Safety and immunogenicity of RIX4414 live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in adults, toddlers and previously uninfected infants

Development of recombinant rotavirus carrying herpes simplex virus 2 glycoprotein D gene based on reverse genetics technology

Vaccine development for herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) has been attempted, but no vaccines are yet available. A plasmid-based reverse genetics system for Rotavirus (RV), which can cause gastroenteritis, allows the generation of recombinant RV containing foreign genes. In this study, we sought to develop simian RV (SA11) as a vector to express HSV-2 glycoprotein D (gD2) and evaluated its immunogenicity in mice. We generated the recombinant SA11-gD2 virus (rSA11-gD2) and confirmed its ability to express gD2 in vitro. The virus was orally inoculated into suckling BALB/c mice and into 8-week-old mice. Serum IgG and IgA titers against RV and gD2 were measured by ELISA. In the 8-week-old mice inoculated with rSA11-gD2, significant increases in not only antibodies against RV but also IgG against gD2 were demonstrated. In the suckling mice, antibodies against RV were induced, but gD2 antibody was not detected. Diarrhea observed after the first inoculation of rSA11-gD2 in suckling mice was similar to that induced by the parent virus. A gD2 expressing simian RV recombinant, which was orally inoculated, induced IgG against gD2. This strategy holds possibility for genital herpes vaccine development.

Established and new rotavirus vaccines: a comprehensive review for healthcare professionals

Robust scientific evidence related to two rotavirus (RV) vaccines available worldwide demonstrates their significant impact on RV disease burden. Improving RV vaccination coverage may result in better RV disease control. To make RV vaccination accessible to all eligible children worldwide and improve vaccine effectiveness in high-mortality settings, research into new RV vaccines continues. Although current and in-development RV vaccines differ in vaccine design, their common goal is the reduction of RV disease risk in children <5 years old for whom disease burden is the most significant. Given the range of RV vaccines available, informed decision-making is essential regarding the choice of vaccine for immunization. This review aims to describe the landscape of current and new RV vaccines, providing context for the assessment of their similarities and differences. As data for new vaccines are limited, future investigations will be required to evaluate their performance/added value in a real-world setting.

Rotavirus vaccine-derived cases in Belgium: Evidence for reversion of attenuating mutations and alternative causes of gastroenteritis

Since the introduction of live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines in Belgium in 2006, surveillance has routinely detected rotavirus vaccine-derived strains. However, their genomic landscape and potential role in gastroenteritis have not been thoroughly investigated. We compared VP7 and VP4 nucleotide sequences obtained from rotavirus surveillance with the Rotarix vaccine sequence. As a result, we identified 80 vaccine-derived strains in 5125 rotavirus-positive infants with gastroenteritis from 2007 to 2018. Using both viral metagenomics and reverse transcription qPCR, we evaluated the vaccine strains and screened for co-infecting enteropathogens. Among the 45 patients with known vaccination status, 39 were vaccinated and 87% received the vaccine less than a month before the gastroenteritis episode. Reconstruction of 30 near complete vaccine-derived genomes revealed 0-11 mutations per genome, with 88% of them being non-synonymous. This, in combination with several shared amino acid changes among strains, pointed at selection of minor variant(s) present in the vaccine. We also found that some of these substitutions were true revertants (e.g., F167L on VP4, and I45T on NSP4). Finally, co-infections with known (e.g., Clostridioides difficile and norovirus) and divergent or emerging (e.g., human parechovirus A1, salivirus A2) pathogens were detected, and we estimated that 35% of the infants likely had gastroenteritis due to a 'non-rotavirus' cause. Conversely, we could not rule out the vaccine-derived gastroenteritis in over half of the cases. Continued studies inspecting reversion to pathogenicity should monitor the long-time safety of live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines. All in all, the complementary approach with NGS and qPCR provided a better understanding of rotavirus vaccine strain evolution in the Belgian population and epidemiology of co-infecting enteropathogens in suspected rotavirus vaccine-derived gastroenteritis cases.

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.

Plasma rotavirus-specific IgA and risk of rotavirus vaccine failure in infants in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus vaccine efficacy is reduced in low-income populations, but efforts to improve vaccine performance are limited by lack of clear correlates of protection. While plasma rotavirus (RV)-specific IgA appears strongly associated with protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis in high-income countries, weaker association has been observed in low-income countries. We tested the hypothesis that lower RV-specific IgA is associated with rotavirus vaccine failure in Malawian infants.

METHODS

In a case-control study we recruited infants presenting with severe rotavirus gastroenteritis following monovalent oral rotavirus vaccination (RV1 vaccine failures). Conditional logistic regression was used to determine the odds of rotavirus seronegativity (RV-specific IgA<20 U/mL) in these cases compared 1:1 with age-matched, vaccinated, asymptomatic community controls. Plasma RV-specific IgA was determined by ELISA for all participants at recruitment, and for cases at 10 days post symptom onset. Rotavirus infection and genotype were determined by antigen testing and RT-PCR respectively.

RESULTS

In 116 age-matched pairs, infants with RV1 vaccine failure were more likely to be RV-specific IgA seronegative than controls: OR 3.1 (95%CI 1.6-5.9), p=0.001. In 60 infants with convalescent serology, 42/45 (93%, 95%CI 81-98%) infants seronegative at baseline became seropositive. Median rise in RV-specific IgA concentration following acute infection was 112.8 (IQR 19.1-380.6) fold.

CONCLUSIONS

In this vaccinated population with high residual burden of rotavirus disease, RV1 vaccine failure was associated with lower RV-specific IgA, providing further evidence of RV-specific IgA as a marker of protection. Robust convalescent RV-specific IgA response in vaccine failures suggests differences in wild-type and vaccine-induced immunity, which informs future vaccine development.

Oral rotavirus vaccine shedding as a marker of mucosal immunity

Group A rotaviruses (RVA) remain a leading cause of pediatric diarrhea worldwide, in part due to underperformance of currently approved live-attenuated, oral vaccines in low-and-middle income countries. Improved immune correlates of protection (CoP) for existing oral vaccines and novel strategies to evaluate the performance of next-generation vaccines are needed. Use of oral vaccines as challenge agents in controlled human infection models is a potential approach to CoP discovery that remains underexplored. In a live-attenuated, oral rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline) efficacy trial conducted among infants in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we explored the potential for the second dose of the two-dose series to be considered a challenge agent through which RVA immunity could be explored, using fecal virus shedding post-dose 2 as a marker of mucosal immunity. Among 180 vaccinated infants who completed the parent study per protocol, the absence of fecal vaccine shedding following the second dose of Rotarix suggested intestinal mucosal immunity generated by the first dose and a decreased risk of RVA diarrhea through 2 years of life (RR 0.616, 95% CI 0.392-0.968). Further development of controlled human infection models for group A rotaviruses, especially in prospective studies with larger sample sizes, may be a promising tool to assess rotavirus vaccine efficacy and CoPs.

Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.

METHODS

We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).

RESULTS

Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of  intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).

CONCLUSIONS

Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

The Interface of Vibrio cholerae and the Gut Microbiome

The bacterium Vibrio cholerae is the etiologic agent of the severe human diarrheal disease cholera. The gut microbiome, or the native community of microorganisms found in the human gastrointestinal tract, is increasingly being recognized as a factor in driving susceptibility to infection, in vivo fitness, and host interactions of this pathogen. Here, we review a subset of the emerging studies in how gut microbiome structure and microbial function are able to drive V. cholerae virulence gene regulation, metabolism, and modulate host immune responses to cholera infection and vaccination. Improved mechanistic understanding of commensal-pathogen interactions offers new perspectives in the design of prophylactic and therapeutic approaches for cholera control.

Update on rotavirus vaccine underperformance in low- to middle-income countries and next-generation vaccines

In the decade since oral rotavirus vaccines (ORV) were recommended by the World Health Organization for universal inclusion in all national immunization programs, significant yet incomplete progress has been made toward reducing the burden of rotavirus in low- to middle-income countries (LMIC). ORVs continue to demonstrate effectiveness and impact in LMIC, yet numerous factors hinder optimal performance and evaluation of these vaccines. This review will provide an update on ORV performance in LMIC, the increasing body of literature regarding factors that affect ORV response, and the status of newer and next-generation rotavirus vaccines as of early 2020. Fully closing the gap in rotavirus prevention between LMIC and high-income countries will likely require a multifaceted approach accounting for biological and methodological challenges and evaluation and roll-out of newer and next-generation vaccines.

A pilot study on use of live attenuated rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix™) as an infection challenge model

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus remains the commonest cause of dehydrating diarrhoea, particularly in developing countries. Human infection challenge studies in children in these countries offers an opportunity to rapidly evaluate new vaccine candidates that may have improved efficacy. We evaluated use of Rotarix™ as a live-attenuated challenge agent.

METHODS

We undertook an open label, exploratory study in infants receiving two standard doses of Rotarix™ at 6 and 10 weeks of age in a cohort of 22 Zambian infants. The first vaccine dose was considered as primary vaccination, and the second at day 28 as a live-attenuated virus challenge. Saliva, stool and serum samples were collected on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 28 following each dose. The primary outcome was stool shedding of rotavirus, determined by NSP2 qPCR. We calculated mean shedding index as average of natural logarithm of viral copies per gram of stool.

FINDINGS

After the first dose, viral shedding was high at day 3, peaked by day 5. After the second dose, viral shedding at day 3 was low and reduced gradually in most infants until day 14. Mean shedding index was significantly lower post dose 2 across all infants and timepoints (5.0 virus copies/g of stool [95%CI: 0.3-9.7] vs 10.4 virus copies/g of stool [95%CI: 6.2-14.6]; p-value < 0.0001; rho = 0.20, SD = 4.97. Seroconversion at day 28 was associated with a mean reduction of -1.03 (95%CI = -8.07, 6.01) in viral shedding after challenge dose but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.774). A borderline positive correlation between fold-change in IgA titre at day 28 from day 0 in saliva and serum was observed; Spearman's correlation coefficient, r = 0.69; p = 0.086.

INTERPRETATION

Shedding after the 'challenge' dose was reduced compared with the first dose, consistent with the induction of mucosal immunity by the first dose. This supports the use of Rotarix vaccine as a live-attenuated infection challenge.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council (UK) through the HIC-Vac Network.

Fifteen years of experience with the oral live-attenuated human rotavirus vaccine: reflections on lessons learned

INTRODUCTION

Rotavirus (RV) disease remains a prominent cause of disease burden in children <5 years of age worldwide. However, implementation of RV vaccination has led to significant reductions in RV mortality, compared to the pre-vaccination era. This review presents 15 years of real-world experience with the oral live-attenuated human RV vaccine (HRV; Rotarix). HRV is currently introduced in ≥80 national immunization programs (NIPs), as 2 doses starting from 6 weeks of age.

AREAS COVERED

The clinical development of HRV and post-marketing experience indicating the impact of HRV vaccination on RV disease was reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

In clinical trials, HRV displayed an acceptable safety profile and efficacy against RV-gastroenteritis, providing broad protection against heterotypic RV strains by reducing the consequences of severe RV disease in infants. Real-world evidence shows substantial, rapid reduction in the number of RV infections and associated hospitalizations following introduction of HRV in NIPs, regardless of economic setting. Indirect effects against RV disease are also observed, such as herd protection, decrease in nosocomial infections incidence, and a reduction of disease-related societal/healthcare costs. However, not all countries have implemented RV vaccination. Coverage remains suboptimal and should be improved to maximize the benefits of RV vaccination.

Overview of the Development, Impacts, and Challenges of Live-Attenuated Oral Rotavirus Vaccines

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are paramount to vaccine development. Following the isolation of rotavirus particles in 1969 and its evidence as an aetiology of severe dehydrating diarrhoea in infants and young children worldwide, the quest to find not only an acceptable and reliable but cost-effective vaccine has continued until now. Four live-attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines (LAORoVs) (Rotarix^®, RotaTeq^®, Rotavac^®, and RotaSIIL^®) have been developed and licensed to be used against all forms of rotavirus-associated infection. The efficacy of these vaccines is more obvious in the high-income countries (HIC) compared with the low- to middle-income countries (LMICs); however, the impact is far exceeding in the low-income countries (LICs). Despite the rotavirus vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, more than 90 countries (mostly Asia, America, and Europe) are yet to implement any of these vaccines. Implementation of these vaccines has continued to suffer a setback in these countries due to the vaccine cost, policy, discharging of strategic preventive measures, and infrastructures. This review reappraises the impacts and effectiveness of the current live-attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines from many representative countries of the globe. It examines the problems associated with the low efficacy of these vaccines and the way forward. Lastly, forefront efforts put forward to develop initial procedures for oral rotavirus vaccines were examined and re-connected to today vaccines.

Rotavirus-Specific Immunoglobulin A Responses Are Impaired and Serve as a Suboptimal Correlate of Protection Among Infants in Bangladesh

Background

Rotavirus (RV)–specific immunoglobulin A (IgA) responses following oral RV vaccination are impaired in low-income countries, where the utility of RV-IgA as a correlate of protection (CoP) remains unclear. In a monovalent oral RV vaccine (Rotarix) efficacy trial among infants in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we identified factors associated with poor RV-IgA responses and explored the utility of RV-IgA as a CoP.

Methods

Infants were randomized to receive Rotarix or no Rotarix at 10 and 17 weeks of life and followed with active diarrheal surveillance. RV-IgA concentration, seroconversion, and seropositivity were determined at 18 weeks of life and analyzed for correlation(s) with rotavirus diarrhea (RVD) and for contribution to Rotarix vaccine effect.

Results

Among vaccinated infants, overall RV-IgA geometric mean concentration was 21 U/mL; only 27% seroconverted and 32% were seropositive after vaccination. Increased RV-specific maternal antibodies significantly impaired immunogenicity. Seroconversion was associated with reduced risk of RVD through 1 year of life, but RV-IgA seropositivity only explained 7.8% of the vaccine effect demonstrated by the clinical endpoint (RVD).

Conclusions

RV-IgA responses were low among infants in Bangladesh and were significantly impaired by maternal antibodies. RV-IgA is a suboptimal CoP in this setting; an improved CoP for RV in low-income countries is needed.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT01375647.

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').

The effect of increased inoculum on oral rotavirus vaccine take among infants in Dhaka, Bangladesh: A double-blind, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral, live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines suffer from impaired immunogenicity and efficacy in low-income countries. Increasing the inoculum of vaccine might improve vaccine response, but this approach has been inadequately explored in low-income countries.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial from June 2017 through June 2018 in the urban Mirpur slum of Dhaka, Bangladesh to compare vaccine take (primary outcome) among healthy infants randomized to receive either the standard dose or double the standard dose of oral Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline) vaccine at 6 and 10 weeks of life. Infants with congenital malformations, birth or enrollment weight <2000 gm, known immunocompromising condition, enrollment in another vaccine trial, or other household member enrolled in the study were excluded. Infants were randomized using random permuted blocks. Vaccine take was defined as detection of post-vaccination fecal vaccine shedding by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction with sequence confirmation or plasma rotavirus-specific immunoglobulin A (RV-IgA) seroconversion 4 weeks following the second dose.

RESULTS

220 infants were enrolled and randomized (110 per group). 97 standard-dose and 92 high-dose infants completed the study per-protocol. For the primary outcome, no significant difference was observed between groups: vaccine take occurred in 62 (67%) high-dose infants versus 69 (71%) standard-dose infants (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-1.24). However, in post-hoc analysis, children with confirmed vaccine replication had significantly increased RV-IgA responses, independent of the intervention. No significant adverse events related to study participation were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of double the standard dose of an oral, live-attenuated rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix) did not improve vaccine take among infants in urban Dhaka, Bangladesh. However, improved immunogenicity in children with vaccine replication irrespective of initial inoculum provides further evidence for the need to promote in-host replication and improved gut health to improve oral vaccine response in low-income settings. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02992197.

Histo-blood group antigens and rotavirus vaccine shedding in Nicaraguan infants

ABO, Lewis and secretor histo-blood group antigens (HBGA) are susceptibility factors for rotavirus in a P-genotype dependent manner and can influence IgA seroconversion rates following rotavirus vaccination. To investigate the association between HBGA phenotypes and rotavirus vaccine shedding fecal samples (n = 304) from a total of 141 infants vaccinated with Rotarix (n = 71) and RotaTeq (n = 70) were prospectively sampled in three time frames (≤3, 4–7 and ≥8 days) after first vaccination dose. Rotavirus was detected with qPCR and genotypes determined by G/P multiplex PCR and/or sequencing. HBGAs were determined by hemagglutination and saliva based ELISA. Low shedding rates were observed, with slightly more children vaccinated with RotaTeq (19%) than Rotarix (11%) shedding rotavirus at ≥4 days post vaccination (DPV). At ≥4 DPV no infant of Lewis A (n = 6) or nonsecretor (n = 9) phenotype in the Rotarix cohort shed rotavirus; the same observation was made for Lewis A infants (n = 7) in the RotaTeq cohort. Putative in-vivo gene reassortment among RotaTeq strains occurred, yielding mainly G1P[8] strains. The bovine derived P[5] genotype included in RotaTeq was able to replicate and be shed at long time frames (>13 DPV). The results of this study are consistent with that HBGA phenotype influences vaccine strain shedding as similarly observed for natural infections. Due to the low overall shedding rates observed, additional studies are however warranted.

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.

Immunogenicity and safety of the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and inactivated poliovirus vaccine when co-administered with the human rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix) in healthy Japanese infants: a phase IV randomized study

Rotavirus infections have been reported to account for 40–50% of all hospitalized acute gastroenteritis cases in young children (<5 years) in Japan. Since 2011, Rotarix containing the live attenuated human rotavirus RIX4414 strain (HRV) has been licensed in Japan for infants. Vaccination against rotavirus is optional in Japan whereas administration of diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and inactivated poliovirus (DPT-IPV) vaccine is part of the national routine immunization program. In this open-label, randomized, controlled, multicenter study, we evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the DPT-IPV vaccine (Squarekids) administered concomitantly or staggered with the liquid HRV (Rotarix) vaccine in healthy Japanese infants. A total of 292 infants aged 6–12 weeks were randomly assigned to receive DPT-IPV vaccine and HRV vaccine co-administered (n = 147) or staggered (n = 145). Immune responses to DPT-IPV vaccine were evaluated by measuring the post-vaccination serum antibody titers/concentrations to each antigen at one month following the third dose of DPT-IPV vaccine. Seroprotection/seropositivity against each of the diphtheria, pertussis (pertussis toxin and filamentous hemagglutinin), tetanus, and poliovirus type 1, 2 and 3 antigens was 92.8% or higher in both groups. In terms of immunogenicity, DPT-IPV vaccine co-administered with HRV vaccine was shown to be non-inferior to DPT-IPV vaccine with a staggered administration. The safety profile was comparable in the two vaccine groups with no vaccine-related serious adverse events, no deaths and no cases of intussusception. These results support co-administration of HRV vaccine with DPT-IPV vaccine in Japan.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02907216

Molecular epidemiology of rotaviruses in Northwest Ethiopia after national vaccine introduction

BACKGROUND

Rotaviruses mortality among infants and young children is high in Sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, Ethiopia introduced the monovalent rotavirus vaccine in its national immunization program to decrease the burden of rotavirus disease and mortality. Rotavirus surveillance in Ethiopia is based largely on data provided by sentinel hospitals in its capital Addis Ababa.

OBJECTIVE

To assess rotavirus abundancy and diversity in outpatient infants and children outside of Addis Ababa in the early post-introduction period.

METHOD

Fecal samples were obtained from children aged less than five years presenting with diarrhea at outpatient health institutions in two cities in Northwest Ethiopia, Gondar and Bahir Dar, from November 2015 to April 2016. Basic demographic data were assessed. Real-time RT-PCR was used to detect rotavirus A RNA. Based on sequences of VP4 and VP7 gene segments phylogenetic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Rotavirus wildtype positivity was 25% (113/450). Rotavirus infection was less common in infants below 6 months than in children of all other age-groups. Rotavirus genotype distributions were distinct between Bahir Dar and Gondar. In total, wildtype G3P[8], G2P[4], G9P[8], G12P[8], and G3P[6] rotaviruses were detected in 68 (60.2%), 21 (18.6%), 13 (11.5%), 9 (8.0%), and 2 (1.8%) of the positive samples, respectively. Wildtype G1P[8] strains were absent. The phylogenetic analysis revealed close relatedness of current rotaviruses with Ethiopian strains of the pre-vaccination period.

CONCLUSION

In the early period after the introduction of vaccination, rotaviruses in Northwestern Ethiopia were frequent in children of 6-59 months and diverse. High phylogenetic relatedness with strains of the pre-vaccine era, indicate absence of early vaccine-induced strain replacement. Future surveillance studies should be carried out throughout the country to gain comprehensive data on rotavirus strain diversity and to monitor the effect of the ongoing vaccine program on the disease burden and eventual rotavirus strain replacement.

Monitoring Shedding of Five Genotypes of RotaTeq Vaccine Viruses by Genotype-Specific Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR Assays

RotaTeq (RV5) is a widely used live attenuated pentavalent rotavirus (RV) vaccine. Although fecal shedding of RV vaccine strains persists for long time periods, it is unclear how each vaccine strain replicates in intestinal tissue and is excreted in stool. To examine this issue, we established RV5 genotype-specific real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays. Five real-time RT-PCR assays were designed for the VP7 gene in genotypes G1, G2, G3, G4, and G6. All assays exhibited excellent linearity, and the detection limit was 1 infectious unit (IU)/reaction for G2, G4, and G6 and 10 IUs/reaction for G1 and G3. No cross-reactivity was observed among G genotypes. The inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variation were less than 3%. The assays were used to examine 129 stool samples collected from eight infants who received RV5. In cases 1 and 2, who received three rounds of vaccination, RV shedding decreased gradually with the number of vaccinations. G1 and G6 shedding appeared to be predominant in comparison to shedding of the other genotypes. Patterns of fecal shedding of the five genotypes of vaccine viruses differed between the eight vaccine recipients. RV5 genotype-specific real-time RT-PCR assays will be useful to study the molecular biology of RV5 replication in infants and experimental animals.

Re-evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and effects of childhood rotavirus vaccination in Norway

Background

Rotavirus vaccination was included into the Norwegian childhood immunisation programme in 2014. Before implementation, rotavirus vaccination was found to be cost–effective from a societal perspective, but not from a healthcare perspective. Since introduction, new data on the incidence and economic effects of rotavirus disease have become available. We assessed early epidemiological effects of the rotavirus vaccination programme and re–evaluated its cost–effectiveness in Norway for the years 2015–2019.

Methods

Using a dynamic transmission model, we compared the epidemiological effects of the ongoing two–dose vaccination programme with Rotarix^®, and a hypothetical 3–dose programme with RotaTeq^® with no vaccination. A baseline cost of € 54 per fully vaccinated child was used. Cost–effectiveness was computed from a healthcare and societal perspective, using a decision analytical model. Data on healthcare use and costs, productivity losses and health utilities were based on published and own estimates. Uncertainty was accounted for in one–way, multi–way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

During 2015–2019, 114,658 home care cases, 34,571 primary care cases, 7,381 severe cases, and 2 deaths associated with rotavirus disease were avoided due to vaccination. Under baseline assumptions vaccination was cost–effective from a healthcare perspective with a cost per QALY of € 47,447 for Rotarix^® and € 52,709 for RotaTeq^®. The break–even price was € 70 for Rotarix^® and € 67 for RotaTeq^®. Vaccination was cost–saving from the societal perspective, and also from a healthcare perspective for vaccine prices below € 25 and € 22 per vaccinated child for Rotarix^® and RotaTeq^®, respectively.

Conclusion

Ongoing childhood rotavirus vaccination in Norway has reduced the rotavirus disease burden substantially, and is cost–effective compared with no vaccination.

Rotavirus shedding following administration of RV3-BB human neonatal rotavirus vaccine

The RV3-BB human neonatal rotavirus vaccine aims to provide protection from severe rotavirus disease from birth. A phase IIa safety and immunogenicity trial was undertaken in Dunedin, New Zealand between January 2012 and April 2014. Healthy, full-term (≥ 36 weeks gestation) babies, who were 0-5 d old were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 3 doses of oral RV3-BB vaccine with the first dose given at 0-5 d after birth (neonatal schedule), or the first dose given at about 8 weeks after birth (infant schedule), or to receive placebo (placebo schedule). Vaccine take (serum immune response or stool shedding of vaccine virus after any dose) was detected after 3 doses of RV3-BB vaccine in >90% of participants when the first dose was administered in the neonatal and infant schedules. The aim of the current study was to characterize RV3-BB shedding and virus replication following administration of RV3-BB in a neonatal and infant vaccination schedule. Shedding was defined as detection of rotavirus by VP6 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in stool on days 3-7 after administration of RV3-BB. Shedding of rotavirus was highest following vaccination at 8 weeks of age in both neonatal and infant schedules (19/30 and 17/27, respectively). Rotavirus was detected in stool on days 3-7, after at least one dose of RV3-BB, in 70% (21/30) of neonate, 78% (21/27) of infant and 3% (1/32) placebo participants. In participants who shed RV3-BB, rotavirus was detectable in stool on day 1 following RV3-BB administration and remained positive until day 4-5 after administration. The distinct pattern of RV3-BB stool viral load demonstrated using a NSP3 quantitative qRT-PCR in participants who shed RV3-BB, suggests that detection of RV3-BB at day 3-7 was the result of replication rather than passage through the gastrointestinal tract.

Incidence of rotavirus gastroenteritis by age in African, Asian and European children: Relevance for timing of rotavirus vaccination

Variability in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) epidemiology can influence the optimal vaccination schedule. We evaluated regional trends in the age of RVGE episodes in low- to middle- versus high-income countries in three continents. We undertook a post-hoc analysis based on efficacy trials of a human rotavirus vaccine (HRV; Rotarix™, GSK Vaccines), in which 1348, 1641, and 5250 healthy infants received a placebo in Europe (NCT00140686), Africa (NCT00241644), and Asia (NCT00197210, NCT00329745). Incidence of any/severe RVGE by age at onset was evaluated by active surveillance over the first two years of life. Severity of RVGE episodes was assessed using the Vesikari-scale. The incidence of any RVGE in Africa was higher than in Europe during the first year of life (≤2.78% vs. ≤2.03% per month), but much lower during the second one (≤0.86% versus ≤2.00% per month). The incidence of severe RVGE in Africa was slightly lower than in Europe during the first year of life. Nevertheless, temporal profiles for the incidence of severe RVGE in Africa and Europe during the first (≤1.00% and ≤1.23% per month) and second (≤0.53% and ≤1.13% per month) years of life were similar to those of any RVGE. Any/severe RVGE incidences peaked at younger ages in Africa vs. Europe. In high-income Asian regions, severe RVGE incidence (≤0.31% per month) remained low during the study. The burden of any RVGE was higher earlier in life in children from low- to middle- compared with high-income countries. Differing rotavirus vaccine schedules are likely warranted to maximize protection in different settings.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Impact of Alternative Dosing Schedules on the Immune Response to Human Rotavirus Vaccine in Rural Ghanaian Infants

BACKGROUND

The recommended schedule for receipt of 2-dose human rotavirus vaccine (HRV) coincides with receipt of the first and second doses of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine (ie, 6 and 10 weeks of age, respectively). Alternative schedules and additional doses of HRV have been proposed and may improve vaccine performance in low-income countries.

METHODS

In this randomized trial in rural Ghana, HRV was administered at ages 6 and 10 weeks (group 1), 10 and 14 weeks (group 2), or 6, 10, and 14 weeks (group 3). We compared serum antirotavirus immunoglobulin A (IgA) seroconversion (≥20 U/mL) and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) between group 1 and groups 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Ninety-three percent of participants (424 of 456) completed the study per protocol. In groups 1, 2, and 3, the IgA seroconversion frequencies among participants with IgA levels of <20 U/mL at baseline were 28.9%, 37.4%, and 43.4%, respectively (group 1 vs group 3, P = .014; group 1 vs group 2, P = .163). Postvaccination IgA GMCs were 22.1 U/mL, 26.5 U/mL, and 32.6 U/mL in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (group 1 vs group 3, P = .038; group 1 vs group 2, P = .304).

CONCLUSIONS

A third dose of HRV resulted in increased seroconversion frequencies and GMCs, compared with 2 doses administered at 6 and 10 weeks of age. Since there is no correlate of protection, a postmarketing effectiveness study is required to determine whether the improvement in immune response translates into a public health benefit in low-income countries.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT015751.

European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases consensus recommendations for rotavirus vaccination in Europe: update 2014

The first evidence-based recommendations for rotavirus (RV) vaccination in Europe were prepared at the time of licensure of 2 live oral RV vaccines (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, and RotaTeq, Sanofi Pasteur MSD) in 2006 and published in 2008. Since then several countries in Europe and more globally have adopted universal RV vaccination of all healthy infants as part of their national immunization programs (NIPs). The experience from these NIPs has produced a wealth of post-introduction effectiveness data that, together with the evidence from prelicensure efficacy trials presented in the 2008 Recommendations, support the case of RV vaccination in Europe. The prelicensure safety trials of Rotarix and RotaTeq, each in populations of more than 60,000 infants, did not reveal risk of intussusception (IS), but postvaccination surveillance in several countries, particularly Australia and Mexico, has established that the risk of IS for both vaccines after the first dose might be between 1:50,000 and 1:80,000. Although it may be argued that the risk is acceptable vis-à-vis the great benefits of RV vaccination, this argument alone may not suffice, and every effort should be made to reduce the risk of IS. Considerable evidence, including postvaccination surveillance data from Germany, suggests that the risk of IS can be reduced by early administration of the first dose of oral RV vaccine. The previous European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition recommendations held that the first dose of oral RV vaccine should be given between 6 and 12 weeks of age; this recommendation is sustained but with an emphasis toward the lower range of the recommended age, that is, preferably between 6 and 8 weeks of age. At the time of the earlier recommendations, experience of RV vaccination in premature infants and other special target groups was limited. It is now recommended with greater confidence than before that prematurely born infants should be vaccinated according to their calendar age as recommended for full-term infants. It is now strongly recommended that all HIV-infected or HIV-exposed infants should be vaccinated with oral RV vaccine. Although specific information on many immunodeficiencies is lacking, infants with known severe combined immunodeficiency should not receive live RV vaccine.

Early exposure of infants to natural rotavirus infection: a review of studies with human rotavirus vaccine RIX4414

BACKGROUND

Rotaviruses are the leading cause of severe acute gastroenteritis in children aged <5 years worldwide. A live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine, RIX4414 has been developed to reduce the global disease burden associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis. Serum anti-rotavirus immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibody measured in unvaccinated infants during clinical trials of RIX4414 reflects natural rotavirus exposure, and may inform the optimal timing for rotavirus vaccination.

METHODS

We reviewed phase II and III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted by GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines, Wavre, Belgium between 2000 and 2008 which used the commercial formulation of RIX4414 lyophilized vaccine. We included trials for which demographic data and pre-dose-1 and post-last-dose anti-rotavirus IgA antibody status were available from placebo recipients.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted across Africa (N = 3), Asia (N = 4), Latin America (N = 4), Europe (N = 4) and North America (N = 1). Overall, 46,398 infants were enrolled and among these, 20,099 received placebo. The mean age at pre-dose-1 time point ranged from 6.4 - 12.2 weeks while the mean age at post-last-dose time point ranged from 13.5 - 19.6 weeks. The anti-RV IgA seropositivity rates at both time points were higher in less developed countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America (pre-dose-1: 2.1%-26.3%; post-last-dose: 6.3%-34.8%) when compared to more developed countries of Asia, Europe and North America (pre-dose-1: 0%-9.4%; post-last-dose: 0%-21.3%), indicating that rotavirus infections occurred at a younger age in these regions.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to rotavirus infection occurred early in life among infants in most geographical settings, especially in developing countries. These data emphasize the importance of timely rotavirus vaccination within the Expanded Program on Immunization schedule to maximize protection.

Dynamic modeling of cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination, Kazakhstan

The government of Kazakhstan, a middle-income country in Central Asia, is considering the introduction of rotavirus vaccination into its national immunization program. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of rotavirus vaccination spanning 20 years by using a synthesis of dynamic transmission models accounting for herd protection. We found that a vaccination program with 90% coverage would prevent ≈880 rotavirus deaths and save an average of 54,784 life-years for children <5 years of age. Indirect protection accounted for 40% and 60% reduction in severe and mild rotavirus gastroenteritis, respectively. Cost per life year gained was US $18,044 from a societal perspective and US $23,892 from a health care perspective. Comparing the 2 key parameters of cost-effectiveness, mortality rates and vaccine cost at <US $2.78 per dose, vaccination program costs would be entirely offset. To further evaluate efficacy of a vaccine program, benefits of indirect protection conferred by vaccination warrant further study.

Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of U.S. children: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Concerns about vaccine safety have led some parents to decline recommended vaccination of their children, leading to the resurgence of diseases. Reassurance of vaccine safety remains critical for population health. This study systematically reviewed the literature on the safety of routine vaccines recommended for children in the United States.

METHODS

Data sources included PubMed, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices statements, package inserts, existing reviews, manufacturer information packets, and the 2011 Institute of Medicine consensus report on vaccine safety. We augmented the Institute of Medicine report with more recent studies and increased the scope to include more vaccines. Only studies that used active surveillance and had a control mechanism were included. Formulations not used in the United States were excluded. Adverse events and patient and vaccine characteristics were abstracted. Adverse event collection and reporting was evaluated by using the McHarm scale. We were unable to pool results. Strength of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or insufficient.

RESULTS

Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. There is moderate evidence that rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. Limitations of the study include that the majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for AEs; and the severity of AEs was inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

The dichotomy of pathogens and allergens in vaccination approaches

Traditional prophylactic vaccination to prevent illness is the primary objective of many research activities worldwide. The golden age of vaccination began with an approach called variolation in ancient China and the evolution of vaccines still continues today with modern developments such as the production of Gardasil(TM) against HPV and cervical cancer. The historical aspect of how different forms of vaccination have changed the face of medicine and communities is important as it dictates our future approaches on both a local and global scale. From the eradication of smallpox to the use of an experimental vaccine to save a species, this review will explore these successes in infectious disease vaccination and also discuss a few significant failures which have hampered our efforts to eradicate certain diseases. The second part of the review will explore designing a prophylactic vaccine for the growing global health concern that is allergy. Allergies are an emerging global health burden. Of particular concern is the rise of food allergies in developed countries where 1 in 10 children is currently affected. The formation of an allergic response results from the recognition of a foreign component by our immune system that is usually encountered on a regular basis. This may be a dust-mite or a prawn but this inappropriate immune response can result in a life-time of food avoidance and lifestyle restrictions. These foreign components are very similar to antigens derived from infectious pathogens. The question arises: should the allergy community be focussing on protective measures rather than ongoing therapeutic interventions to deal with these chronic inflammatory conditions? We will explore the difficulties and benefits of prophylactic vaccination against various allergens by means of genetic technology that will dictate how vaccination against allergens could be utilized in the near future.

Safety of rotavirus vaccine in the NICU

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rotavirus vaccination is discouraged during hospitalization given concerns regarding live attenuated virus transmission, although recommended upon discharge. Infants should have vaccination initiated by 104 days of age or they become age-ineligible. Our institution believed the known risk of severe disease in unvaccinated infants outweighed the theoretical risk of transmission. We routinely administer RotaTeq (RV5) to age-eligible hospitalized infants on enteral feeds. The objective of this study was to determine the safety of RV5 vaccination among vaccinated (VI) and unvaccinated infants (UVI) within the NICU.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified VI between 2008 and 2010, and UVI geographically located near VI within 15 days of vaccination. We screened for gastrointestinal symptoms among UVI by using an electronic medical record query (trigger tool) to identify infants with orders for bowel rest, abdominal imaging, and antibiotics. Trigger-positive infants had full chart review.

RESULTS

Most VI (76%) were either asymptomatic (25% [24 of 96]) or symptomatic but unchanged from baseline (51% [49 of 96]) postvaccination. Although 24% of VI had clinical status changes postvaccination, none were directly attributed to RV5. Among 801 neighboring UVI, 10 (1.2%) had clinical status changes, none directly attributed to RV5, but mostly bacterial sepsis or preexisting gastrointestinal pathology. Two UVI underwent stool analysis; both negative for rotavirus.

CONCLUSIONS

RV5 was well tolerated in hospitalized infants, with most postvaccination symptoms attributed to preexisting symptoms. UVI seemed to have a low risk of symptomatic transmission. Inpatient administration ensures that age-eligible infants are vaccinated regardless of hospital duration. Prospective evaluation of safety and transmissibility is needed.

Rotarix™ (RIX4414): an oral human rotavirus vaccine

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in children younger than 3 years of age worldwide. New rotavirus vaccine candidates were required to confer early protection against the most common rotavirus serotypes and to be well tolerated and not associated with intussusception. RIX4414 is a human-attenuated G1(P8) oral rotavirus vaccine administered in two doses at approximately 6-24 weeks of age. The first dose may be administered from the age of 6 weeks. There should be an interval of at least 4 weeks between doses and the vaccination course should preferably be given before 16 weeks of age and must be completed, according to the manufacturer, by the age of 24 weeks. In a worldwide development program involving more than 70,000 children in six Phase I-III field trials, this vaccine proved to be nonreactogenic, well tolerated and not associated with intussusception. The vaccine provides over 85-96% protection against moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis caused by G1 and non-G1 serotypes, as demonstrated in Latin American and European clinical trial settings, respectively; and reduces gastroenteritis-related hospitalizations by more than 40% in Latin America and by 75% in European settings.

Will vaccination against rotavirus infection with RIX4414 be cost-saving in Germany?

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) is a frequent disease in young children. The recommended German paediatric immunisation schedule does not currently include rotavirus vaccination. A lack of economic data on the impact of routine vaccination is stated as one of the reasons. As a result, the current coverage rate is low, around 26%. This study investigated whether rotavirus vaccination using the two-dose rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines) would be a cost-saving intervention from the perspective of the statutory health insurance (SHI) in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to analyse health outcomes (number of RVGE cases and hospitalisations prevented) and the associated cost to the SHI when comparing 100% rotavirus vaccination with no vaccination in Germany.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model simulated the number of RVGE events and related costs in a German birth cohort over the first 60 months of life with current disease management. The model compared an unvaccinated cohort with a fully vaccinated cohort. Vaccine efficacy data from international clinical trials were combined with German-specific epidemiological and cost data. Results were tested using extensive sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Full vaccination of a birth cohort against rotavirus disease would be expected to prevent 82% of RVGE cases, reducing RVGE frequency from 28 to 5 events per 100 children in the birth cohort up to age 5 years. The estimated cost reduction with vaccination for that period is predicted to be €9.2 million with 100% coverage (€6.9 million with 75% coverage), mainly due to reductions in SHI reimbursement for productivity losses, hospital stays and visits to office-based physicians due to the vaccine's efficacy against severe disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine rotavirus vaccination in Germany would reduce the number of hospitalised and outpatient cases. The associated investment could be fully offset by costs avoided in hospital stays, physician visits and SHI reimbursement of productivity losses. Sensitivity analysis indicated that vaccination would be cost-saving in 95% of simulations. Incremental cost was observed only under extreme conditions, especially when the time spent at home due to rotavirus disease was low or when vaccine efficacy against severe disease was heavily decreased.

Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine

Transmission of rotavirus vaccine or vaccine-reassortant strains to unvaccinated contacts has been reported. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate and characterize the nature of vaccine-virus shedding among rotavirus vaccine recipients. Two groups of healthy infants who received a complete course of RotaTeq (RV5) or Rotarix (RV2) were enrolled (between March 2010 and June 2011) to compare fecal shedding for one month after each vaccine dose. Shedding was assessed using both enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Eighty-seven infants (34 girls and 53 boys) were enrolled in the study. After the first vaccine dose, the peak time of virus shedding occurred between day 4 and day 7, with positive detection rates of 80-90% by real-time RT-PCR and 20-30% by EIA. In both groups, vaccine shedding occurred as early as one day and as late as 25-28 days. Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of real-time RT-PCR data showed no significant differences between two groups when shedding rates were compared after the first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.71) or after the second vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.99). However, infants receiving RV2 shed significantly higher viral loads than those receiving RV5 when compared after the first vaccine dose (P=0.001) and after the second dose (P=0.039). In terms of shedding rates detected by real-time RT-PCR, vaccine uptake of RV5 or RV2 among infants in Taiwan was comparable. Clinical significance of higher shedding viral loads in RV2 should be further observed.

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.

Direct and indirect effects of rotavirus vaccination: comparing predictions from transmission dynamic models

Early observations from countries that have introduced rotavirus vaccination suggest that there may be indirect protection for unvaccinated individuals, but it is unclear whether these benefits will extend to the long term. Transmission dynamic models have attempted to quantify the indirect protection that might be expected from rotavirus vaccination in developed countries, but results have varied. To better understand the magnitude and sources of variability in model projections, we undertook a comparative analysis of transmission dynamic models for rotavirus. We fit five models to reported rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) data from England and Wales, and evaluated outcomes for short- and long-term vaccination effects. All of our models reproduced the important features of rotavirus epidemics in England and Wales. Models predicted that during the initial year after vaccine introduction, incidence of severe RVGE would be reduced 1.8–2.9 times more than expected from the direct effects of the vaccine alone (28–50% at 90% coverage), but over a 5-year period following vaccine introduction severe RVGE would be reduced only by 1.1–1.7 times more than expected from the direct effects (54–90% at 90% coverage). Projections for the long-term reduction of severe RVGE ranged from a 55% reduction at full coverage to elimination with at least 80% coverage. Our models predicted short-term reductions in the incidence of RVGE that exceeded estimates of the direct effects, consistent with observations from the United States and other countries. Some of the models predicted that the short-term indirect benefits may be offset by a partial shifting of the burden of RVGE to older unvaccinated individuals. Nonetheless, even when such a shift occurs, the overall reduction in severe RVGE is considerable. Discrepancies among model predictions reflect uncertainties about age variation in the risk and reporting of RVGE, and the duration of natural and vaccine-induced immunity, highlighting important questions for future research.

Rotavirus vaccination: a concise review

Live attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines were tested for proof-of-concept in the early 1980s, the first vaccine (RotaShield, Wyeth) was introduced in 1998 but was subsequently withdrawn because of association with intussusception, and the two currently licensed vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline, and RotaTeq, Merck) were introduced in 2006. Before licensure both vaccines were extensively tested for safety (for intussusception) and efficacy in trials comprising in over 60,000 infants each. Rotarix is a single-strain human rotavirus vaccine (RV1) and RotaTeq is a combination of five bovine-human reassortant rotaviruses (RV5). Although the composition of the two vaccines is different, their field effectiveness and, largely, mechanism of action are similar. Both prevent effectively severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) but are less efficacious against mild RVGE or rotavirus infection. Field effectiveness of these vaccines in Europe and the USA against severe RVGE has been above 90% and in Latin America around 80%. Trials in Africa have yielded efficacy rates between 50 and 80%. Rotavirus vaccination has been introduced into the national immunization programmes of about 20 countries in Latin America, with Brazil and Mexico as leading countries, as well as in the USA, Australia and South Africa. Introduction into other African countries will start in 2012. In Europe, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland and five federal states of Germany have introduced universal rotavirus vaccination. The reasons for the slow progress in Europe include low mortality from RVGE, unfavourable cost-benefit calculations in some countries, and concerns that still exist over intussusception.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of live-attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in breast-fed and formula-fed European infants

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus is the main cause of severe gastroenteritis and diarrhea in infants and young children less than 5 years of age. Potential impact of breast-feeding on the efficacy and immunogenicity of human rotavirus G1P[8] vaccine was examined in this exploratory analysis.

METHODS

Healthy infants (N = 3994) aged 6-14 weeks who received 2 doses of human rotavirus vaccine/placebo according to a 0-1 or 0-2 month schedule were followed for rotavirus gastroenteritis during 2 epidemic seasons. Rotavirus IgA seroconversion rate (anti-IgA antibody concentration ≥ 20 mIU/mL) and geometric mean concentrations were measured prevaccination and 1-2 months post-dose 2. Vaccine efficacy against any and severe rotavirus gastroenteritis was analyzed according to the infants being breast-fed or exclusively formula-fed at the time of vaccination.

RESULTS

Antirotavirus IgA seroconversion rate was 85.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.4-88.3) in breast-fed and 89.2% (95% CI: 84.2-93) in exclusively formula-fed infants; geometric mean concentrations in the respective groups were 185.8 U/mL (95% CI: 161.4-213.9) and 231.5 U/mL (95% CI: 185.9-288.2). Vaccine efficacy was equally high in breast-fed and exclusively formula-fed children in the first season but fell in breast-fed infants in the second rotavirus season. During the combined 2-year efficacy follow-up period, vaccine efficacy against any rotavirus gastroenteritis was 76.2% (95% CI: 68.7-82.1) and 89.8% (95% CI: 77.6-95.9) and against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis 88.4% (95% CI: 81.6-93) and 98.1% (95% CI: 88.2-100) in the breast-fed and exclusively formula-fed infants, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in immunogenicity of human rotavirus vaccine in breast-fed and exclusively formula-fed infants was small. Vaccine efficacy was equally high in breast-fed and exclusively formula-fed children in the first season. Breast-feeding seemed to reduce slightly the efficacy in the second season.

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.

Why does the world need another rotavirus vaccine?

A “Meeting on Upstream Rotavirus Vaccines and Emerging Vaccine Producers” was held at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland on March 28–30, 2006. The purpose was to discuss, evaluate, and weigh the importance of additional rotavirus vaccine candidates following the successful international licensure of rotavirus vaccines by two major pharmaceutical companies (GlaxoSmithKline and Merck) that had been in development for many years. Both licensed vaccines are composed of live rotaviruses that are delivered orally as have been all candidate rotavirus vaccines evaluated in humans. Each is built on the experience gained with previous candidates whose development had either been discontinued or, in the case of the previously licensed rhesus rotavirus reassortant vaccine (Rotashield), was withdrawn by its manufacturer after the discovery of a rare association with intussusception. Although which alternative candidate vaccines should be supported for development and where this should be done are controversial topics, there was general agreement expressed at the Geneva meeting that further development of alternative candidates is a high priority. This development will help insure that the most safe, effective and economic vaccines are available to children in Third World nations where the vast majority of the >600,000 deaths due to rotavirus occur each year. This review is intended to provide the history and present status of rotavirus vaccines as well as a perspective on the future development of candidate vaccines as a means of promulgating plans suggested at the Geneva meeting.