The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
(2020) 20:413
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02293-5
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Prospective surveillance for intussusception
in Indian children aged under two years at
nineteen tertiary care hospitals
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group
Abstract
Background: India introduced rotavirus vaccines (RVV, monovalent, Rotavac™ and pentavalent, Rotasiil™) in April
2016 with 6, 10 and 14 weeks schedule and expanded countrywide in phases. We describe the epidemiology of
intussusception among children aged 2–23 months in India.
Methods: The prospective surveillance at 19 nationally representative sentinel hospitals from four regions recruited
children with intussusception from April 2016 to September 2017. Data on sociodemography, immunization,
clinical, treatment and outcome were collected. Along with descriptive analysis, key parameters between four
regions were compared using Chi-Square/Fisher’s exact/Mann–Whitney U/Kruskal-Wallis tests. The pre- and postRVV periods were compared to estimate the risk ratios.
Results: Six hundred twenty-one children with intussusception from South (n = 262), East (n = 190), North (n = 136)
and West (n = 33) regions were recruited. Majority (n = 465, 74.8%) were infants (40.0% aged 4–7 months) with
median age 8 months (IQR 5, 13 months), predominantly males (n = 408, 65.7%) and half (n = 311, 50.0%) occurred
during March–June months. A shorter interval between weaning and intussusception was observed for ragi based
food (median 1 month, IQR 0–4.2 months) compared to rice (median 4 months, IQR 1–9 months) and wheat
(median 3 months, IQR 1–7 months) based food (p < 0.01). Abdominal pain or excessive crying (82.8%), vomiting
(72.6%), and bloody stool (58.1%) were the leading symptoms. Classical triad (abdominal pain, vomiting and bloody
stool) was observed in 34.8% cases (24.4 to 45.8% across regions). 95.3% of the cases were diagnosed by
ultrasound. 49.3% (10.5 to 82.4% across regions) cases were managed by reduction, 39.5% (11.5 to 71.1% across
regions) cases underwent surgery and 11.1% spontaneously resolved. Eleven (1.8%) cases died. 89.1% cases met
Brighton criteria level 1 and 7.6% met Level 2. RVV was received by 12 cases within 1–21 days prior to
intussusception. No increase in case load (RR = 0.44; 95% CI 0.22–1.18) or case ratio (RR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.3–1.2) was
observed after RVV introduction in select sites.
Conclusions: Intussusception cases were observed across all sites, although there were variations in cases,
presentation and mode of management. The high case load age coincided with age of the RVV third dose. The
association with ragi based weaning food in intussusception needs further evaluation.
Keywords: Intussusception, Prospective surveillance, Children, Epidemiology, Weaning food, Sociodemography,
Rotavirus vaccine, India
Correspondence: drmanojkdas@gmail.com
The INCLEN Trust International, F1/5, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New
Delhi 110020, India
© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
(2020) 20:413
Page 2 of 13
Background
To reduce the rotavirus diarrhoea related childhood deaths,
the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended
introduction of rotavirus vaccine (RVV) in national
immunization programmes (NIPs). Some increased risk of
intussusception after the first (relative risk, RR: 4.7–13.8)
and second (RR: 1.3–5.3) doses of RVVs was reported from
several countries (Mexico, Brazil, Australia, United
Kingdom, United States, Spain and Singapore) [1–8]. But
no increased risk of intussusception after any dose of RVV
was observed in some countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa)
[9, 10]. The impact of RVV on diarrhoea morbidity and
mortality outweigh the risk of intussusception and associated mortality [11]. In view of the concern about intussusception, documentation of baseline and monitoring
following RVV introduction have been recommended [12].
India introduced RVV into the NIP in April 2016 and by
2019 expanded countrywide in four phases [13]. Two types
of RVV are used in NIP, Rotavac™ (RV1-116E; Bharat Biotech) in 26 states/union territories and Rotasill™ (RV5;
Serum. Institute of India) in 11 states/union territories,
both follow 6, 10, 14 weeks schedule. Intussusception is an
acute severe clinical condition occurring mostly during infancy, which overlaps with the age of primary vaccinations. The nationally representative background
epidemiology of intussusception in India is not clear. The
reports from India primarily included retrospective data
and considerably varied in the epidemiology, presentation
and management [14, 15]. Information on population level
rate in India is limited and the reported incidences of intussusception requiring hospitalization varied from 17.7
(95% CI 5.9–41.4) in Delhi (North India) to 254 (95% CI
102, 524) cases per 100,000 child-years in Vellore (South
India) [16, 17]. The incidence of intussusception vary
widely globally, across the different high and low-middle
income countries [18]. The reasons for the variations are
unknown. There is no information from India regarding
the regional variation in intussusception epidemiology.
Thus, documentation of the intussusception epidemiology
prior to RVV introduction to establish a reliable baseline
for monitoring the trend over time and identify potential
risk factors was needed to support the vaccine safety surveillance efforts [19, 20]. Under the vaccine safety surveillance effort, we describe the epidemiology, clinical
characteristics of intussusception among children aged
under-2 years seeking hospital care in India and initial
changes with RVV introduction documented through a
nationally representative sentinel surveillance network.
tertiary care hospitals (Supplementary Figure 1). From the four
regions, 3–6 hospitals per region including medical colleges
and private-sector hospitals (North region- 5 sites, 3 public
and 2 private; South region- 5 sites, 2 public and 3 private;
East region- 6 sites, 5 public and 1 private; West region- 3
sites, 2 public and 1 private) were selected through a systematic process. Out of these sites, four sites were located in the
states where RVV was introduced in April 2017 under phase
1. At all sites the RVVs were available in private market during
the study period, even prior to the introduction in NIP.
Methods
Data management and analysis
Study area and participating hospitals
Double data entry was done for the CRFs using a customised data entry platform. The matched and verified
data were stored in the server with authorised access
This prospective active hospital-based sentinel surveillance
was conducted over 18 months, at 19 nationally representative
Case definition, case selection and data collection
The children aged 2–23 months admitted to these hospitals
with diagnosis of intussusception were eligible. All the ageeligible patients admitted were screened to identify the suspected cases (any of the diagnoses: intussusception, acute or
subacute intestinal obstruction, acute abdomen, abdominal
pain, abdominal distension, and blood in stool with vomiting).
These suspected cases were tracked till final diagnosis and all
confirmed intussusception cases were recruited after written
informed consent from parent or legally authorised representative. A log of screened, suspected and confirmed cases was
maintained. The data on socio-demography, feeding and
immunization (from immunization card), clinical features, investigation findings, hospital course, treatment and outcome
were collected using common case record form (CRF). The
symptoms were captured as recorded in the case sheets and
reported by the parents. An independent Case Adjudication
Committee (CAC) comprised of a paediatrician, paediatric
surgeon, and radiologist reviewed the CRFs and investigations
to assign the diagnostic certainty levels, according to Brighton
Collaboration case definition (BCCD) [21].
Quality assurance
Multilevel quality assurance and data quality-checking processes were put in place to ascertain protocol adherence,
rigor and completion of surveillance at all sites. A data team
reviewed all the CRFs and data-related query was resolved
at the earliest. Each site was visited by external experts
(Technical Advisory Group, TAG) to assess the case surveillance and tracking, consent, and data extraction quality
and completeness in the CRFs. The TAG members
checked CRFs completeness and quality for few randomly
identified cases with the case records. Subsequently members from the data team visited the study sites and checked
the admissions for the study period from the medical records section using diagnoses and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes (ICD-9/10, codes listed in
Supplementary Table 1), to identify any missed cases.
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
and daily backup. The standard of living index (SLI),
representing the socioeconomic status was estimated
using the scores for household assets ownership, with
reference to the National Family and Health Survey for
India [22]. The SLI was categorised into high, medium
and low categories. The cases were categorised into
levels 1 to 3 based on the BCCD criteria by the CAC
[21]. In view of the number of sites, for representation
we grouped the sites into four regions, North (5 sites),
South (5 sites), East (6 sites) and West (3 sites) regions.
The parameters (sociodemographic, feeding, clinical,
intervention and outcomes were compared between the
regions to detect variations. The intussusception classical triad includes three features; abdominal pain,
vomiting and blood in stools. We considered intussusception modified triad with abdominal pain, vomiting
and rectal bleeding, detected either as blood in stool or
blood on per-rectal examination. The descriptive analysis findings expressed the outputs as proportions,
means and standard deviations, or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. The values between
regions and groups were compared for statistical significance using Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests for the
proportions and Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis
tests for the medians depending on the skewness, sample
and number of groups. The missing data were excluded
from analysis. The statistical significance was considered
if p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using
STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA). In
the Indian context, there is no definite population catchment area for hospitals and no definite referral chain,
which makes estimation of the intussusception incidence
difficult. For comparison of the data across sites and intussusception time trend, in addition to case load (absolute number of cases), we attempted deriving the
intussusception case rate per 1000 paediatric hospitalisations at the hospitals. On review, while the admission
numbers in the paediatric medicine wards varied widely,
the admission numbers in the paediatric surgery wards
were relatively stable and the intussusception cases were
primarily managed in the paediatric surgery wards. Thus
we estimated the intussusception case rate per 1000
paediatric surgery admissions at these hospitals for comparison and trend analysis. For the four sites in three
states (Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Haryana), where
RVV (monovalent Rotavac™, 3 doses at 6, 10, 14 weeks
age) was introduced under NIP (in April 2017), the data
for the post-introduction period (April to September
2017, 6 months) was compared with the preintroduction periods (first: October 2016 to March 2017,
immediate 6 months pre-introduction period and second: April 2016 to September 2016, calendar matched 6
months during the previous year) to document the risk
ratio (95% confidence interval, CI). The detailed
(2020) 20:413
Page 3 of 13
methodology of the site selection and study implementation has been published as protocol [23].
Ethical issues
Informed written consent was obtained for all the eligible cases before recruitment and data collection. Confidentiality in data handling was maintained. The study
protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committees of all participating institutes.
Results
Between April 2016 and September 2017, out of the 182,
824 children (including 32,910 paediatric surgery admissions) admitted to the network hospitals, 1203 suspected
intussusception cases were identified and 621 eligible
children were recruited (Supplementary Figure 2). More
cases were recruited from Southern region (42.2%; 262/
621) followed by East (30.6%; 190/621), North (21.9%;
136/621) and West (5.3%; 33/621) regions. Past history
of intussusception was present in 24 (3.8%) cases. Table 1
shows the sociodemographic characteristics of children
with intussusception. A male predominance (male-female ratio: 1.9:1) was consistent across all regions. The
median age at presentation was 8 months (IQR 5, 13
months) (Supplementary Figure 3). Three quarters of
the cases were infants with equal share from the age
bands of 2–6 months (37.2%) and 7–12 months (37.7%)
(p < 0.01). Children aged 4–7 months contributed to
40.0% of the total cases. The pooled intussusception case
rate per 1000 paediatric surgery admission was 18.4
(IQR 14.7, 23.4). The intussusception case rate per 1000
paediatric surgery admission was highest for South (25.3,
IQR 23.4, 32.7) followed by North (14.5, IQR 11, 19.7),
East (13.8, IQR 10.5, 22) and West (6.6, IQR 1.2, 19.2)
regions respectively. The Fig. 1 shows monthly trends of
pooled intussusception case load and case rates per 1000
paediatric surgery admission (Fig. 1a) and the regional
case rates per 1000 paediatric surgery admission (Fig. 1b).
More cases (n = 311, 50.0%) were seen during March to
June months, in the summer season (Fig. 1). While
42.8% of the patients were resident of the same district
where the hospital was based, 41.9% of the patients presented directly to the hospital. Among the children aged
> 6 months, 23.2% were exclusively breastfed for 6
months and the median duration of breastfeeding was 4
months. Mixed feeding was initiated before 6 months of
age in 53.9% children. The median weaning age was 6
months and 61.0% received rice based food. Ragi (finger
millet) was given to 22.8% children, only in the South region. The interval between weaning and intussusception
was significantly shorter for ragi (median 1 month, IQR
0–4.2 months) than rice (median 4 months, IQR 1–9
months) and wheat (median 3 months, IQR 1–7 months)
based food (Table 1) (p < 0.01). On analysis for the South
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Page 4 of 13
(2020) 20:413
Table 1 The sociodemographic parameters and dietary practices of children with intussusception in India
Variable Category
Age (in months)
Gender
Family
Religion
SLI statusa
Place of residence
Referral status
Feeding practices
Weaning food type
Weaning initiation to illness onset interval (in
months)
2–6, n (%)
North
(n = 136)
South
(n = 262)
East
(n = 190)
West
(n = 33)
Total
(n = 621)
P
value
55 (40.4)
88 (33.6)
78 (41.1)
10 (30.3)
231 (37.2)
< 0.01
< 0.01
7–12, n (%)
57 (41.9)
92 (35.1)
73 (38.4)
12 (36.4)
234 (37.7)
13–18, n (%)
16 (11.8)
40 (15.3)
25 (13.2)
3 (9.1)
84 (13.5)
< 0.01
19–23, n (%)
8 (5.9)
42 (16.0)
14 (7.4)
8 (24.2)
72 (11.6)
< 0.01
Male, n (%)
86 (63.2)
170 (64.9)
128 (67.4)
24 (72.7)
408 (65.7)
< 0.01
Female, n (%)
50 (36.8)
92 (35.1)
62 (32.6)
8 (24.2)
212 (34.1)
< 0.01
Other, n (%)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (3.0)
1 (0.2)
–
Nuclear, n (%)
89 (65.4)
171 (65.2)
65 (34.2)
18 (54.5)
343 (55.2)
0.06
Joint/extended, n (%)
47 (34.6)
91 (34.7)
125 (65.8)
15 (45.5)
278 (44.8)
0.06
< 0.01
Hindu, n (%)
48 (35.3)
179 (68.3)
136 (71.6)
22 (66.6)
385 (62.0)
Muslim, n (%)
88 (64.7)
41 (15.6)
52 (27.3)
11 (33.3)
192 (30.9)
< 0.01
Christian, n (%)
0 (0.0)
42 (16.0)
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
43 (7.0)
–
High, n (%)
56 (41.2)
93 (35.5)
19 (10.0)
6 (18.2)
174 (28.0)
< 0.01
Medium, n (%)
33 (24.3)
124 (47.3)
65 (34.2)
6 (18.2)
228 (36.7)
< 0.01
Low, n (%)
47 (34.5)
45 (17.2)
106 (55.8)
21 (63.6)
219 (35.3)
< 0.01
Same district, n (%)
49 (36.0)
162 (61.8)
35 (18.4)
20 (60.6)
266 (42.8)
< 0.01
Other districtsb, n (%)
74 (54.4)
86 (32.8)
151 (79.5)
13 (39.4)
324 (52.2)
< 0.01
Outside state, n (%)
13 (9.6)
14 (5.3)
4 (2.1)
0 (0.0)
31 (5.0)
< 0.01
Primaryc, n (%)
91 (66.9)
64 (24.4)
87 (45.8)
18 (54.6)
260 (41.9)
< 0.01
Referredd, n (%)
45 (33.1)
198 (75.6)
103 (54.2)
15 (45.5)
361 (58.1)
< 0.01
Exclusively breastfed for 6 monthse, n/N (%)
3/26
(11.5)
16/52 (30.7) 18/85
(21.2)
1/1 (100)
38/164
(23.2)
< 0.01
Mixed food before 6 months agee, n/N (%)
25/78
(32.0)
130/197
(66.0)
46/100
(46.0)
12/20
(60.0)
213/395
(53.9)
0.08
Exclusive breastfeeding period (in months),
median (IQR)
5 (4–6)
4 (2–5)
4 (3–5)
5 (3.5–5)
4 (3–7)
–
Mixed food initiation age in months, median
(IQR)
6 (5–8)
4 (2–6)
5 (3–6)
5 (4–6)
5 (3–7)
–
Weaning age in months, median (IQR)
7 (6–8.2)
6 (4–6)
6 (5–7)
6 (5–7)
6 (5–7)
–
< 0.01
Rice, n (%)
48 (68.6)
116 (53.0)
80 (88.9)
5 (18.5)
249 (61.0)
Wheat n (%)
12 (17.1)
5 (23.0)
3 (3.3)
11 (40.7)
31 (8.0)
< 0.01
Ragi basedf, n (%)
0 (0.0)
50 (22.8)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
50 (12.0)
–
Other, n (%)
4 (5.7)
7 (3.2)
3 (3.3)
4 (14.8)
18 (4.0)
0.08
Mixed n (%)
6 (8.6)
41 (18.7)
4 (4.4)
7 (25.9)
58 (14.0)
Rice based, median (IQR)
3 (0–6)
3 (1–9)
4 (1–9)
4 (2–11.5) 4 (1–9)
0.08
0.05
Wheat based, median (IQR)
3 (2.5–7)
2.5 (1.2–5.2) 0 (0–1)
3 (2–7)
3 (1–7)
0.05
Ragif, median (IQR)
–
1 (0–4.2)
–
–
1 (0–4.2)
–
Other food, median (IQR)
4 (1.5–6)
1 (0–3)
0 (0–1)
9.5 (5.2–
13)
2.5 (0.7–5.5) 0.09
Multiple food, median (IQR)
7 (2.5–9)
6 (2.7–12)
6 (3–12)
6 (3–12)
6 (3–12)
0.1
Any food, median (IQR)
3 (1–7)
3 (1–8)
3.5 (1–8.2)
3 (1–9)
3.5 (1–8.2)
0.1
Notes:
Mixed food: Food used for weaning included at least two of the ingredients- rice, wheat, lentil and vegetables & fruits
a
SLI: Standard of living index, was estimated using the household assets ownership (22)
b
The residence of the patient was in other district in the state where the study hospital was based
c
The patient presented to the study hospital as the first institute
d
The patient was referred to the study hospital from another hospital
e
The denominators (N) indicate valid responses received for the parameters
f
Ragi: finger millet
The p values for some parameters could not be estimated due to small or no value in at least two groups
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
(2020) 20:413
Page 5 of 13
Fig. 1 The seasonal distribution of pooled intussusception case load and case rate during the calendar months (a) and regional intussusception
case rates during the study period (b). Note: Intussusception case rate: Intussusception cases per 1000 paediatric surgery admissions at
the hospitals
region only (where ragi based weaning practice was observed), the median interval between weaning and intussusception for ragi based food was significantly shorter
(median 1 month, IQR 0–4 months) than rice (median 5
months, IQR 2–9 months) and wheat (median 3 months,
IQR 2–8 months) based food (p < 0.01).
The pooled median interval between the onset to hospital admission was 2 days (IQR 1, 3), which varied
across the regions; North- 2 days (IQR 1, 3), South- 1
day (IQR 1, 3), East- 2 days (IQR 1, 3) and West- 2 days
(IQR 1, 2) (p = 0.07). Table 2 summarises the clinicopathological parameters and management for the
recruited children. Abdominal pain or excessive crying
(82.6%) was the most common symptom followed by
vomiting (72.6%) and blood in stool (58.1%), as reported
by the parents. More children had abdominal pain or excessive crying in North (84.6%) and East (72.6%) regions
and blood in stool in the East region (73.2%). The classical triad (abdominal pain, vomiting and blood in stool)
was observed in 34.8% cases, with 24.4 and 45.8% in the
South and in East regions, respectively (p < 0.01). When
blood on per-rectal examination was included, the modified intussusception triad (abdominal pain, vomiting and
blood in stool or blood on per-rectal examination) was
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Page 6 of 13
(2020) 20:413
Table 2 The clinicopathological characteristics and management of the children with intussusception in India
Variable Category
Symptoms, n (%)
Vomitinga
Bilious vomiting
b
Intussusception location, n (%)
Pathological lead point, n (%)
West
(n = 33)
Total
(n = 621)
P value
100 (73.5)
187 (71.4)
137 (72.1)
27 (81.8)
451 (72.6)
0.64
26 (9.9)
34 (17.9)
9 (27.3)
90 (14.5)
0.02
102 (75.0)
118 (45.0)
138 (72.6)
10 (30.3)
368 (59.3)
< 0.01
Excessive crying
49 (36.0)
172 (65.7)
109 (57.4)
17 (51.5)
347 (55.9)
< 0.01
Abdominal distension
34 (25.0)
29 (11.1)
69 (36.3)
3 (9.1)
135 (21.7)
< 0.01
Rectal bleeding
81 (59.6)
123 (47.0)
139 (73.2)
18 (54.6)
361 (58.1)
< 0.01
Diarrhoea
23 (16.9)
69 (26.3)
37 (19.5)
9 (27.3)
138 (22.2)
0.11
Constipation
18 (13.2)
43 (16.4)
12 (6.3)
3 (9.1)
76 (12.2)
0.01
Fever
34 (25.0)
64 (24.4)
31 (16.3)
13 (39.4)
142 (22.9)
0.02
Lethargy
2 (1.5)
16 (6.1)
16 (8.4)
2 (6.1)
36 (5.8)
0.07
Altered sensorium
1 (0.7)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.2)
–
Classical triad
52 (38.2)
64 (24.4)
87 (45.8)
13 (39.4)
216 (34.8)
< 0.01
Pallor
11 (8.1)
14 (5.3)
18 (9.5)
3 (9.1)
46 (7.4)
0.39
Dehydration
7 (5.2)
21 (8.0)
43 (22.6)
2 (6.1)
73 (11.8)
< 0.01
Fever
4 (2.9)
23 (8.8)
23 (12.1)
5 (15.2)
55 (8.9)
0.02
Lethargy
11 (8.1)
14 (5.3)
20 (10.5)
3 (9.1)
48 (7.7)
0.23
Abdominal distension
22 (16.2)
25 (9.5)
62 (32.6)
3 (9.1)
112 (18.0)
< 0.01
Abdominal tenderness
13 (9.6)
26 (9.9)
26 (13.7)
5 (15.2)
70 (11.3)
0.48
Abdominal mass
13 (9.6)
91 (34.7)
24 (12.6)
4 (12.1)
132 (21.3)
< 0.01
Bowel sound (absent/ abnormal)
11 (8.1)
10 (3.8)
43 (22.6)
2 (6.1)
66 (10.6)
< 0.01
Rectal prolapse
15 (11.0)
2 (0.8)
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
18 (2.9)
< 0.01
Rectal mass
3 (2.2)
4 (1.5)
11 (5.8)
0 (0.0)
18 (2.9)
0.04
Blood on PR examination
19 (14.0)
31 (11.8)
94 (49.5)
19 (57.6)
163 (26.3)
< 0.01
Modified triad
83 (61.0)
125 (47.7)
143 (75.3)
21 (63.6)
372 (59.9)
< 0.01
Ultrasound
121 (89.0)
262 (100)
179 (94.2)
30 (90.9)
592 (95.3)
< 0.01
CT scan
2 (1.5)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (0.3)
–
Barium enema
1 (0.7)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.5)
1 (3.0)
3 (0.5)
–
Surgery
12 (8.8)
0 (0.0)
10 (5.3)
2 (6.1)
24 (3.9)
< 0.01
Colo-colic
3 (2.2)
10 (3.8)
5 (2.6)
3 (9.1)
21 (3.4)
< 0.01
Ileo-colo-colic
8 (5.9)
7 (2.7)
4 (2.1)
2 (6.1)
21 (3.4)
< 0.01
Ileo-ileal
11 (8.1)
3 (1.2)
10 (5.3)
6 (18.2)
30 (4.8)
< 0.01
Ileo-ileo-colic
4 (2.9)
5 (1.9)
6 (3.2)
0 (0.0)
15 (2.4)
< 0.01
Ileocolic
109 (80.2)
234 (89.3)
163 (85.8)
20 (60.1)
526 (84.7)
< 0.01
Jejuno-jejunum
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.9)
1 (3.0)
2 (0.3)
–
> 1 locatione
1 (0.7)
3 (1.2)
1(0.5)
1 (3.0)
6 (1.0)
–
Lymph node
41 (30.1)
19 (7.2)
3 (1.6)
15 (45.4)
78 (12.6)
< 0.01
Appendix
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (1.0)
1 (3.0)
3 (0.4)
–
Payer’s patch
1 (0.7)
1 (0.3)
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.4)
–
Polyp
1 (0.7)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (3.0)
2 (0.3)
–
Others
2 (1.4)
0 (0.0)
3 (1.6)
0 (0.0)
5 (0.8)
–
Any lead point
45 (33.0)
20 (7.6)
9 (4.7)
17 (51.5)
91 (14.6)
< 0.01
f
Treatment modality, n (%)
East
(n = 190)
21 (15.4)
d
Diagnosis method, n (%)
South
(n = 262)
Abdominal pain
c
Signs, n (%)
North
(n = 136)
Reduction
56 (41.2)
216 (82.4)
20 (10.5)
14 (42.4)
306 (49.3)
< 0.01
Surgery
68 (50.0)
30 (11.5)
135 (71.1)
12 (36.4)
245 (39.5)
< 0.01
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Page 7 of 13
(2020) 20:413
Table 2 The clinicopathological characteristics and management of the children with intussusception in India (Continued)
Variable Category
North
(n = 136)
South
(n = 262)
East
(n = 190)
West
(n = 33)
Total
(n = 621)
P value
12 (8.8)
16 (6.1)
34 (17.9)
7 (21.2)
69 (11.1)
< 0.01
None
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.2)
–
No resectioni
41 (60.3)
25 (83.3)
106 (78.6)
9 (75)
181 (73.9)
< 0.01
Spontaneously resolvedg
h
Surgery type, n (%)
i
Outcome, n (%)
Brighton Collaboration Criteria level, n (%)
Illness in last 4 weeks, n (%)
With resection
27 (39.7)
5 (16.7)
29 (21.5)
3 (25.0)
64 (26.1)
< 0.01
Discharged
129 (94.9)
262 (100)
181 (95.3)
31 (93.9)
603 (97.1)
< 0.01
Referred
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.5)
2 (6.1)
3 (0.5)
–
LAMAj
3 (2.2)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
4 (0.6)
–
Died
4 (2.9)
0 (0.0)
7 (3.7)
0 (0.0)
11 (1.8)
–
Level 1
125 (91.9)
246 (93.9)
156 (82.1)
26 (78.8)
553 (89.1)
< 0.01
Level 2
5 (3.7)
15 (5.7)
24 (12.6)
3 (9.1)
47 (7.6)
< 0.01
Level 3
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
–
No level
6 (4.4)
1 (0.4)
10 (5.3)
4 (12.1)
21 (3.4)
< 0.01
Diarrhoea
10 (7.4)
55 (21.0)
11 (5.8)
4 (12.1)
80 (12.9)
0.04
ARI
17 (12.5)
104 (39.7)
21 (11.1)
5 (15.2)
147 (23.7)
0.04
Notes: PR Per-rectal, ARI Acute respiratory illnesses
a
Includes all vomiting including bilious vomiting
b
Includes only bilious vomiting
c
Classical triad includes abdominal pain, vomiting and blood in stool
d
Modified triad includes abdominal pain, vomiting and rectal bleeding (detected either as blood in stool or blood on per-rectal examination)
e
The location of intussusception at more than one site; such as Ileo-colic + Colo-colic, Ileo-colic + Ileo-colo-colic, Ileo-colic + Ileo-ileo-colic, Ileo-colic + Ileo-ileal
f
Others include cyst, Meckel’s diverticulum, incisional hernia, intraluminal growth and malrotation
g
Spontaneously resolved: The patient was managed with IV fluids and nil orally, not required any additional intervention
h
None- No definite treatment could be provided, as the patient(s) was referred or died before any definite treatment
i
The denominators used for percentage estimation include patients undergone surgery only
j
LAMA: Left against medical advice
The p values for some parameters could not be estimated due to no value in at least two groups
present in 59.9% cases; 47.7% in South to 75.3% in East
regions (p < 0.01).
Most of the cases (95.3%) were diagnosed by ultrasound. Ileocolic (84.7%) was the most common site of
intussusception. A pathological lead point (PLP) was
documented in 91 (14.6%) cases and lymph nodes or
Payer’s patch were the commonest (13.0%) and few had
appendix or polyps (Table 2). While 49.3% cases were
reduced, 39.5% underwent surgery and 11.1% resolved
spontaneously. More children in East region (71.1%)
underwent surgery followed by North region (50.0%)
(p < 0.01). Among those who underwent surgery, 26.1%
children required bowel resection, and 39.5% were from
the North region. The onset-admission interval was longer for the cases who underwent surgery (median 2 days;
IQR 1, 3) than reduction (median 1 day; IQR 1, 3) (p <
0.01) (Supplementary Table 2). Among the children who
presented on the day of onset, 62.3% were managed by
reduction (28.9% required surgery), which declined to
35.1% when they presented after 3 days (48.3% required
surgery) (p < 0.01) (Supplementary Table 2). Seven hospitals (East-1, North-1, and South-1) were conducting
only surgical management. At the hospitals with both facilities (reduction and surgery), 31.0% (127/404) children
underwent surgery for indications: failed reduction
(32.2%), late presentation (> 3 days since onset, 28.3%)
and associated complications (39.3%) (p < 0.01). Most of
the cases (97.1%) recovered and were discharged. Eleven
cases (North-4 and East-7) died of post-surgery sepsis,
shock and multiorgan failure. The median hospitalisation period was 3 days (IQR 2, 6 days) ranging from 2 to
5 days (South: 2 days, IQR 2, 3 days; North: 3 days, IQR
1, 7 days; West: 4 days, IQR 2, 6 days; and East: 5 days,
IQR 3, 8 days; p < 0.01). The median hospital stay periods for children who underwent surgery, reduction and
spontaneously resolved were 7 days (IQR 5, 9 days), 2
days (IQR 1, 2 days) and 3 days (IQR 2, 5 days), respectively (p < 0.01) (Supplementary Table 2). CAC assigned
89.1% (553/621) and 7.6% cases as Level 1 and 2 respectively according to the BCCD. Diarrhoea and acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) within 4 weeks prior to
intussusception was reported in 12.9 and 23.7% children
respectively. More children from South region had history of diarrhoea (21%) and ARIs (39.7%) than other regions (p < 0.05).
Vaccination information was available for 487 (78.4%)
children and 391 (80.2%) of those with vaccination information had no RVV exposure. Out of 96 (15.4%)
children who received any RVV (RVV-1, n = 96; RVV-2,
n = 88; and RVV-3, n = 65), 12 children received RVV in
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Page 8 of 13
(2020) 20:413
Fig. 2 Interval between last rotavirus vaccination and onset of intussusception within 28 days in the children. Note: RVV: Rotavirus vaccine
the 1–21 days preceding onset of intussusception and
most (n = 10) after RVV-3 (median age 3.8 months, IQR
3.6, 4.2 months) (Supplementary Table 3). As shown in
Fig. 2, only two cases occurred during 1–7 days after the
third dose RVV and one case occurred on the vaccination day. At the four sites from three states where RVV
(Rotavac™) was introduced, no increase in either intussusception case load (RR = 0.44; 95% CI 0.22, 1.18) or
case rate per 1000 paediatric surgery admission (RR =
0.5; 95% CI 0.3, 1.2) during the post-RVV introduction
period were observed (Table 3).
Discussion
We observed regional variances in the intussusception
case load and case rate per 1000 paediatric surgery admission, high in the South region and low in the West
region. Higher number of cases were observed during
March to June months, which was comparable to other
reports from India [14, 15, 17, 24, 25]. The male predominance (65.7%), median age at 8 months and high
case load at 4–7 months of age (40.0%) were similar to
other reports from India and globally (proportion of
male: 63.0–77.2%; median age: 5–8 months and high
case load age: 4–9 months) [14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26,
27]. About 37.0% of cases occurred during 2nd to 6th
month of age, the usual age for administration of RVV.
The children came from all socioeconomic categories
and in all the regions. The proportion of exclusively
breastfed children (< 6 months) was lower than national
average (52.1%, 2015–16) [22]. The children weaned with
ragi food (only in South region) had intussusception earlier (median 1 month) than those weaned with wheat (median 3 months) and rice (median 4 months) based food. A
shorter exclusive breastfeeding duration with mixed feeding and some weaning foods may have some role in intussusception occurrence. Exposure to foreign proteins and
enteric infections are potential risk factors for intussusception, but we couldn’t find any report on association with
any specific diet. There were significant variations for several sociodemographic and dietary practice parameters
across the regions (Table 1). The classical triad was documented in 34.8% cases, which was higher than reports
Table 3 The intussusception cases and case ratios during post-rotavirus vaccine introduction period compared to pre-introduction
periods
Post-RVV period Pre-RVV period
(Apr- Sep 2017) (Oct 2016 - Mar 2017)
Region
No of IS case
(number of sites)a cases rate
No of
cases
IS case
ratio
RR (95% CI) for
cases
Pre-RVV period
(Apr- Sep 2016)
RR (95% CI) for IS
case rate
No of
cases
IS
ratio
RR (95% CI) for
cases
RR (95% CI)
for IS case rate
East (n = 2)a
20
20.4
29
29.9
0.69 (0.33–1.2)
0.67 (0.3–1.28)
45
34.6
0.44 (0.2–1.15)
0.58 (0.32–1.2)
North (n = 1)a
0
0
2
27.4
–
–
3
37.5
–
–
South (n = 1)a
6
13.3
8
20.4
0.75 (0.45–1.24)
0.65 (0.48–1.23)
11
26.4
0.55 (0.28–1.2)
0.51 (0.3–1.22)
Pooled (n = 4)a
26
16.3
39
27.2
0.67 (0.34–1.19)
0.6 (0.3–1.18)
59
32.8
0.44 (0.22–1.18)
0.5 (0.3–1.2)
Note: IS Intussusception, Intussusception (IS) case rate Intussusception cases per 1000 paediatric surgery admission, RVV Rotavirus vaccine, RR risk ratio with 95%
confidence interval (CI), RVV: Rotavirus vaccine
The comparison includes the data from four study sites in three states
a
Numbers in the bracket with the regions indicate the numbers of study sites per region where RVV was introduced
Post-RVV period: April 2017 to September 2017 (6 months)
Pre-RVV period: Comparison has been done for two pre-intervention periods of 6 months each; October 2016 to March 2017- the immediate pre-RVV introduction
period and April 2016 to September 2016- the calendar months comparable period during the previous year
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
from India (19.0%) and South Korea (7.6%), but lower
than Tanzania (42.5%) [15, 24, 28]. The regional variation
in the classical triad appeared to parallel with the interval
between illness onset and hospitalization. Ultrasound was
the commonest (95.3%) mode of diagnosis, as reported
(72.0–100%) from India and other countries [15, 18, 28–
30]. Ileocolic was the most common location, similar to
reports (68.0–79.0%) from India and globally [3, 7, 8, 14].
PLPs observed in this study was higher than reported in
studies (8.0–9.0%) from India and Tanzania with appendix
and lymph nodes as the common [31, 32]. The cases who
presented early were more frequently managed nonsurgically with shorter stay (2–3 days) compared to those
with surgical intervention (7 days). There were significant
variations in the clinical features among the children across
the regions, which may be due to the interval for presentation or clinical practices followed at the hospitals (Table 2).
Death was observed in 1.7% cases, which was comparable to
reports from India (1.0%) and other countries from Asia
(0.25–6.0%), Latin America (1.0–5.0%), but lower than the
African countries (2.0–25.0%) [17, 18, 24, 28, 29, 31–33].
Level 1 BCCD was met by 89.1% of the cases, similar to
other reports from India [5, 7, 14]. Failed documentation of
reduction prevented some cases meeting the BCCD level 1
certainty.
From the limited period of post-RVV (Rotavac™) introduction at four sites (from three states), no increase
in the intussusception case load and case rate per 1000
paediatric surgery admission were observed. Intussusception within 1–21 days was observed mostly after the
third RVV dose, which also overlaps with the age of natural occurrence. Under the NIP, RVV is given at 6, 10,
14 weeks of age and allowed before 12 months of age
[34]. A delay in RVV administration may coincide with
the high case load age of natural intussusception (4–7
months age), which may make the interpretation of association with the vaccine difficult. In routine practice,
documentation of vaccine exposure should improve and
appropriate guidance to parents be given regarding the
subsequent RVV vaccination. Monitoring of intussusception risk is recommended for countries as part of the
RVV introduction program [35, 36]. In the absence of
any specific population denominator for tertiary care
hospitals, estimation of incidence in Indian context is
difficult. The intussusception case rate per 1000 paediatric surgery admissions may be a proxy indicator for
monitoring and comparison across the sites and regions
with RVV introduction.
Early suspicion, case detection and referral to appropriate hospital are critical for minimizing the surgical interventions and favourable outcomes. Efforts are needed
to equip and enable the public health facilities for nonsurgical management in children, though this depends
on the timing of the presentation to hospital.
(2020) 20:413
Page 9 of 13
The epidemiology, clinical presentation and management of intussusception in children across the regions
may serve as baseline for future studies. The regional
representation and mix of private- and public-sector
hospitals were the advantages for this surveillance.
This study had some limitations. In absence of definite
catchment population and referral pattern, populationbased incidence or case rate estimation was not possible.
The etiologies and risk factors for intussusception were
not studied.
Conclusion
To conclude, the intussusception cases were seen all
across the country and the majority of the cases occurred during the first year of life. The high case load
age (4–7 months) for intussusception in children coincided with the age of RVV third dose. Some variations in
case loads across the different regions and seasonality
were observed. The potential role of diet exposure,
weaning practices and food like ragi in intussusception
needs further evaluation. No increased occurrence of intussusception cases was observed during the limited
RVV post-introduction period. Early case detection,
prompt referral and appropriate management are needed
to avoid surgical intervention and complications.
Immunization exposure must be documented to assess
the vaccine associated risk. In absence of populationbased incidence or case rate, the intussusception case
rate per 1000 paediatric surgery admission may be used
for inter-regional comparison and trend monitoring.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.
1186/s12887-020-02293-5.
Additional file 1. Supplementary document 1- Supplementary Figure 1:
The study sites and their locations according to the regions.
Supplementary document 2- Supplementary Table 1: The International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for review of the cases from
medical records. Supplementary document 3- Supplementary Figure 2:
The flow chart for case screening and recruitment. Supplementary
document 4- Supplementary Figure 3: Age distribution of children with
intussusception in India (region wise and pooled). Supplementary
document 5- Supplementary Table 2: The mode of treatment according
to the interval between onset, admission and intervention for the
children with intussusception. Supplementary document 6Supplementary Table 3: The intussusception cases during risk periods
after rotavirus vaccine exposure.
Abbreviations
CRF: Case record form; CAC: Case Adjudication Committee; ICD: International
Classification of Diseases; IQR: Interquartile range; TAG: Technical Advisory
Group; WHO: World Health Organization; RVV: Rotavirus vaccine;
SLI: Standard of living index; NIP: National immunization programmes.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India for undertaking the study. We are thankful to the
hospital administrations and the clinicians at the study site institutes, who
supported and facilitated conduct of the study.
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
We highly value the technical guidance and inputs provided by the
members of Technical Advisory Group: Satinder Aneja, Anju Seth and
Archana Puri, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi; Ashok Patwari,
Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, New Delhi; Yogesh Kumar
Sarin, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi; Rakesh Aggarwal, Anshu
Srivastava and Ujjal Poddar, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Sciences, Lucknow; Malathi Satyasekharan, Kanchi Kamakoti Childs Trust
Hospital, Chennai; Raju Sharma and Nirupam Madan, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi; Jyoti Joshi and Deepak Polpakara,
Immunization Technical Support Unit; Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
New Delhi; Umesh D. Parashar; Centers of Disease Control and Prevention,
Atlanta, USA; Naveen Thacker, Child Health Foundation, Gandhigram; and
Rashmi Arora, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
We acknowledge the contribution of the research staffs at The INCLEN Trust
International:
Harshpreet Kaur, Janvi Chaubey, Mrinmaya Das, Shweta Sharma and Vaibhav
Jain.
We highly appreciate the efforts made by the research staffs at the study
sites: Aarezo Bashir and Rafia; Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir; Prabha Shankar, Medanta-The Medicity Hospital,
Gurgaon, Haryana; Anju Sharma; Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi;
Anita Singh and Shubhranshu Srivastava, King George Medical University,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; Hemant Meena, Choithram Hospital, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh; Pankaj Kumar and Shashi Kant; Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Patna, Bihar; Goutam Benia, IMS & SUM Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneshwar, Odisha; Prasantajyoti Mohanty, SVP Post Graduate Institute of
Paediatrics and SCB Medical College, Cuttack, Odisha; Angshuman Chatterjee,
Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research & SSKM Hospital,
Kolkata, West Bengal; S. Yamuna, Andhra Medical College, Vishakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh; Srinidhi Sudam, Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad, Telengana;
Rajesh Francis, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu; T. Easter Chandru, PSG
Institute of Medical Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu; Deepthy R, Julie and
Anju Shivakumar, Government Medical College & SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; Archit Vaidya, Grant Medical College & JJ Hospital,
Mumbai, Maharashtra; Nimesh Chouksey, MP Shah Government Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat; Nidhi Singh, Fortis Escorts Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan;
Mrinmoy Gohain, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam; Arpita Bhattachrjee, Saugat Ghosh and Tanusmita Debnath, Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala, Tripura.
‘The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group’ list of
authors
(2020) 20:413
Page 10 of 13
Deputy Commissioner-Immunization, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India, New Delhi, India
Email: pradeephaldar@yahoo.co.in
7. Patrick L F Zuber
Group Leader Global Vaccine Safety and Vigilance Team, World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Email: zuberp@who.int
8. Jan Bonhoeffer
President; Brighton Collaboration Foundation and Assistant Professor;
Infectious Diseases and Vaccines, University Children’s Hospital, Basel,
Switzerland
Email: jan.bonhoeffer@gmail.com
9. Arindam Ray
Senior Program Officer, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, India Country
Office, New Delhi, India
Email: arindam.ray@gatesfoundation.org
10. Ashish Wakhlu
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, King George’s Medical
University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: ashish_wakhlu@hotmail.com
11. Bhadresh R. Vyas
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, MP Shah Government Medical College,
Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
Email: bhadreshrvyas@yahoo.co.uk
12. Javeed Iqbal Bhat
Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of
Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Email: drjaveediqbal@gmail.com
1. Manoja Kumar Das
13. Jayanta K. Goswami
Director Projects, The INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India
Email: manoj@inclentrust.org
2. Narendra Kumar Arora
Executive Director, The INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India
Email: nkarora@inclentrust.org
3. Bini Gupta
Assistant Research Officer, The INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India
Email: drbini.gupta02@gmail.com
4. Apoorva Sharan
Research Officer, The INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India
Email: apoorva@inclentrust.org
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gauhati Medical College,
Guwahati, Assam, India
Email: jayantagoswami@hotmail.com
14. John Mathai
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: psg_peds@yahoo.com
15. Kameswari K.
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Andhra Medical College,
Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
Email: kameswari1956@gmail.com
16. Lalit Bharadia
5. Mahesh K. Aggarwal
Deputy Commissioner-Immunization, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India, New Delhi, India
Email: drmkagarwal2@gmail.com
6. Pradeep Haldar
Consultant Paediatric Gastroenterologist, Fortis Escorts Hospital, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, India
Email: lalitbharadia@gmail.com
17. Lalit Sankhe
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Grant Medical
College & JJ Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Email: sankhelalit@yahoo.com
18. Ajayakumar M.K.
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Government Medical College &
SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
Email: drajaykumarmk@gmail.com
19. Neelam Mohan
(2020) 20:413
Page 11 of 13
29. Anand P. Dubey
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi,
India
Email: Anand_dubey52@hotmail.com
30. Atul Gupta
Consultant Paediatric Surgery, Fortis Escorts Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Email: atul.gupta1@fortishealthcare.com
31. Bashir Ahmad Charoo
Consultant Paediatrics Gastroenterology, Medanta—The Medicity, Gurgaon,
Haryana, India
Email: drneelam@yahoo.com
20. Pradeep K. Jena
Professor, Department of paediatrics, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Email: charoobash@gmail.com
32. Bikasha Bihary Tripathy
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, SCB Medical College, Cuttack,
Odisha, India
Email: drpkjena@gmail.com
21. Rachita Sarangi
Associate Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, IMS & SUM Medical
College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: bbtripathy.dr@gmail.com
33. Cenita J. Sam
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, IMS & SUM Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: rachitapaedia@gmail.com
22. Rashmi Shad
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, PSG Institute of Medical
Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: cenitasivamani@yahoo.com
34. G. Rajendra Prasad
Consultant Paediatrics, Choithram Hospital and Research Centre, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh, India
Email: drrashmishad@yahoo.com
23. Sanjib K. Debbarma
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Andhra Medical College,
Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
Email: dr.grajendraprasad@gmail.com
35. Gowhar Nazir Mufti
Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Agartala Government Medical
College, Agartala, Tripura, India
Email: dr_sanjibdb@rediffmail.com
24. Shyamala J.
Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute
of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Email: gowharmufti@yahoo.co.in
36. Harish Kumar S.
Consultant Paediatrics, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Email: jaymoorthy@hotmail.com
25. Simmi K. Ratan
Paediatrics Radiologist, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: drharishkumar.s@gmail.com
37. Harsh Trivedi
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College,
Delhi, India
Email: drjohnsimmi@yahoo.com
26. Suman Sarkar
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, MP Shah Government Medical
College, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
Email: trivediharsh@indiatimes.com
38. Jimmy Shad
Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Email: dr.sumansarkar@gmail.com
27. Vijayendra Kumar
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Email: drvijayendrakr@rediffmail.com
28. Yoga Nagender
Consultant Paediatric Surgery, Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Telengana, India
Email: yogimamidi@yahoo.com
Consultant Paediatric Surgery, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: shadjimmy@yahoo.co.in
39. K. Jothilakshmi
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: drjothi.cbe@gmail.com
40. K. Sharmila
Consultant Paediatrics, Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Telengana, India
Email: sharmilakaza@gmail.com
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
41. Kaushik Lahiri
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam,
India
Email: Kaushik_1671979@rediffmail.com
42. Meera Luthra
Consultant Paediatric Surgery, Medanta- The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana,
India
Email: meera.luthra@medanta.org
43. Nihar Ranjan Sarkar
Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Email: dr.niharsarkar@gmail.com
44. P. Padmalatha
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Andhra Medical College,
Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
Email: padmap_2000@yahoo.com
45. Pavai Arunachalam
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, PSG Institute of Medical
Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: pavai4321@yahoo.com
46. Rakesh Kumar
Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Email: drjaiswalrakesh@gmail.com
47. Ruchirendu Sarkar
Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Email: ruchirendu@gmail.com
48. S.S.G. Mohapatra
Professor, Department of Radiology, IMS & SUM Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: drartifact@gmail.com
49. Santosh Kumar A.
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Government Medical College & SAT
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
Email: hod.pediatrics.sath@gmail.com
50. Saurabh Garge
Consultant Paediatric Surgery, Choithram Hospital and Research Centre,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
Email: saurabhgarge8@gmail.com
51. Subrat Kumar Sahoo
Associate Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, IMS & SUM Medical
College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: dr_subratsahoo@yahoo.com
52. Sunil K. Ghosh
(2020) 20:413
Page 12 of 13
Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Surgery, Agartala Government
Medical College, Agartala, Tripura, India
Email: sunilkrghosh752@gmail.com
53. Sushant Mane
Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Grant Medical College & JJ
Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Email: drsush2006@gmail.com
54. Christine G. Maure
Safety and Vigilance Team, Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Email: maurec@who.in
Disclosure statement
None. There is no financial interest or benefit for the authors arisen from this
project or its direct application.
Author’s contributions
Study conceptualisation, study design, protocol development, training, data
analysis, interpretation: MKD and NKA. Study coordination, monitoring, and
data cleaning: MKD, BG, and AS. Data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript
preparation: MKD and BG. Protocol development, quality assurance and
monitoring: MKA, PH, PLFZ, JB, AR, and CGM. Participant recruitment and
data collection: AW, BRV, JIB, JKG, JM, KK, LB, LS, AMK, NM, PKJ, RS-1, RS-2,
SKD, SJ, SKR, SS, VK, YN, APD, AG, BBT, CJS, GRP, GNM, HKS, HT, JS, KJ, KS, KL,
ML, NRS, PP, PA, RK, RS-3, SSGM, SKA, SG, SKS, SKG, and SM. All authors
reviewed, provided critical input and approved the final version. The content
represents the views of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent
the official positions of their organizations, World Health Organization or
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Funding
This project was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USA
to The INCLEN Trust International (grant number OPP1116433). The funder or
its representative had no role in the design of the study and collection,
analysis, and interpretation of data and writing the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
All data is available with the investigators and can be provided by the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The INCLEN Independent
Ethics Committee, The INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India (Ref: IIEC
23) and all participating Study Site Institute Ethics Committees. The list of
ethics committees of the study site institutes included: Institutional Ethics
Committee, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India;
Institutional Ethics Committee, MP Shah Government Medical College,
Jamnagar, Gujarat, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India; Institutional
Human Ethics Committee, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, King George Hospital,
Andhra Medical College, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India; Institutional
Ethics Committee, Fortis Escorts Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India; Institutional
Ethics Committee, Grant Medical College & JJ Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra,
India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Government Medical College & SAT
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India; Medanta Institutional Ethics
Committee, Medanta—The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; Institutional
Ethics Committee, SCB Medical College, Cuttack, Odisha, India; Institutional
Ethics Committee, IMS & SUM Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India; Institutional Ethics Committee; Choithram Hospital and Research
Centre, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala, Tripura, India; Institutional Ethics
Committee- Clinical Studies, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu; Institutional Ethics Committee, Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and
Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India; Institutional Ethics Committee, Indira
Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India; and Ethics
The INCLEN Intussusception Surveillance Network Study Group BMC Pediatrics
Committee, Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Telengana, India. The interviews with
stakeholders were done after obtaining written informed consent.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that there is no competing interests and conflict of
interest.
Received: 11 May 2020 Accepted: 12 August 2020
References
1. Patel MM, López-Collada VR, Bulhões MM, De Oliveira LH, Márquez AB,
Flannery B, et al. Intussusception risk and health benefits of rotavirus
vaccination in Mexico and Brazil. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(24):2283–92.
2. Velázquez FR, Colindres RE, Grajales C, Hernández MT, Mercadillo MG, Torres
FJ, et al. Postmarketing surveillance of intussusception following mass
introduction of the attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in Mexico. Pediatr
Infect Dis J. 2012;31(7):736–44.
3. Carlin JB, Macartney KK, Lee KJ, Quinn HE, Buttery J, Lopert R, et al.
Intussusception risk and disease prevention associated with rotavirus
vaccines in Australia’s National Immunization Program. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;
57(10):1427–34.
4. Yih WK, Lieu TA, Kulldorff M, Martin D, McMahill-Walraven CN, Platt R, et al.
Intussusception risk after rotavirus vaccination in U.S. infants. N Engl J Med.
2014;370(6):503–12.
5. Weintraub ES, Baggs J, Duffy J, Vellozzi C, Belongia EA, Irving S, et al. Risk of
intussusception after monovalent rotavirus vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2014;
370(6):513–9.
6. Stowe J, Andrews N, Ladhani S, Miller E. The risk of intussusception
following monovalent rotavirus vaccination in England: a self-controlled
case-series evaluation. Vaccine. 2016;34(32):3684–9.
7. Yung C-F, Chan SP, Soh S, Tan A, Thoon KC. Intussusception and
monovalent rotavirus vaccination in Singapore: self-controlled case series
and risk-benefit study. J Pediatr. 2015;167(1):163–168.e1.
8. Pérez-Vilar S, Díez-Domingo J, Puig-Barberà J, Gil-Prieto R, Romio S.
Intussusception following rotavirus vaccination in the Valencia region, Spain.
Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2015;11(7):1848–52.
9. Tate JE, Mwenda JM, Armah G, Jani B, Omore R, Ademe A, et al. Evaluation
of intussusception after monovalent rotavirus vaccination in Africa. N Engl J
Med. 2018;378(16):1521–8.
10. Groome MJ, Tate JE, Arnold M, Chitnis M, Cox S, de Vos C, et al. Evaluation
of intussusception after oral monovalent rotavirus vaccination in South
Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(8):1606–12.
11. Yen C, Tate JE, Hyde TB, Cortese MM, Lopman BA, Jiang B, et al. Rotavirus
vaccines: current status and future considerations. Hum Vaccines
Immunother. 2014;10(6):1436–48.
12. World Health Organization. Post-marketing surveillance of rotavirus vaccine
safety. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009. Available from: https://
apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70017/WHO_IVB_09.01_eng.
pdf?sequence=1.
13. Press Informationn Beureau. Shri J P Nadda launches Rotavirus vaccine as
part of Universal Immunization Programme; terms it a “historic moment”:
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India; 2016. [cited 2019
Jan 10]. Available from: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=13
8342.
14. Bhowmick K, Kang G, Bose A, Chacko J, Boudville I, Datta SK, et al.
Retrospective surveillance for intussusception in children aged less than five
years in a south Indian tertiary-care hospital. J Health Popul Nutr. 2009;27(5):
660–5.
15. Singh JV, Kamath V, Shetty R, Kumar V, Prasad R, Saluja T, et al.
Retrospective surveillance for intussusception in children aged less than five
years at two tertiary care centers in India. Vaccine. 2014;32:A95–8.
16. Bahl R, Saxena M, Bhandari N, Taneja S, Mathur M, Parashar UD, et al.
Population-based incidence of intussusception and a case-control study to
examine the association of intussusception with natural rotavirus infection
among Indian children. J Infect Dis. 2009;200(s1):S277–81.
(2020) 20:413
Page 13 of 13
17. Jehangir S, John J, Rajkumar S, Mani B, Srinivasan R, Kang G. Intussusception
in southern India: comparison of retrospective analysis and active
surveillance. Vaccine. 2014;32:A99–103.
18. Jiang J, Jiang B, Parashar U, Nguyen T, Bines J, Patel MM. Childhood
intussusception: a literature review. Cameron DW, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013;
8(7):e68482.
19. World Health Organisation. Rotavirus vaccines WHO position paper: January
2013 - Recommendations. Vaccine. 2013;31(52):6170–1. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.037.
20. Tate JE, Steele AD, Bines JE, Zuber PLF, Parashar UD. Research priorities
regarding rotavirus vaccine and intussusception: a meeting summary.
Vaccine. 2012;30:A179–84.
21. Bines JE, Kohl KS, Forster J, Zanardi LR, Davis RL, Hansen J, et al. Acute
intussusception in infants and children as an adverse event following
immunization: case definition and guidelines of data collection, analysis,
and presentation. Vaccine. 2004;22(5–6):569–74.
22. International Institute for Population Sciences. National Family Health
Survey, India: International Institute for Population Sciences; 2017. [cited
2019 Apr 10]. Available from: http://rchiips.org/nfhs/data/bh/bhchap2.pdf.
23. Das M, Arora N, Bonhoeffer J, Zuber P, Maure C. Intussusception in young
children: protocol for multisite hospital sentinel surveillance in India.
Methods Protoc. 2018;1(2):11.
24. Srinivasan R, Girish Kumar CP, Naaraayan SA, Jehangir S, Thangaraj JWV,
Venkatasubramanian S, et al. Intussusception hospitalizations before
rotavirus vaccine introduction: retrospective data from two referral hospitals
in Tamil Nadu, India. Vaccine. 2018;36(51):7820–5.
25. Gupta M, Kanojia R, Singha R, Tripathy JP, Mahajan K, Saxena A, et al.
Intussusception rate among under-five-children before introduction of
rotavirus vaccine in North India. J Trop Pediatr. 2018;64(4):326–35.
26. Patel MM, Clark AD, Sanderson CFB, Tate J, Parashar UD. Removing the age
restrictions for rotavirus vaccination: a benefit-risk modeling analysis. von
Seidlein L, editor. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10):e1001330.
27. Bhandari N, Rongsen-Chandola T, Bavdekar A, John J, Antony K, Taneja S,
et al. Efficacy of a monovalent human-bovine (116E) rotavirus vaccine in
Indian infants: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet.
2014;383(9935):2136–43.
28. Jo DS, Nyambat B, Kim JS, Jang YT, Ng TL, Bock HL, et al. Population-based
incidence and burden of childhood intussusception in Jeonbuk Province,
South Korea. Int J Infect Dis. 2009;13(6):e383–8.
29. Phua KB, Lee B-W, Quak SH, Jacobsen A, Teo H, Vadivelu-Pechai K, et al.
Incidence of intussusception in Singaporean children aged less than 2
years: a hospital-based prospective study. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13(1):161.
30. Mansour AM, El Koutby M, El Barbary MM, Mohamed W, Shehata S, El
Mohammady H, et al. Enteric viral infections as potential risk factors for
intussusception. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2013;7(01):028–35.
31. Raman T, Mukhopadhyaya A, Eapen CE, Aruldas V, Bose A, Sen S, et al.
Intussusception in southern Indian children: lack of association with
diarrheal disease and oral polio vaccine immunization. Indian J
Gastroenterol Off J Indian Soc Gastroenterol. 2003;22(3):82–4.
32. Chalya PL, Kayange NM, Chandika AB. Childhood intussusceptions at a
tertiary care hospital in northwestern Tanzania: a diagnostic and therapeutic
challenge in resource-limited setting. Ital J Pediatr. 2014;40(1):28.
33. Tagbo BN, Mwenda J, Eke C, Oguonu T, Ekemze S, Ezomike UO, et al.
Retrospective evaluation of intussusception in under-five children in Nigeria.
World J Vaccines. 2014;04(03):123–32.
34. Immunization Division. Operational Guidelines- Introduction of Rotavirus
Vaccine in the Universal Immunization Program in India. Revised March
2019. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Available
from: https://nhm.gov.in/New_Updates_2018/NHM_Components/
Immunization/Guildelines_for_immunization/Operational_Guidelines_for_
Introduction_of_Rotavac_in_UIP.pdf. [cited 2019 Jun 16].
35. World Health Organisation. Post-marketing surveillance of rotavirus vaccine
safety. [cited 2017 Sep 18]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/70017/1/WHO_IVB_09.01_eng.pdf.
36. Mwenda JM, Tate JE, Steele AD, Parashar UD. Preparing for the scale-up of
rotavirus vaccine introduction in Africa: establishing surveillance platforms to
monitor disease burden and vaccine impact. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33:S1–5.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.