Impact of vaccination with different types of rotavirus vaccines on the incidence of intussusception: a randomized controlled meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundIntussusception is a prevalent pediatric issue causing acute abdominal pain, with potential links to rotavirus vaccines. The variety of these vaccines has grown in recent years. This meta-analysis study aims to evaluate the impact of various rotavirus vaccines on intussusception incidence.MethodsWe executed a thorough search across databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, leading to the selection of 15 credible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that encompass various types of rotavirus vaccines. From each study, we extracted essential details such as vaccine types and intussusception occurrences. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, conducted statistical analysis with R (version 4.2.3), determined relative risk (RR) using a random effects model, and performed a subgroup analysis for vaccines of differing brands and types.ResultsWe included 15 randomized controlled studies from various countries. While intussusception incidence differed between vaccinated and control groups, this difference was not statistically significant. The overall risk ratio (RR), calculated using a random effects model, was 0.81, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.53, 1.23]. This crossing 1 shows that vaccination didn't notably change disease risk. Additionally, the 0% group heterogeneity suggests consistency across studies, strengthening our conclusions. Subgroup analysis for different vaccine brands and types (RV1 (Rotarix, Rotavac, RV3-BB), RV3 (LLR3), RV5 (RotasiiL, RotaTeq), and RV6) showed no significant variation in intussusception incidence. Despite variations in RR among subgroups, these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur study indicates that rotavirus vaccination does not significantly increase the incidence of intussusception. Despite varying impacts across different vaccine brands and types, these variations are insignificant. Given the substantial benefits outweighing the risks, promoting the use of newly developed rotavirus vaccines remains highly valuable.Systematic Review Registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023425279.

Rotavirus vaccination is a protective factor for adverse outcomes in primary intussusception: a single-center retrospective study

“…A growing number of studies have found that the introduction of rotavirus vaccine does not increase the incidence of intussusception ( 2 , 7 , 16 - 18 , 24 ). Wang et al ( 25 ) included 15 randomized controlled studies from different countries for the latest meta-analysis and found that rotavirus vaccination did not increase the incidence of intussusception, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of intussusception by subgroup analysis of different vaccine brands and types. More importantly, data from Korea and Japan ( 26 , 27 ) showed that the incidence of intussusception in children decreased after rotavirus vaccine introduction, suggesting that rotavirus vaccination may also have a protective effect.…”