Immunisation of the immunocompromised child

Optimization of hydrolysis conditions of amino acid analysis for UHPLC-UV antigens content determination: Bexsero vaccine a case study

In the present study the compositional analysis of the amino acids released by the acidic hydrolysis of the vaccine antigens was approached as an alternative to the dye-binding methods, for improvement of the quality control. In particular, the Analytical Quality by Design principles were undertaken in optimizing the hydrolysis conditions of the antigens to be applied prior to the quantitation by UHPLC-UV. Bexsero was used as a case study; it is a recombinant meningococcal B vaccine and one of its critical quality attributes is the content of the three core protein antigens, namely Neisseria Heparin Binding Antigen, factor H binding protein and Neisseria adhesin A, in the final formulation. Conventionally, the proteins quantitation is carried out by dye-binding assays. Analytical Target Profile was defined as the accurate determination of amounts of the Bexsero antigens. The Critical Method Parameters were chosen by means of the cause-effect matrix. A Face Centered Design was used to select the experiments to investigate the process and finally a Method Operable Design Region with a risk of failure of 5% was defined. The selected working point for routine use was: hydrolysis time, 17 hrs; temperature, 112 °C; 6 M HCl volume, 300 µl; antioxidant 90% phenol volume, 5 µl.

Barriers to vaccination in immunocompromised children: A needs assessment in children with childhood-onset SLE and inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Vaccination of immunocompromised children (ICC) remains suboptimal.

Methods

Needs assessment surveys were administered to patients and caregivers during routine ambulatory visits to the rheumatology and gastroenterology clinics at Nationwide Children's Hospital (NCH) from January 1 through August 31, 2018, and to community primary care physicians (PCPs) at their monthly meeting and electronically.

Results

Completed surveys were received for 57 patients (31 with childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (c-SLE) and 26 with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) and 30 PCPs. Of the patient cohort, 93% (n = 53) felt their PCP was well informed about vaccines and 84% (n = 47) received vaccinations from either their PCP or local health department. Two patient surveys noted concerns of vaccine safety. Among the 30 responses completed by PCPs 50% (n = 15) preferred to provide all vaccines themselves, however, only 40% (n = 12) of PCPs felt "very confident" when providing vaccines to ICC. Further, 83% (n = 25) did not stock the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine and only 27% (n = 8) routinely recommended vaccination of household contacts.

Conclusions

Our study found a discordance between parent and PCP comfort in vaccinating ICC, highlighting an important barrier to vaccination in this patient population. In our cohort of patients, vaccine hesitancy was not a barrier to vaccination.

[Vaccinations for the immunologic memory-Repeatedly or once only?]

Dank der Wirksamkeit von Impfstoffen sind einige besonders bedrohliche Infektionskrankheiten selten geworden. Allerdings sind Impfstoffe inzwischen Opfer ihres eigenen Erfolgs. Aufgrund unzureichender Zustimmung und unzureichender Impfquoten besteht die Gefahr, dass die Wirksamkeit von Impfungen als Präventionsmaßnahme immer mehr schwindet. Im Jahr 2019 stufte die Weltgesundheitsorganisation daher Zweifel an der Wirksamkeit von Impfstoffen als eine der zehn größten Gesundheitsgefahren weltweit ein. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird auf wichtige Fragen zu Impfungen und Impfstoffen sowie zu ihren Wirkungen im Wechselspiel mit dem Immunsystem eingegangen. Behandelt werden folgende Themen: Vergleich der natürlichen und der durch Impfung erworbenen Immunität; Faktoren, die eine Auffrischungsimpfung erforderlich machen; Rolle der Herdenimmunität; Voraussetzungen für das Gelingen einer Erkrankungseradikation; Einfluss verschiedener T‑Zellen auf die Impfwirkung; Rolle des Immungedächtnisses; Faktoren, die den Impfschutz beeinflussen; Impfungen bei Immundefizienz; Potenzial und Einsatzbereiche der passiven Immunisierung. Im Angesicht der Coronapandemie und der laufenden Impfkampagne ist zu hoffen, dass eine allgemeine Renaissance der Impfungen gegen Infektionskrankheiten einsetzt.

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.

Response to pneumococcal conjugate and polysaccharide vaccination in children with rheumatic disease

Children with rheumatic disease and compromised immune system have an increased risk of infection. Streptococcus pneumoniae is a frequent pathogen, and immunization is recommended. In this study, we investigated whether immunocompromised children with rheumatic disease do respond to pneumococcal immunization with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. The study was conducted at two tertiary referral hospitals in Denmark from 2015 to 2018. Patients with rheumatic disease and compromised immune system aged 2-19 years were eligible. Patients were vaccinated with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. A blood sample was collected before vaccination and after each vaccination. IgG antibodies were quantified for twelve serotypes. Seroprotection for each serotype was defined as IgG ≥0.35 µg/mL. A total of 27 patients were enrolled. After the conjugate vaccine, an increase in antibody titres compared with pre-vaccination was found for all serotypes and 9/12 were significant. After the polysaccharide vaccine, the antibody titres for all serotypes but one was seen to increase but none reached significance. The proportion of patients protected before immunization ranged from 20.8% to 100% for the individual serotypes. Odds ratio for achieving seroprotection after the conjugate vaccine was >1 for 10/12 serotypes but only significant for three serotypes. After the polysaccharide vaccine, the odds ratio was >1 for 9/12 serotypes but none reached significance. In conclusion, children with rheumatic disease and compromised immune system respond to pneumococcal immunization with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and maintain antibody levels upon subsequent immunization with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine.

Response to influenza vaccination in immunocompromised children with rheumatic disease: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prevention of illness due to infection by influenza viruses is important for children with rheumatic diseases. Biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs have become increasingly important in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and combinations of immunosuppressive drugs are used for the treatment of systemic disorders, which increase the risk of secondary immunodeficiency. Therefore, we investigated whether children with rheumatic disease can mount a protective antibody response after influenza immunization.

METHODS

The prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in Denmark during the influenza season 2015-2016. Children with rheumatic disease aged six months to 19 years were eligible. Controls were immunologically healthy children. A blood sample was collected before and after vaccination and analysed by haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay for the 2015-2016 influenza vaccine-strains. In case of flu-like symptoms the child was tested for influenza. For statistical analyses the patients were grouped according to medical treatment or disease.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients and 15 controls were enrolled. No differences were found for the increase of antibodies from pre-vaccine to post-vaccine between the groups in our primary analyses: A/Cal H1N1pdm09 (p = 0.28), A/Swi H3N2 (p = 0.15) and B/Phu Yamagata (p = 0.08). Only when combining patients across groups a lower increase in antibodies was found compared to controls. Among all patients the pre-vaccine rates for seroprotection using the HI-titer cut-off ≥ 40 were 93.1-97.0 % for all three strains. For seroprotection using the HI-titer cut-off ≥ 110 the pre-vaccine rates for all patients were 14.9-43.6 % for all three strains and an increase in the proportions of patients being seroprotected after vaccination was found for A/Cal H1N1pdm09 and A/Swi H3N2. None of the children with flu-like symptoms tested positive for the vaccine strains.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with rheumatic diseases increase in antibody titres after influenza immunization, however, it remains uncertain whether a protective level is achieved.

Vaccination of immune compromised children-an overview for physicians

Immune compromised children are threatened by a higher risk of infections; some of these are preventable by vaccination. Primary care physicians play a fundamental role in optimising vaccination status. In this narrative review, we present the evidence on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in immune compromised children and discuss in which conditions live-attenuated vaccines can possibly be used. Vaccination schedules differ in some of these conditions, including the use of vaccines with higher antigenic contents (e.g. high-dose hepatitis B vaccine), additional vaccine doses (e.g. 2-dose schedule meningococcal vaccine), more frequent booster doses (e.g. life-long pneumococcal vaccine booster), supplementary vaccines (e.g. meningococcal B vaccine) and use of vaccines beyond the age of usual recommendation (e.g. Haemophilus influenza type b vaccine after 5 years of age). Serological monitoring is a useful tool for customizing vaccination schedule in immune compromised children, confirming adequate vaccine response and documenting seroprotection (especially against measles and varicella). Finally, verification of vaccination status of all household members can prevent them being vector of transmission of an infection to the immune compromised children. Conclusion: Intensified information strategies are needed to improve trust, rectify perceived risks and improve vaccine acceptability; primary physicians can play a critical role in the latter. What is Known: • Physician's awareness is key to success, since it repeatedly correlates with higher vaccination rates What is New: • The vaccination status of immunocompromised children is rarely up-to-date • Knowing the latest vaccine recommendations is challenging, as they differ for each medical condition and change periodically • This review summarises the vaccine recommendations for children with compromised immune systems and highlights how paediatricians play a key role in coordinating their application.

A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments

Immunization is a cornerstone of public health policy and is demonstrably highly cost-effective when used to protect child health. Although it could be argued that immunology has not thus far contributed much to vaccine development, in that most of the vaccines we use today were developed and tested empirically, it is clear that there are major challenges ahead to develop new vaccines for difficult-to-target pathogens, for which we urgently need a better understanding of protective immunity. Moreover, recognition of the huge potential and challenges for vaccines to control disease outbreaks and protect the older population, together with the availability of an array of new technologies, make it the perfect time for immunologists to be involved in designing the next generation of powerful immunogens. This Review provides an introductory overview of vaccines, immunization and related issues and thereby aims to inform a broad scientific audience about the underlying immunological concepts.

This Review, aimed at a broad scientific audience, provides an introductory guide to the history, development and immunological basis of vaccines, immunization and related issues to provide insight into the challenges facing immunologists who are designing the next generation of 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.

Meningococcal B Vaccine Immunogenicity in Children With Defects in Complement and Splenic Function

BACKGROUND

The capsular group B meningococcal vaccine (4CMenB) is recommended for children with complement deficiencies, asplenia, and splenic dysfunction; however, data on the immunogenicity of 4CMenB in these "at-risk" children are missing.

METHODS

Participants aged 2 to 17 years in Italy, Spain, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Russia with complement deficiencies, asplenia, or splenic dysfunction received 2 doses of 4CMenB 2 months apart, as did healthy children in the control group. Exogenous and endogenous human complement serum bactericidal activity (SBA) was determined at baseline and 1 month after the second immunization against 4 test strains: H44/76 (assessing vaccine antigen factor H binding protein), 5/99 (Neisserial adhesion A), NZ98/254 (Porin A), and M10713 (Neisserial heparin binding antigen).

RESULTS

Of 239 participants (mean age 10.3 years, 45% female), 40 children were complement deficient (9 eculizumab therapy, 4 terminal-chain deficiencies, 27 "other"), 112 children had asplenia or splenic dysfunction (8 congenital asplenia, 8 functional asplenia, 96 splenectomy), and 87 children were in the control group. After immunization, the proportions of complement-deficient participants with exogenous complement SBA titers ≥1:5 were 87% (H44/76), 95% (5/99), 68% (NZ98/254), and 73% (M10713), compared with 97%, 100%, 86%, and 94%, respectively, for asplenic children and 98%, 99%, 83%, and 99% for children in the control group. When testing with endogenous complement, strain-specific bactericidal activity was evident in only 1 eculizumab-treated participant and 1 terminal chain complement-deficient participant.

CONCLUSIONS

4CMenB administration is similarly immunogenic in healthy children and those with asplenia or splenic dysfunction. The significance of the trend to lower responses of SBA titers in complement-deficient children (especially those with terminal chain complement deficiency or those on eculizumab therapy) must be determined by ongoing surveillance for vaccine failures.