Analyses of health outcomes from the 5 sites participating in the Africa and Asia clinical efficacy trials of the oral pentavalent rotavirus vaccine

Treatment and prevention of rotavirus infection in children

Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of severe diarrhea disease in infants and young children worldwide and continues to have a major global impact on childhood morbidity and mortality. No antiviral therapy is available. Treatment of rotavirus gastroenteritis is limited to rehydration therapy. Recently, therapies, such as probiotics, have been developed as adjuncts to rehydration therapy. Two effective rotavirus vaccines are available and recommended for routine immunization of all infants. These vaccines have been introduced in both developed and developing countries. As rotavirus vaccines are implemented, studies that assess health impact, indirect benefits, and strain changes after the introduction of rotavirus vaccine have been reported. In the United States, rotavirus vaccination has led to dramatic drops in severe rotavirus-related hospitalizations and has reduced emergency room visits. Herd immunity has also been noted after routine rotavirus immunization. There have been no significant strain shifts or escape mutants noted since the introduction of rotavirus vaccines.

Effect of rotavirus vaccine on diarrhea mortality in different socioeconomic regions of Mexico

OBJECTIVE

In Mexico, declines in childhood diarrhea deaths have been documented during 2008-2010 after rotavirus vaccine introduction in 2007. Because of concerns about variation in rotavirus vaccine efficacy by socioeconomic status, we compared reductions in diarrhea mortality in the lesser developed southern region versus the more developed northern and central regions of Mexico.

METHODS

We obtained data from national vital statistics on diarrhea deaths among children aged <5 years from 2002 through 2011. We compared region-specific diarrhea mortality before (2003-2006) and after (2009-2011) vaccine introduction. Regional vaccine coverage was estimated from administrative data, and socioeconomic status was assessed by using the Human Development Index.

RESULTS

In northern, central, and southern Mexico, the 2007 Human Development Index was 0.84, 0.82, and 0.77, respectively, and by 2010 an estimated 99%, 84%, and 89% of children aged <12 months had completed rotavirus vaccination. Diarrhea mortality among children <5 years old declined from 8.3, 17.9, and 28.5 deaths per 100,000 children during 2003-2006 to 4.5, 8.1, and 16.2 in 2009-2011 in northern, central, and southern Mexico, respectively, corresponding to rate reductions of 45%, 55%, and 43%. No significant differences were observed in rate reductions between regions (P > .8).

CONCLUSIONS

After introduction of rotavirus vaccination, marked and sustained declines in diarrhea deaths were seen among children in all regions of Mexico, including in the least developed southern region with the highest baseline diarrhea mortality. This finding indicates equitable vaccine delivery to children with varying risk of mortality and reaffirms the beneficial effects of rotavirus vaccination against fatal diarrheal disease.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Currently licensed rotavirus vaccines include a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) and a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.). Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to May 2012), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (10 May 2012), CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), EMBASE (1974 to 10 May 2012), LILACS (1982 to 10 May 2012), and BIOSIS (1926 to 10 May 2012). We also searched the ICTRP (10 May 2012), www.ClinicalTrials.gov (28 May 2012) and checked reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We stratified the analysis by child mortality, and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 186,263 participants. Twenty-nine trials (101,671 participants) assessed RV1, and 12 trials (84,592 participants) evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.RV1Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 86% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.26; 40,631 participants, six trials; high-quality evidence), and, based on one large multicentre trial in Latin America and Finland, probably prevents 40% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72; 17,867 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV1 probably prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 5414 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, 34% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98; 4939 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).Children aged up to two years: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 85% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.20; 32,854 participants, eight trials; high-quality evidence), and probably 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, RV1 probably prevents 42% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence), and 18% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).RV5Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV5 probably prevents 87% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45; 2344 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Finland, may prevent 72% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), but there was insufficient data to assess the effect on severe all-cause diarrhoea.Children aged up to two years: Four studies provided data for severe rotavirus and all-cause diarrhoea in countries with low-mortality rates. Three trials reported on severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 probably prevents 82% (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50; 3190 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and another trial in Finland reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 may prevent 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.70; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a vaccine effect on mortality (181,009 participants, 34 trials; low-quality evidence), although the trials were not powered to detect an effect on this end point.Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination. No significant difference was found between children receiving RV1 or RV5 and placebo in the number of serious adverse events, and intussusception in particular.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1 and RV5 prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Removing the age restrictions for rotavirus vaccination: a benefit-risk modeling analysis

BACKGROUND

To minimize potential risk of intussusception, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended in 2009 that rotavirus immunization should be initiated by age 15 weeks and completed before 32 weeks. These restrictions could adversely impact vaccination coverage and thereby its health impact, particularly in developing countries where delays in vaccination often occur.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a modeling study to estimate the number of rotavirus deaths prevented and the number of intussusception deaths caused by vaccination when administered on the restricted schedule versus an unrestricted schedule whereby rotavirus vaccine would be administered with DTP vaccine up to age 3 years. Countries were grouped on the basis of child mortality rates, using WHO data. Inputs were estimates of WHO rotavirus mortality by week of age from a recent study, intussusception mortality based on a literature review, predicted vaccination rates by week of age from USAID Demographic and Health Surveys, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), and WHO-UNICEF 2010 country-specific coverage estimates, and published estimates of vaccine efficacy and vaccine-associated intussusception risk. On the basis of the error estimates and distributions for model inputs, we conducted 2,000 simulations to obtain median estimates of deaths averted and caused as well as the uncertainty ranges, defined as the 5th-95th percentile, to provide an indication of the uncertainty in the estimates. We estimated that in low and low-middle income countries a restricted schedule would prevent 155,800 rotavirus deaths (5th-95th centiles, 83,300-217,700) while causing potentially 253 intussusception deaths (76-689). In contrast, vaccination without age restrictions would prevent 203,000 rotavirus deaths (102,000-281,500) while potentially causing 547 intussusception deaths (237-1,160). Thus, removing the age restrictions would avert an additional 47,200 rotavirus deaths (18,700-63,700) and cause an additional 294 (161-471) intussusception deaths, for an incremental benefit-risk ratio of 154 deaths averted for every death caused by vaccine. These extra deaths prevented under an unrestricted schedule reflect vaccination of an additional 21%-25% children, beyond the 63%-73% of the children who would be vaccinated under the restricted schedule. Importantly, these estimates err on the side of safety in that they assume high vaccine-associated risk of intussusception and do not account for potential herd immunity or non-fatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that in low- and middle-income countries the additional lives saved by removing age restrictions for rotavirus vaccination would far outnumber the potential excess vaccine-associated intussusception deaths. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.