Evidence Hub

Transporting monovalent rotavirus vaccine efficacy estimates to an external target population: a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in Malawi

Denise T. St Jean, Jessie K. Edwards, E. Rogawski McQuade, P. Thompson, James C. Thomas, S. Becker-Dreps

Epidemiology and Infection, 2023

1,008 participants

Abstract

Abstract Oral rotavirus vaccine efficacy estimates from randomised controlled trials are highly variable across settings. Although the randomised study design increases the likelihood of internal validity of findings, results from trials may not always apply outside the context of the study due to differences between trial participants and the target population. Here, we used a weight-based method to transport results from a monovalent rotavirus vaccine clinical trial conducted in Malawi between 2005 and 2008 to a target population of all trial-eligible children in Malawi, represented by data from the 2015–2016 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). We reweighted trial participants to reflect the population characteristics described by the Malawi DHS. Vaccine efficacy was estimated for 1008 trial participants after applying these weights such that they represented trial-eligible children in Malawi. We also conducted subgroup analyses to examine the heterogeneous treatment effects by stunting and tuberculosis vaccination status at enrolment. In the original trial, the estimates of one-year vaccine efficacy against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and any-severity rotavirus gastroenteritis in Malawi were 49.2% (95% CI 15.6%–70.3%) and 32.1% (95% CI 2.5%–53.1%), respectively. After weighting trial participants to represent all trial-eligible children in Malawi, vaccine efficacy increased to 62.2% (95% CI 35.5%–79.0%) against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and 38.9% (95%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,008 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free