotavirus vaccines: progress and new developments.Expert opinion on biological therapy · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Aisleen BennettMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; Centre for Global Vaccine Research, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: aisleen.bennett@liverpool.ac.uk.
Louisa PollockMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; Centre for Global Vaccine Research, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Naor Bar-ZeevMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; International Vaccine Access Center, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Joseph A LewnardSchool of Public Health, University of California Berkley, Berkley, CA, USA.
Khuzwayo C JereMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; Centre for Global Vaccine Research, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Benjamin LopmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Miren Iturriza-GomaraMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; Centre for Global Vaccine Research, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Virginia E PitzerDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Nigel A CunliffeMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi; Centre for Global Vaccine Research, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Malawi · MWEmory University · USJohns Hopkins University · USMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme · MWYale University · US

Funding

Modeling the impact and cost-effectiveness of next-generation rotavirus vaccine strategies in low- and middle-income countriesR01AI112970 · NIAID · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI PITZER, VIRGINIA E · 2015 to 2024
$4.1M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI112970Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRotavirus vaccine effectiveness is reduced among children in low-income countries. Indirect (transmission-mediated) effects of rotavirus vaccine might contribute to the total population effect of vaccination. We aimed to examine risk factors for transmission of rotavirus to household contacts in Blantyre, Malawi, and estimated the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in preventing transmission of infection to household contacts.

methodsIn this prospective household cohort study, we recruited children born after Sept 17, 2012, and aged at least 6 weeks (vaccine-eligible children) with acute rotavirus gastroenteritis and their household contacts, in four government health facilities in Blantyre, Malawi. Clinical data, a bulk stool sample, and 1-2 mL of serum were collected from case children at presentation. Clinical data and stool samples were also prospectively collected from household contacts over 14 days from presentation. A single stool sample was collected from control households containing asymptomatic children who were frequency age-matched to case children. Samples were tested for rotavirus using semi-quantitative real-time PCR and for anti-rotavirus IgA using a semi-quantitative sandwich ELISA. Risk factors for household transmission of rotavirus infection and clinical disease, including disease severity and faecal shedding density, were identified using mixed effects logistic regression. Vaccine effectiveness against transmission was estimated as 1 minus the ratio of secondary attack rates in vaccinated and counterfactual unvaccinated populations, using vaccine effectiveness estimates from the associated diarrhoeal surveillance platform to estimate the counterfactual secondary attack rate without vaccination.

findingsBetween Feb 16, 2015, and Nov 11, 2016, we recruited 196 case households (705 members) and 55 control households (153 members). Household secondary attack rate for rotavirus infection was high (434 [65%] of 665 individuals) and secondary attack rate for clinical disease was much lower (37 [5%] of 698). Asymptomatic infection in control households was common (40 [28%] of 144). Increasing disease severity in an index child (as measured by Vesikari score) was associated with increased risk of transmission of infection (odds ratio 1·17 [95% CI 1·06-1·30) and disease (1·28 [1·08-1·52]) to household contacts. Estimated vaccine effectiveness against transmission was 39% (95% CI 16-57).

interpretationRotavirus vaccine has the potential to substantially reduce household rotavirus transmission. This finding should be considered in clinical and health economic assessments of vaccine effectiveness.

fundingWellcome Trust, US National Institutes of Health, and US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDiarrheaFecesFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin AIncidenceMalawiMaleMiddle AgedImmunoglobulin ARotavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33357507
PMCPMC8064916
OpenAlexW3113923979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.