The rotavirus vaccines RotaTeq(R) (Rotavirus Vaccine, live, oral, pentavalent) [RV5] (Merck & Co., Inc.) and Rotarix(R) (Rotavirus Vaccine, live, oral) [RV1] (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) are recommended for routine use among U.S. infants by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Recent observational studies suggest that rotavirus vaccines dramatically reduce hospitalizations and emergency department visits among young children in the U.S.; however, there are currently no large-scale studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of RV5 and RV1. We propose to compare the effectiveness and safety of RV5 and RV1 in a population of over 700,000 infants in the U.S. who were covered by private insurance or Medicaid insurance from 2006-2011.The large size of our study will allow us to characterize small differences between the two rotavirus vaccines with regards to effectiveness, which may differ as RV5 requires three administrations versus two for RV1. Our novel self-controlled design and data-driven vaccine surveillance methods will help us further characterize the potential risks linked to rotavirus vaccination intussusception as well as identify other potential conditions of concern. In addition to comparative effectiveness and safety analyses, we will study coverage patterns of both vaccines, including geographic disparities and differences in completion of the rotavirus vaccination series. We will further determine individual provider, and ecological predictors of rotavirus vaccine uptake. Our research will be conducted with guidance from a panel of experts and stakeholders from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Harvard School of Public Health, and the Center Biologics Evaluation and Research at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The results of our research will help inform potential quality improvement initiatives by identifying predictors of rotavirus vaccine uptake and will provide clinicians, payors, regulators, and policy makers with timely information on the relative benefits and harms of RV5 versus RV1. The study will also contribute to the development of modern statistical methods and study designs that can be used to study of benefits and risks associated with childhood vaccines.

Public Health Relevance

The comparative effectiveness and safety of RV5 versus RV1 has not been established in U.S. infants, and patterns of use of the vaccines have not been described. Using healthcare data from over 700,000 infants with private insurance or Medicaid, we will examine patterns of use, comparative effectiveness and safety of the rotavirus vaccines. We will also examine effectiveness and safety of the vaccines in various subgroups, including infants who reside in rural geographies, failed to complete the vaccine series, or received the vaccine on an alternative schedule. The results of our research will help inform potential quality improvement initiatives by identifying predictors of rotavirus vaccine uptake and will provide clinicians, payors, regulators, and policy makers with timely information on the relative benefits and harms of RV5 versus RV1.

National Institute of Health (NIH)
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD)
Exploratory/Developmental Grants (R21)
Project #
Application #
Study Section
Infectious Diseases, Reproductive Health, Asthma and Pulmonary Conditions Study Section (IRAP)
Program Officer
Grave, Gilman D
Project Start
Project End
Budget Start
Budget End
Support Year
Fiscal Year
Total Cost
Indirect Cost
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Public Health & Prev Medicine
Schools of Public Health
Chapel Hill
United States
Zip Code
Hong, Jin-Liern; Jonsson Funk, Michele; Buse, John B et al. (2017) Comparative Effect of Initiating Metformin Versus Sulfonylureas on Breast Cancer Risk in Older Women. Epidemiology 28:446-454
Lund, Jennifer L; Horváth-Puhó, Erzsébet; Komjáthiné Szépligeti, Szimonetta et al. (2017) Conditioning on future exposure to define study cohorts can induce bias: the case of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and risk of major bleeding. Clin Epidemiol 9:611-626
Gokhale, Mugdha; Buse, John B; Jonsson Funk, Michele et al. (2017) No increased risk of cardiovascular events in older adults initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs therapeutic alternatives. Diabetes Obes Metab 19:970-978
Alan Brookhart, M; Li, Xiaojuan; Kshirsagar, Abhijit V (2017) What are the Considerations in Balancing Benefits and Risks in Iron Treatment?: Balancing Benefits and Safety with Intravenous Iron Treatment. Semin Dial 30:25-27
Hong, Jin-Liern; Henderson, Louise M; Jonsson Funk, Michele et al. (2017) Differential Use of Screening Mammography in Older Women Initiating Metformin versus Sulfonylurea. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 26:666-675
Zimmerman, Kanecia O; Smith, P Brian; Benjamin, Daniel K et al. (2017) Sedation, Analgesia, and Paralysis during Mechanical Ventilation of Premature Infants. J Pediatr 180:99-104.e1
Brookhart, M Alan; Freburger, Janet K; Ellis, Alan R et al. (2016) Comparative Short-term Safety of Sodium Ferric Gluconate Versus Iron Sucrose in Hemodialysis Patients. Am J Kidney Dis 67:119-27
Akizawa, Tadao; Kurita, Noriaki; Mizobuchi, Masahide et al. (2016) PTH-dependence of the effectiveness of cinacalcet in hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism. Sci Rep 6:19612
Gokhale, Mugdha; Girman, Cynthia; Chen, Yong et al. (2016) Comparison of diagnostic evaluations for cough among initiators of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 25:512-20
Young, Jessica C; Stürmer, Til; Lund, Jennifer L et al. (2016) Predictors of prevalent statin use among older adults identified as statin initiators based on Medicare claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 25:836-43

Showing the most recent 10 out of 26 publications