Rotavirus vaccine for preventing diarrhoea

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea-related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea-related deaths worldwide. Rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), RotaTeq (Merck), and, more recently, Rotasiil (Serum Institute of India Ltd.), and Rotavac (Bharat Biotech Ltd.).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 30 November 2020, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies, and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children that compared rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO with either placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analyses by under-five country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 228,233 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed Rotarix, 15 trials RotaTeq (88,934 participants), five trials Rotasiil (11,753 participants), and four trials Rotavac (8432 participants). Rotarix Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 93% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (14,976 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 52% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (3874 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (31,671 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 36% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (26,479 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 58% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (15,882 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 90% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (18,145 participants, 6 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 51% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (6269 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).   In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (28,834 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 26% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (23,317 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (13,768 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (2764 participants, 1 trial; high-certainty evidence). RotaTeq Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 97% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6775 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 96% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6744 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  We did not identify RotaTeq studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low- or medium-mortality countries. Rotasiil Rotasiil has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality. Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 48% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Rotavac Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.  Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence); no Rotavac studies have reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea at two-years follow-up. Safety No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) was detected with Rotarix (103,714 participants, 31 trials; high-certainty evidence), RotaTeq (82,502 participants, 14 trials; moderate to high-certainty evidence), Rotasiil (11,646 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), or Rotavac (8210 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Deaths were infrequent and the analysis had insufficient evidence to show an effect on all-cause mortality. Intussusception was rare.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, but more episodes are prevented in high-mortality settings as the baseline risk is higher. In high-mortality countries some results suggest lower efficacy in the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events, including intussusception, from any of the prequalified rotavirus vaccines.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years 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. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac. RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence). RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up. Children vaccinated and followed up for two years Rotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events. 21 October 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All published trials found in the last search (4 Apr, 2018) were included and 15 ongoing studies are currently awaiting completion (see 'Characteristics of ongoing studies').

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years 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. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac.RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence).RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence).Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up.Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsRotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events.

Management for intussusception in children

BACKGROUND

Intussusception is a common abdominal emergency in children with significant morbidity. Prompt diagnosis and management reduces associated risks and the need for surgical intervention. Despite widespread agreement on the use of contrast enema as opposed to surgery for initial management in most cases, debate persists on the appropriate contrast medium, imaging modality, pharmacological adjuvant, and protocol for delayed repeat enema, and on the best approach for surgical management for intussusception in children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and effectiveness of non-surgical and surgical approaches in the management of intussusception in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to September 2016); Science Citation Index Expanded (via Web of Science) (1900 to September 2016); and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to September 2016).We examined the reference lists of all eligible trials to identify additional studies. To locate unpublished studies, we contacted content experts, searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (September 2016), and explored proceedings from meetings of the British Association of Paedatric Surgeons (BAPS), the American Soceity of Pediatric Surgery, and the World Congress of Pediatric Surgery.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing contrast media, imaging modalities, pharmacological adjuvants, protocols for delayed repeat enema, and/or surgical approaches for the management of intussusception in children. We applied no language, publication date, or publication status restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction and assessed risk of bias using a standardised form. We resolved disagreements by consensus with a third review author when necessary. We reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis and evaluated the overall quality of evidence supporting the outcomes by using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 822 participants. Two trials compared liquid enema reduction plus glucagon versus liquid enema alone. One trial compared liquid enema plus dexamethasone versus liquid enema alone. Another trial compared air enema plus dexamethasone versus air enema alone, and two trials compared use of liquid enema versus air enema. We identified three ongoing trials.We judged all included trials to be at risk of bias owing to omissions in reported methods. We judged five of six trials as having high risk of bias in at least one domain. Therefore, the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for outcomes was low. Interventions and data presentation varied greatly across trials; therefore meta-analysis was not possible for most review outcomes. Enema plus glucagon versus enema alone It is uncertain whether use of glucagon improves the rate of successful reduction of intussusception when compared with enema alone (reported in two trials, 218 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26;low quality of evidence). No trials in this comparison reported on the number of children with bowel perforation(s) nor on the number of children with recurrent intussusception. Enema plus dexamethasone versus enema alone Use of the adjunct, dexamethasone, may be beneficial in reducing intussusception recurrence with liquid or air enema (two trials, 299 participants; RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.60; low quality of evidence). This equates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 13 (95% CI 8 to 37). It is uncertain whether use of the adjunct, dexamethasone, improves the rate of successful reduction of intussusception when compared with enema alone (reported in two trials, 356 participants; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10;low quality of evidence). Air enema versus liquid enema Air enema may be more successful than liquid enema for reducing intussusception (two trials, 199 participants; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; low quality of evidence). This equates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 6 (95% CI 4 to 19). No trials in this comparison reported on the number of children with bowel perforation(s) or on the number of children with recurrent intussusception nor any intraoperative complications, such as bowel perforation, or other adverse effects. Only one trial reported postoperative complications, but owing to the method of reporting used, a quantitative analysis was not possible. We identified no studies that exclusively evaluated surgical interventions for management of intussusception.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a small number of trials that assessed a variety of interventions. All included trials provided evidence of low quality and were subject to serious concerns about imprecision, high risk of bias, or both. Air enema may be superior to liquid enema for successfully reducing intussusception in children; however, this finding is based on a few studies including small numbers of participants. Dexamethasone as an adjuvant may be more effective in reducing intussusception recurrence rates following air enema or liquid enema, but these results are also based on a few studies of small numbers of participants. This review highlights several points that need to be addressed in future studies, including reducing the risk of bias and including relevant outcomes. Specifically, surgical trials are lacking, and future research is needed to address this evidence gap.

'First 1000 days' health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: alignment of South African policies with high-quality evidence

BACKGROUND

In South Africa (SA), despite adoption of international strategies and approaches, maternal, neonatal and child (MNC) morbidity and mortality rates have not sufficiently declined.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an umbrella review (UR) that identifies interventions in low- and middle-income countries, with a high-quality evidence base, that improve MNC morbidity and mortality outcomes within the first 1000 days of life; and to assess the incorporation of the evidence into local strategies, guidelines and documents.

METHODS

We included publications about women and children in the first 1000 days of life; healthcare professionals and community members. Comparators were those who did not receive the intervention. Interventions were pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Outcomes were MNC morbidity and mortality. Authors conducted English language electronic and manual searches (2000-2013). The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) were reviewed. Interventions were ranked according to level of evidence; and then aligned with SA strategies, policies and guidelines. A tool to extract data was developed and used by two authors who independently extracted data. Summary measures from MAs or summaries of SRs were reviewed and the specificities of the various interventions listed. A search of all local high-level documents was done and these were assessed to determine the specificities of the recommendations and their alignment to the evidence.

RESULTS

In total, 19 interventions presented in 32 SRs were identified. Overall, SA's policymakers have sufficiently included high-quality evidence-based interventions into local policies. However, optimal period of birth spacing (two to five years) is not explicitly promoted nor was ante- and postnatal depression adequately incorporated. Antenatal care visits should be increased from four to about eight according to the evidence.

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of existing evidence into policies can be strengthened in SA. The UR methods are useful to inform policymaking and identify research gaps. RESPONSIBLE EDITOR Nawi Ng, Umeå University, Sweden.

A Preliminary Assessment of Rotavirus Vaccine Effectiveness in Zambia

BACKGROUND

Diarrhea is the third leading cause of child death in Zambia. Up to one-third of diarrhea cases resulting in hospitalization and/or death are caused by vaccine-preventable rotavirus. In January 2012, Zambia initiated a pilot introduction of the Rotarix live, oral rotavirus vaccine in all public health facilities in Lusaka Province.

METHODS

Between July 2012 and October 2013, we conducted a case-control study at 6 public sector sites to estimate rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE) in age-eligible children presenting with diarrhea. We computed the odds of having received at least 1 dose of Rotarix among children whose stool was positive for rotavirus antigen (cases) and children whose stool was negative (controls). We adjusted the resulting odds ratio (OR) for patient age, calendar month of presentation, and clinical site, and expressed VE as (1 - adjusted OR) × 100.

RESULTS

A total of 91 rotavirus-positive cases and 298 rotavirus-negative controls who had under-5 card-confirmed vaccination status and were ≥6 months of age were included in the case-control analysis. Among rotavirus-positive children who were age-eligible to be vaccinated, 20% were hospitalized. Against rotavirus diarrhea of all severity, the adjusted 2-dose VE was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], -30% to 58%) among children ≥6 months of age. VE against hospitalized children ≥6 months of age was 56% (95% CI, -34% to 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a higher point estimate for VE against increased severity of illness compared with milder disease, but were not powered to detect a low level of VE against milder disease.

Ecological assessment of the direct and indirect effects of routine rotavirus vaccination in Merseyside, UK using data from multiple health systems: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in infants and young children worldwide. Currently 67 countries include rotavirus vaccine in childhood immunisation programmes, but uptake in Western Europe has been slow. In July 2013, rotavirus vaccine was introduced into the UK's routine childhood immunisation programme. Prior to vaccine introduction in the UK, rotavirus was estimated to result in 750,000 diarrhoea episodes and 80,000 general practice (GP) consultations each year, together with 45% and 20% of hospital admissions and emergency department attendances for acute gastroenteritis, in children under 5 years of age. This paper describes a protocol for an ecological study that will assess rotavirus vaccine impact in the UK, to inform rotavirus immunisation policy in the UK and in other Western European countries.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In Merseyside, UK, we will conduct an ecological study using a 'before and after' approach to examine changes in gastroenteritis and rotavirus incidence following the introduction of rotavirus vaccination. Data will be collected on mortality, hospital admissions, nosocomial infection, emergency department attendances, GP consultations and community health consultations to capture all healthcare providers in the region. We will assess both the direct and indirect effects of the vaccine on the study population. Comparisons of outcome indicator rates will be made in relation to vaccine uptake and socioeconomic status.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee, South Central-Berkshire REC Reference: 14/SC/1140. Study outputs will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications. The study will demonstrate the impact of rotavirus vaccination on the burden of disease from a complete health system perspective. It will identify key areas that require improved data collection tools to maximise the usefulness of this surveillance approach and will provide a template for vaccine evaluations using ecological methods in the UK.

Essential interventions for child health

Child health is a growing concern at the global level, as infectious diseases and preventable conditions claim hundreds of lives of children under the age of five in low-income countries. Approximately 7.6 million children under five years of age died in 2011, calculating to about 19 000 children each day and almost 800 every hour. About 80 percent of the world’s under-five deaths in 2011 occurred in only 25 countries, and about half in only five countries: India, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan and China. The implications and burden of such statistics are huge and will have dire consequences if they are not corrected promptly. This paper reviews essential interventions for improving child health, which if implemented properly and according to guidelines have been found to improve child health outcomes, as well as reduce morbidity and mortality rates. It also includes caregivers and delivery strategies for each intervention. Interventions that have been associated with a decrease in mortality and disease rates include exclusive breastfeeding, complementary feeding strategies, routine immunizations and vaccinations for children, preventative zinc supplementation in children, and vitamin A supplementation in vitamin A deficient populations.

Essential interventions: implementation strategies and proposed packages of care

In an effort to accelerate progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 and 5, provision of essential reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) interventions is being considered. Not only should a state-of-the-art approach be taken for services delivered to the mother, neonate and to the child, but services must also be deployed across the household to hospital continuum of care approach and in the form of packages. The paper proposed several packages for improved maternal, newborn and child health that can be delivered across RMNCH continuum of care. These packages include: supportive care package for women to promote awareness related to healthy pre-pregnancy and pregnancy interventions; nutritional support package for mother to improve supplementation of essential nutrients and micronutrients; antenatal care package to detect, treat and manage infectious and noninfectious diseases and promote immunization; high risk care package to manage preeclampsia and eclampsia in pregnancy; childbirth package to promote support during labor and importance of skilled birth attendance during labor; essential newborn care package to support healthy newborn care practices; and child health care package to prevent and manage infections. This paper further discussed the implementation strategies for employing these interventions at scale.

Concordance of effects of medical interventions on hospital admission and readmission rates with effects on mortality

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials examine a composite outcome of admission to hospital and death, or infer a relationship between hospital admission and survival benefit. This assumes concordance of the outcomes "hospital admission" and "death." However, whether the effects of a treatment on hospital admissions and readmissions correlate to its effect on serious outcomes such as death is unknown. We aimed to assess the correlation and concordance of effects of medical interventions on admission rates and mortality.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from its inception to January 2012 (issue 1, 2012) for systematic reviews of treatment comparisons that included meta-analyses for both admission and mortality outcomes. For each meta-analysis, we synthesized treatment effects on admissions and death, from respective randomized trials reporting those outcomes, using random-effects models. We then measured the concordance of directions of effect sizes and the correlation of summary estimates for the 2 outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 61 meta-analyses including 398 trials reporting mortality and 182 trials reporting admission rates; 125 trials reported both outcomes. In 27.9% of comparisons, the point estimates of treatment effects for the 2 outcomes were in opposite directions; in 8.2% of trials, the 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. We found no significant correlation between effect sizes for admission and death (Pearson r = 0.07, p = 0.6). Our results were similar when we limited our analysis to trials reporting both outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

In this metaepidemiological study, admission and mortality outcomes did not correlate, and discordances occurred in about one-third of the treatment comparisons included in our analyses. Both outcomes convey useful information and should be reported separately, but extrapolating the benefits of admission to survival is unreliable and should be avoided.

Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment effects from randomised trials conducted in more developed versus less developed countries.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (August 2012).

DATA EXTRACTION

Meta-analyses with mortality outcomes including data from at least one randomised trial conducted in a less developed country and one in a more developed country. Relative risk estimates of more versus less developed countries were compared by calculating the relative relative risks for each topic and the summary relative relative risks across all topics. Similar analyses were performed for the primary binary outcome of each topic.

RESULTS

139 meta-analyses with mortality outcomes were eligible. No nominally significant differences between more developed and less developed countries were found for 128 (92%) meta-analyses. However, differences were beyond chance in 11 (8%) cases, always showing more favourable treatment effects in trials from less developed countries. The summary relative relative risk was 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.18; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), suggesting significantly more favourable mortality effects in trials from less developed countries. Results were similar for meta-analyses with nominally significant treatment effects for mortality (1.15), meta-analyses with recent trials (1.14), and when excluding trials from less developed countries that subsequently became more developed (1.12). For the primary binary outcomes (127 meta-analyses), 20 topics had differences in treatment effects beyond chance (more favourable in less developed countries in 15/20 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials from less developed countries in a few cases show significantly more favourable treatment effects than trials in more developed countries and, on average, treatment effects are more favourable in less developed countries. These discrepancies may reflect biases in reporting or study design as well as genuine differences in baseline risk or treatment implementation and should be considers when generalising evidence across different settings.

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.

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 low- and middle-income countries. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in high-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all children should be vaccinated with a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) or a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.), with a stronger recommendation for countries where deaths due to diarrhoea comprise more than 10% of all deaths. 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. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines on all-cause diarrhoea, hospital admission, death, and safety profiles.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) in October 2011, and in June 2011 we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), , EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (28 June 2011) and checked reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials 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. They combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality, which was reflected as follows: high quality ("vaccine prevents..."); moderate quality ("vaccine probably prevents..."); or low quality ("vaccine may prevent...").

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials, including nine new trials for this update, met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 190,551 participants. Thirty-one trials assessed RV1, and 12 trials evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.In children aged less than one year, RV1, compared to placebo, probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.50; seven trials, 12,130 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 80% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; seven trials, 35,004 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, RV5 prevents 73% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; four trials, 7614 participants; high-quality evidence), and 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; three trials, 6953 participants; high-quality evidence). Both vaccines prevent over 80% of rotavirus diarrhoea cases that require hospitalization. For all-cause diarrhoea, based on two multi-centred trials from South Africa, Malawi, and Europe, RV1 may reduce severe cases by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; two trials, 8291 participants; low--quality evidence). Also, based on one trial from Finland, RV5 may reduce severe cases by 72% (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; one trial, 1029 participants; low-quality evidence).During the second year of life, compared to placebo, RV1 probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea of any severity (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.43; six trials, 8041 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.21; eight trials, 32,854 participants; moderate-quality evidence). RV5 prevents 49% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases of any severity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; four trials, 9784 participants; high-quality evidence), and 56% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88; four trials, 9783 participants; high-quality evidence). For all-cause diarrhoea, RV1 probably reduces severe cases by 51% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.60; two trials, 6269 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and RV5 showed no difference with placebo (three trials, 8533 participants).Reported serious adverse events (including intussusception) after vaccination were measured in 95,178 children for RV1 and 77,480 for RV5, with no difference between the vaccines.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1 and RV5 vaccines are effective in preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. These data support the WHO's global vaccine recommendation. The potential for reduced vaccine efficacy in low-income countries needs to be investigated. No increased risk of intussusception was detected, but surveillance monitoring studies are probably advisable in countries introducing the vaccine nationally.

Vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis

Diseases that cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis are major problems for populations worldwide. Patients, particularly infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, may present at any point in a wide spectrum of disease states, underscoring the need for the clinician to treat these ailments aggressively. Several promising new treatment modalities, from oral rehydration solutions to antiemetic therapies, have been introduced over the past decade. Future directions include the use of probiotic agents and better tolerated rehydration solutions. Gastrointestinal disease will continue to be a focus worldwide in the search for better ways to cure illnesses associated with vomiting and diarrhea.

Rotavirus vaccine and diarrhea mortality: quantifying regional variation in effect size

Background

Diarrhea mortality remains a leading cause of child death and rotavirus vaccine an effective tool for preventing severe rotavirus diarrhea. New data suggest vaccine efficacy may vary by region.

Methods

We reviewed published vaccine efficacy trials to estimate a regional-specific effect of vaccine efficacy on severe rotavirus diarrhea and hospitalizations. We assessed the quality of evidence using a standard protocol and conducted meta-analyses where more than 1 data point was available.

Results

Rotavirus vaccine prevented severe rotavirus episodes in all regions; 81% of episodes in Latin America, 42.7% of episodes in high-mortality Asia, 50% of episodes in sub-Saharan Africa, 88% of episodes low-mortality Asia and North Africa, and 91% of episodes in developed countries. The effect sizes observed for preventing severe rotavirus diarrhea will be used in LiST as the effect size for rotavirus vaccine on rotavirus-specific diarrhea mortality.

Conclusions

Vaccine trials have not measured the effect of vaccine on diarrhea mortality. The overall quality of the evidence and consistency observed across studies suggests that estimating mortality based on a severe morbidity reduction is highly plausible.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in higher diarrhoea-related death in children less than five years of age than any other single agent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization has recommended the use of rotavirus vaccines in childhood immunization schedules.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (Rotarix, RotaTeq, and Lanzhou Lamb Rotavirus (LLR)) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In February 2010, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (January 2010) and checked reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous data were combined using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four trials that included 175,944 participants met the inclusion criteria. They evaluated Rotarix (26 trials; 99,841 participants) and RotaTeq (eight trials; 76,103 participants), and had variable risk of bias (where information provided). None of the identified trials used LLR or compared rotavirus vaccines. Compared to placebo, Rotarix and RotaTeq were both effective at reducing rotavirus diarrhoea (severe cases and cases of any severity). They also reduced all-cause diarrhoea (severe cases), and hospitalizations and need for medical attention caused by rotavirus diarrhoea. However, few data were available for Rotarix and all-cause diarrhoea. Versus the placebo groups, participants in each vaccine group had similar numbers of deaths, serious adverse events, reactogenicity profiles (fever, diarrhoea, and vomiting), and adverse events that required discontinuation of the vaccination schedule. Both vaccines were immunogenic (measured by virus shedding in stool and/or seroconversion). Subgroup analyses indicate that both vaccines are effective in countries with different incomes, but few data are available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rotarix and RotaTeq are effective vaccines for the prevention of rotavirus diarrhoea. The balance between benefit and harm favours benefit. Ongoing safety monitoring should be continued. Trials comparing LLR with placebo should be conducted and the results made available.

The effect of rotavirus vaccine on diarrhoea mortality

Background Approximately 39% of the global diarrhoea deaths in children aged 5 years may be attributable to rotavirus infection. Two rotavirus vaccines were recently introduced to the market, with evidence of efficacy in the USA, Europe and Latin America. We sought to estimate the effectiveness of these vaccines against rotavirus morbidity and mortality.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of published efficacy and effectiveness trials of rotavirus vaccines. Study descriptors and outcome measures were abstracted into standardized tables and the quality of each study was graded. We performed meta-analyses for any outcome with two or more data points, and used child health epidemiology reference group (CHERG) Rules for Evidence Review to estimate the effect of the vaccine on rotavirus mortality.

Results We identified six papers for abstraction, reporting results from four studies. No studies reported diarrhoea or rotavirus deaths, but all studies showed reductions in hospitalizations due to rotavirus or diarrhoea of any aetiology, severe and any rotavirus infections and diarrhoea episodes of any aetiology in children who received rotavirus vaccine compared with placebo. Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection best approximated effectiveness against the fraction of diarrhoea deaths attributable to rotavirus, and was estimated to be 74% (95% confidence interval: 35–90%).

Conclusions Rotavirus vaccines are efficacious against rotavirus morbidity and mortality and have the potential to substantially reduce child mortality in low-income countries if implemented appropriately.

Exploring the cost effectiveness of an immunization programme for rotavirus gastroenteritis in the United Kingdom

Rotavirus is the most common cause of gastroenteritis in children aged <5 years old, two new vaccines have recently been developed which can prevent associated morbidity and mortality. While apparently safe and efficacious, it is also important to establish whether rotavirus immunization is cost effective. A decision analytical model which employs data from a review of published evidence is used to determine the cost effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccine. The results suggest that some of the health sector costs, and all of the societal costs, of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children can be avoided by an immunization programme. The additional cost to the health sector may be considered worthwhile if there is a sufficient improvement in the quality-of-life of children and parents affected by gastroenteritis; this study did not find any evidence of research which has measured the utility gains from vaccination.

Burden of disease & molecular epidemiology of group A rotavirus infections in India

Rotavirus is the major cause of severe dehydrating diarrhoea in young children worldwide. Considerable research has been carried out on rotavirus disease in India. This review collated data from 46 epidemiological studies to determine rotavirus positivity rates and genotypes of infecting rotavirus strains from various settings in India. Studies on diarrhoea presenting to hospitals, neonatal rotavirus infections, symptomatic and asymptomatic infections in the community and nosocomial enteric infections were included. Rotavirus positivity rates varied greatly between different settings - diarrhoea hospitalizations (20%), neonatal infections (35%), symptomatic and asymptomatic infections in the community (15.1% and 6.3% respectively) and nosocomial enteric infections (22.5%). Among diarrhea hospitalizations, the commonest G types were G1 and G2 while commonest P types were P[8], P[6] and P[4]. Region specific neonatal infections by bovinehuman reassortants have been reported, in addition to several recently described unusual strains, which may be evidence of zoonotic infection and/or reassortment. The emergence of several new strains highlights the need for intensive strain surveillance before and after the introduction of a new vaccine.