Skip to main content
. 2013 Jul;132(1):e25–e33. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3804

TABLE 4.

Vaccine Effectiveness According to Age

Evaluation and Control Group Source of Immunization Data Cases No. (%) Vaccinated Controls No. (%) Vaccinated VE 95% CI
a. 2 RV1 doses versus 0 doses
 Controls: rotavirus-negative
  Ages 8 mo–11 mo Provider 14 5 (36) 61 45 (74) 85 35 to 97
  Ages 12 mo–23 mo Provider 66 14 (21) 68 46 (68) 91 75 to 96
 Controls: IIS (matched)a
  Ages 8 mo–11 mo IIS 14 4 (29) 196 114 (58) 70 −4 to 91
IIS, restricted 14 4 (29) 168 114 (68) 89 48 to 98
  Ages 12 mo–23 mo IIS 65 13 (20) 967 462 (48) 76 53 to 87
IIS, restricted 62 13 (21) 781 452 (58) 84 69 to 92
b. 3 RV5 doses versus 0 doses
 Controls: rotavirus-negative
  Ages 8 mo–11 mo Provider 10 1 (10) 34 18 (53) 94 37 to 99
  Ages 12 mo–23 mo Provider 55 3 (5) 36 14 (39) 90 56 to 98
 Controls: IIS (matched)a,b
  Ages 8 mo–11 mo IIS, Georgia only 10 1 (10) 111 45 (41) 82 (−50 to 98)
IIS, Georgia only, restricted 10 1 (10) 94 45 (48) 88 (0 to 99)
  Ages 12 mo–23 mo IIS, Georgia only 39 2 (5) 535 198 (37) 92 64 to 98
IIS, Georgia only, restricted 37 2 (5) 405 185 (46) 94 74 to 99

“Restricted” indicates analysis was restricted to children that had at least 1 dose of DTaP, PCV or RV in IIS record.

a

Separate model was used for each age group.

b

Analysis performed only with Georgia IIS because IIS in Connecticut could not differentiate RV5 doses from doses with unknown manufacturer.