Table 1.
Proportion of children who tested rotavirus EIA-positive by hospital, calendar year and age group, and percentage reduction after vaccine introduction
| |
Before Vaccine Introduction |
After Vaccine Introduction |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
2006 |
2009 |
Total prevaccine |
2014 (introduction year) |
2015 |
2016 |
||||
| Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%)1 |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Percentage reduction in proportion rotavirus- positive (95% CI) |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Percentage reduction in proportion rotavirus-positive (95% CI) |
Rotavirus positive/ number tested (%) |
Percentage reduction in proportion rotavirus-positive (95% CI) |
|
| Tashkent2 | ||||||||||
| <1 y | 139/374 (37) | 128/492 (26) | 246/1079 (23) | 513/1945 (26) | 547/3151 (17) | 34% (26–42) | 231/2721 (8) | 68% (62–73) | 257/2360 (11) | 59% (52–66) |
| <5 y | 395/1066 (37) | 344/1300 (26) | 414/1850 (22) | 1153/4216 (27) | 1523/7651 (20) | 27% (21–33) | 624/5981 (10) | 62% (58–65) | 590/4677 (13) | 54% (49–58) |
| Bukhara | ||||||||||
| <1 y | 113/360 (31) | 107/397 (27) | 74/382 (19) | 294/1139 (26) | NA | NA | 105/716 (15) | 43% (29–55) | 70/551 (13) | 51% (36–63) |
| <5 y | 221/635 (35) | 170/640 (27) | 144/678 (21) | 535/1953 (27) | NA | NA | 210/1359 (15) | 44% (34–52) | 182/1162 (16) | 42% (32–52) |
12005 adjusted: see text.
2In Tashkent, enrollment sampling strategies differed by period. During the prevaccine introduction years, every third child was enrolled and data presented in the table are for those enrolled. During January 2014 – May 2015, enrollment strategies changed over time (from every second child to every child), and also depended on whether the child was vaccine-eligible (i.e., to be enrolled in potential vaccine effectiveness evaluation); numbers rotavirus positive and total numbers presented here for that period area are adjusted for the enrollment strategy used during that month (e.g., numbers doubled for months when every second child was to be enrolled). From June 2015 through December 2016, the goal was for every eligible child to be enrolled and results presented are for those enrolled.