Bayesian network meta-analysis suggests a similar effectiveness between a monovalent and a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparative effectiveness between RV1 and RV5

Outcome	Odds ratio^1 (95% Crl)	No. of studies (RV1, RV5)	No. of vaccines		No. of events
			RV1	RV5	RV1	RV5
Severe disease (up to 1 y)	1.75 (0.44–4.52)	16 (9, 7)	26 232	4130	126	40
Severe disease (up to 2 y)	2.23 (0.72–5.20)	17 (10, 7)	19 857	4568	144	119
All rotavirus diseases (up to 1 y)	1.32 (0.57–2.67)	13 (6, 7)	7749	6315	297	178
All rotavirus diseases (up to 2 y)	1.62 (0.77–2.92)	12 (6, 6)	5861	4542	148	314

¹ Odds ratio > 1 favors RV1 over RV5.

Table 2. Effectiveness of RV1 and RV5 compared with placebo

Outcome	RV1 (OR with 95% Crl)	RV5 (OR with 95% Crl)
Severe disease (up to 1 y)	5.52 (2.96–12.7)	3.60 (1.72–11.0)
Severe disease (up to 2 y)	5.68 (3.21–12.0)	2.83 (1.51–6.83)
All rotavirus diseases (up to 1 y)	3.50 (2.11–6.54)	2.89 (1.77–5.11)
All rotavirus diseases (up to 2 y)	3.11 (1.96–5.39)	2.06 (1.41–3.36)

Odds ratio > 1 favors RV1 or RV5 over placebo.

Table 3. Comparative effectiveness between RV1 and Rv5 stratified by the level of mortality in countries

	Country Level
Outcome	Low-Mortality Countries	High-Mortality Countries
Severe Disease (up to 1 y)	1.54 (0.01–5.46)	2.04 (0.38 –4.38)
Severe Disease (up to 2 y)	0.63 (0.04–2.32)	1.18 (0.40–2.42)
All Rotavirus Disease (up to 1 y)	1.91 (0.06–4.78)	1.20 (0.28–4.94)
All Rotavirus Disease (up to 2 y)	2.04 (0.38–4.64)	1.33 (0.10–14.3)

Presented in odds ratio with 95%Crls; odds ratio > 1 favors RV1 over RV5.