Estimating the incidence of symptomatic rotavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• Main Authors: Joke Bilcke, Pierre Van Damme, Marc Van Ranst, Niel Hens, Marc Aerts, Philippe Beutels
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2009-06-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2699052?pdf=render

BACKGROUND:We conducted for the first time a systematic review, including a meta-analysis, of the incidence of symptomatic rotavirus (RV) infections, because (1) it was shown to be an influential factor in estimating the cost-effectiveness of RV vaccination, (2) multiple community-based studies assessed it prospectively, (3) previous studies indicated, inconclusively, it might be similar around the world. METHODOLOGY:Pubmed (which includes Medline) was searched for surveys assessing prospectively symptomatic (diarrheal) episodes in a general population and situation, which also reported on the number of the episodes being tested RV+ and on the persons and the time period observed. A bias assessment tool was developed and used according to Cochrane guidelines by 4 researchers with different backgrounds. Heterogeneity was explored graphically and by comparing fits of study-homogenous 'fixed effects' and -heterogeneous 'random effects' models. Data were synthesized using these models. Sensitivity analysis for uncertainty regarding data abstraction, bias assessment and included studies was performed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Variability between the incidences obtained from 20 studies is unlikely to be due to study groups living in different environments (tropical versus temperate climate, slums versus middle-class suburban populations), nor due to the year the study was conducted (from 1967 to 2003). A random effects model was used to incorporate unexplained heterogeneity and resulted in a global incidence estimate of 0.31 [0.19; 0.50] symptomatic RV infections per personyear of observation for children below 2 years of age, and of 0.24 [0.17; 0.34] when excluding the extreme high value of 0.84 reported for Mayan Indians in Guatemala. Apart from the inclusion/exclusion of the latter study, results were robust. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:Rather than assumptions based on an ad-hoc selection of one or two studies, these pooled estimates (together with the measure for variability between populations) should be used as an input in future cost-effectiveness analyses of RV vaccination.