Co-administration study in South African infants of a live-attenuated oral human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414) and poliovirus vaccines

Intussusception and Other Adverse Event Surveillance after Pilot Introduction of Rotavirus Vaccine in Nam Dinh and Thua Thien Hue Provinces-Vietnam, 2017-2021

Rotavin-M1 (POLYVAC) was licensed in Vietnam in 2012. The association of Rotavin-M1 with intussusception, a rare adverse event associated with rotavirus vaccines, and with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) have not been evaluated and monitored under conditions of routine use. From February 2017 to May 2021, we conducted a pilot introduction of Rotavin-M1 into the routine vaccination program in two provinces. Surveillance for intussusception was conducted at six sentinel hospitals. AEFI reports at 30 min and 7 days after vaccination were recorded. Among 443 children <12 months of age admitted for intussusception, most (92.3%) were children ≥ 6 months. Of the 388 children who were age-eligible to receive Rotavin-M1, 116 (29.9%) had received ≥1 dose. No intussusception cases occurred in the 1-21 days after dose 1 and one case occurred on day 21 after dose 2. Among the 45,367 children who received ≥1 dose of Rotavin-M1, 9.5% of children reported at least one AEFI after dose 1 and 7.3% after dose 2. Significantly higher AEFI rates occurred among children given Rotavin-M1 with pentavalent vaccines (Quinvaxem®, ComBE Five®) compared to Rotavin-M1 without pentavalent vaccines. There was no association between intussusception and Rotavin-M1. The vaccine was generally safe when administered alone and when co-administered with other vaccines.

Evaluation of Intussusception Following Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaTeq) Administration in 5 African Countries

BACKGROUND

A low-level risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination has been observed in some settings and may vary by vaccine type. We examined the association between RotaTeq vaccination and intussusception in low-income settings in a pooled analysis from 5 African countries that introduced RotaTeq into their national immunization program.

METHODS

Active surveillance was conducted at 20 hospitals to identify intussusception cases. A standard case report form was completed for each enrolled child, and vaccination status was determined by review of the child's vaccination card. The pseudo-likelihood adaptation of self-controlled case-series method was used to assess the association between RotaTeq administration and intussusception in the 1-7, 8-21, and 1-21 day periods after each vaccine dose in infants aged 28-245 days.

RESULTS

Data from 318 infants with confirmed rotavirus vaccination status were analyzed. No clustering of cases occurred in any of the risk windows after any of the vaccine doses. Compared with the background risk of naturally occurring intussusception, no increased risk was observed after dose 1 in the 1-7 day (relative incidence = 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-8.03) or the 8-21 day window (relative incidence = 0.77; 95%CI = 0.0-2.69). Similarly, no increased risk of intussusception was observed in any risk window after dose 2 or 3.

CONCLUSIONS

RotaTeq vaccination was not associated with increased risk of intussusception in this analysis from 5 African countries. This finding mirrors results from similar analyses with other rotavirus vaccines in low-income settings and highlights the need for vaccine-specific and setting-specific risk monitoring.

Co-administration of Oral Cholera Vaccine With Oral Polio Vaccine Among Bangladeshi Young Children: A Randomized Controlled Open Label Trial to Assess Interference

BACKGROUND

Cholera remains a public health threat for low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Asia and Africa. Shanchol™, an inactivated oral cholera vaccine (OCV) is currently in use globally. OCV and oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) could be administered concomitantly, but the immunogenicity and safety of coadministration among children aged 1-3 years is unknown.

METHODS

We undertook an open-label, randomized, controlled, inequality trial in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Healthy children aged 1-3 years were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: bivalent OPV (bOPV)-alone, OCV-alone, or combined bOPV + OCV and received vaccines on the day of enrollment and 28 days later. Blood samples were collected on the day of enrollment, day 28, and day 56. Serum poliovirus neutralizing antibodies and vibriocidal antibodies against Vibrio cholerae O1 were assessed using microneutralization assays.

RESULTS

A total of 579 children aged 1‒3 years were recruited, 193 children per group. More than 90% of the children completed visits at day 56. Few adverse events following immunization were recorded and were equivalent among study arms. On day 28, 60% (90% confidence interval: 53%-67%) and 54% (46%-61%) of participants with co-administration of bOPV + OCV responded to polioviruses type 1 and 3, respectively, compared to 55% (47%-62%) and 46% (38%-53%) in the bOPV-only group. Additionally, >50% of participants showed a ≥4-fold increase in vibriocidal antibody titer responses on day 28, comparable to the responses observed in OCV-only arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administration of bOPV and OCV is safe and effective in children aged 1-3 years and can be cost-beneficial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03581734).

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.

Rotaviruses: From Pathogenesis to Disease Control-A Critical Review

Since their first recognition in human cases about four decades ago, rotaviruses have remained the leading cause of acute severe dehydrating diarrhea among infants and young children worldwide. The WHO prequalification of oral rotavirus vaccines (ORV) a decade ago and its introduction in many countries have yielded a significant decline in the global burden of the disease, although not without challenges to achieving global effectiveness. Poised by the unending malady of rotavirus diarrhea and the attributable death cases in developing countries, we provide detailed insights into rotavirus biology, exposure pathways, cellular receptors and pathogenesis, host immune response, epidemiology, and vaccination. Additionally, recent developments on the various host, viral and environmental associated factors impacting ORV performance in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) are reviewed and their significance assessed. In addition, we review the advances in nonvaccine strategies (probiotics, candidate anti-rotaviral drugs, breastfeeding) to disease prevention and management.

The efficacy and safety of rotavirus vaccines in countries in Africa and Asia with high child mortality

Rotavirus remains a leading cause of diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality in young children and rotavirus vaccines are critical for reducing global disease burden. This report addresses the performance of rotavirus vaccines in countries with high child mortality. We performed a sensitivity analysis as part of a systematic review on rotavirus vaccines to inform development of World Health Organization vaccine recommendations. The efficacy of four prequalified vaccines against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis was similar across high mortality settings in Asia and Africa. Within the first year following vaccination, vaccine efficacy for the four vaccines ranged from 48% to 57% while in the second year, efficacy ranged from 29% to 54%. The four vaccines showed no increase in intussusception risk in these settings. All four vaccines appear to prevent significant numbers of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis episodes with no measurable increase in intussusception risk in high mortality settings in Africa and Asia.

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.

Immunogenicity of an oral rotavirus vaccine administered with prenatal nutritional support in Niger: A cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Nutritional status may play a role in infant immune development. To identify potential boosters of immunogenicity in low-income countries where oral vaccine efficacy is low, we tested the effect of prenatal nutritional supplementation on immune response to 3 doses of a live oral rotavirus vaccine.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We nested a cluster randomized trial within a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized efficacy trial to assess the effect of 3 prenatal nutritional supplements (lipid-based nutrient supplement [LNS], multiple micronutrient supplement [MMS], or iron-folic acid [IFA]) on infant immune response (n = 53 villages and 1,525 infants with valid serology results: 794 in the vaccine group and 731 in the placebo group). From September 2015 to February 2017, participating women received prenatal nutrient supplement during pregnancy. Eligible infants were then randomized to receive 3 doses of an oral rotavirus vaccine or placebo at 6-8 weeks of age (mean age: 6.3 weeks, 50% female). Infant sera (pre-Dose 1 and 28 days post-Dose 3) were analyzed for anti-rotavirus immunoglobulin A (IgA) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The primary immunogenicity end point, seroconversion defined as ≥3-fold increase in IgA, was compared in vaccinated infants among the 3 supplement groups and between vaccine/placebo groups using mixed model analysis of variance procedures. Seroconversion did not differ by supplementation group (41.1% (94/229) with LNS vs. 39.1% (102/261) with multiple micronutrients (MMN) vs. 38.8% (118/304) with IFA, p = 0.91). Overall, 39.6% (n = 314/794) of infants who received vaccine seroconverted, compared to 29.0% (n = 212/731) of infants who received placebo (relative risk [RR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18, 1.57, p < 0.001). This study was conducted in a high rotavirus transmission setting. Study limitations include the absence of an immune correlate of protection for rotavirus vaccines, with the implications of using serum anti-rotavirus IgA for the assessment of immunogenicity and efficacy in low-income countries unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed no effect of the type of prenatal nutrient supplementation on immune response in this setting. Immune response varied depending on previous exposure to rotavirus, suggesting that alternative delivery modalities and schedules may be considered to improve vaccine performance in high transmission settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02145000.

Rotavirus vaccine efficacy up to 2 years of age and against diverse circulating rotavirus strains in Niger: Extended follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus vaccination is recommended in all countries to reduce the burden of diarrhea-related morbidity and mortality in children. In resource-limited settings, rotavirus vaccination in the national immunization program has important cost implications, and evidence for protection beyond the first year of life and against the evolving variety of rotavirus strains is important. We assessed the extended and strain-specific vaccine efficacy of a heat-stable, affordable oral rotavirus vaccine (Rotasiil, Serum Institute of India, Pune, India) against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (SRVGE) among healthy infants in Niger.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

From August 2014 to November 2015, infants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3 doses of Rotasiil or placebo at approximately 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age. Episodes of gastroenteritis were assessed through active and passive surveillance and graded using the Vesikari score. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy of 3 doses of vaccine versus placebo against a first episode of laboratory-confirmed SRVGE (Vesikari score ≥ 11) from 28 days after dose 3, as previously reported. At the time of the primary analysis, median age was 9.8 months. In the present paper, analyses of extended efficacy were undertaken for 3 periods (28 days after dose 3 to 1 year of age, 1 to 2 years of age, and the combined period 28 days after dose 3 to 2 years of age) and by individual rotavirus G type. Among the 3,508 infants included in the per-protocol efficacy analysis (mean age at first dose 6.5 weeks; 49% male), the vaccine provided significant protection against SRVGE through the first year of life (3.96 and 9.98 cases per 100 person-years for vaccine and placebo, respectively; vaccine efficacy 60.3%, 95% CI 43.6% to 72.1%) and over the entire efficacy follow-up period up to 2 years of age (2.13 and 4.69 cases per 100 person-years for vaccine and placebo, respectively; vaccine efficacy 54.7%, 95% CI 38.1% to 66.8%), but the difference was not statistically significant in the second year of life. Up to 2 years of age, rotavirus vaccination prevented 2.56 episodes of SRVGE per 100 child-years. Estimates of efficacy against SRVGE by individual rotavirus genotype were consistent with the overall protective efficacy. Study limitations include limited generalizability to settings with administration of oral polio virus due to low concomitant administration, limited power to assess vaccine efficacy in the second year of life owing to a low number of events among older children, potential bias due to censoring of placebo children at the time of study vaccine receipt, and suboptimal adapted severity scoring based on the Vesikari score, which was designed for use in settings with high parental literacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotasiil provided protection against SRVGE in infants through an extended follow-up period of approximately 2 years. Protection was significant in the first year of life, when the disease burden and risk of death are highest, and against a changing pattern of rotavirus strains during the 2-year efficacy period. Rotavirus vaccines that are safe, effective, and protective against multiple strains represent the best hope for preventing the severe consequences of rotavirus infection, especially in resource-limited settings, where access to care may be limited. Studies such as this provide valuable information for the planning of national immunization programs and future vaccine development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02145000.

The performance of licensed rotavirus vaccines and the development of a new generation of rotavirus vaccines: a review

Rotavirus, which causes acute gastroenteritis and severe diarrhea, has posed a great threat to children worldwide over the last 30 y. Since no specific drugs and therapies against rotavirus are available, vaccination is considered the most effective method of decreasing the morbidity and mortality related to rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis. To date, six rotavirus vaccines have been developed and licensed by local governments. Notably, Rotarix™ and RotaTeq™ have been recommended as universal agents against rotavirus infection by the World Health Organization; however, lower efficacies were found in less-developed and developing regions with medium and high child mortality than well-developed ones with low child mortality. For now, two promising novel vaccines, Rotavac™ and RotaSiil™ were pre-qualified by the World Health Organization in 2018. Other rotavirus vaccines in the pipeline including neonatal strain (RV3-BB) and several non-replicating rotavirus vaccines with a parenteral delivery strategy are currently undergoing investigation, with the potential to improve the performance of, and eliminate the safety concerns associated with, previous live oral rotavirus vaccines. This paper reviews the important developments in rotavirus vaccines in the last 20 y and discusses problems and challenges that require investigation in the future.

Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of ROTAVAC® in healthy infants aged 6-8 weeks in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

ROTAVAC® is derived from human 116E rotavirus (RV) neonatal strain. In this study, we evaluated the immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of ROTAVAC® in Vietnam.

METHOD

We conducted a phase IV clinical trial in healthy infants aged 6-8 weeks using the complete regimen of ROTAVAC® with three doses. Serum anti-RV IgA was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess the geometric mean concentration in infants who received the complete regimen of the vaccine.

RESULTS

A total of 360 participants were enrolled in this clinical trial. The mean age ± standard deviation at enrollment was 6.9 ± 0.6 weeks. The anti-RV IgA titer was 4.01 ± 3.74 mg/ml pre-vaccination and substantially increased to 29.27 ± 80.64 mg/ml post-vaccination. The value of logIgA significantly increased (p = 0.003) from 0.28 ± 0.79 to 1.03 ± 0.54. The proportion of participants with equal to and greater than 3-fold and 4-fold shifts in pre- to post-vaccination antibody titer (IgA) were 55.4% and 48.3%, respectively. No adverse events or serious adverse events were recorded immediately within 30 min after the administration of each dose. The most common adverse events within 14 days after each visit were fever, unusual crying and irritability. Other adverse events occurred at a low rate, and no case of intussusception was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete regimen of ROTAVAC® demonstrated an immunological response with clinically acceptable safety profile. Post-completion of this study, ROTAVAC® is now a WHO-prequalified vaccine and available in Vietnam.

Evaluation of Intussusception After Oral Monovalent Rotavirus Vaccination in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Postlicensure studies have shown an association between rotavirus vaccination and intussusception. We assessed the risk of intussusception associated with Rotarix (RV1) administration, at 6 and 14 weeks of age, in an upper-middle-income country, South Africa.

METHODS

Active prospective surveillance for intussusception was conducted in 8 hospitals from September 2013 through December 2017. Retrospective case enrollment was done at 1 hospital from July 2012 through August 2013. Demographic characteristics, symptom onset, and rotavirus vaccine status were ascertained. Using the self-controlled case-series method, we estimated age-adjusted incidence rate ratios within 1-7, 8-21, and 1-21 days of rotavirus vaccination in children aged 28-275 days at onset of symptoms. In addition, age-matched controls were enrolled for a subset of cases (n = 169), and a secondary analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-six cases were included in the case-series analysis. Post-dose 1, there were zero intussusception cases within 1-7 days, and 5 cases within 8-21 days of vaccination. Post-dose 2, 15 cases occurred within 1-7 days, and 18 cases within 8-21 days of vaccination. There was no increased risk of intussusception 1-7 days after dose 1 (no cases observed) or dose 2 (relative incidence [RI], 1.71 [95% confidence interval {CI} .83-3.01]). Similarly, there was no increased risk 8-21 days after the first (RI, 4.01 [95% CI, .87-10.56]) or second dose (RI, .96 [95% CI, .52-1.60]). Results were similar for the case-control analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of intussusception in the 21 days after the first or second dose of RV1 was not higher than the background risk among South Africa infants.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

South African National Clinical Trial Register (DOH-27-0913-4183).

The influence of human genetic variation on early transcriptional responses and protective immunity following immunization with Rotarix vaccine in infants in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam: A study protocol for an open single-arm interventional trial

Background: Rotavirus (RoV) remains the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in infants and children aged under five years in both high- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs). In LMICs, RoV infections are associated with substantial mortality. Two RoV vaccines (Rotarix and Rotateq) are widely available for use in infants, both of which have been shown to be highly efficacious in Europe and North America. However, for unknown reasons, these RoV vaccines have markedly lower efficacy in LMICs. We hypothesize that poor RoV vaccine efficacy across in certain regions may be associated with genetic heritability or gene expression in the human host. Methods/design: We designed an open-label single-arm interventional trial with the Rotarix RoV vaccine to identify genetic and transcriptomic markers associated with generating a protective immune response against RoV. Overall, 1,000 infants will be recruited prior to Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccinations at two months of age and vaccinated with oral Rotarix vaccine at two and three months, after which the infants will be followed-up for diarrheal disease until 18 months of age. Blood sampling for genetics, transcriptomics, and immunological analysis will be conducted before each Rotarix vaccination, 2-3 days post-vaccination, and at each follow-up visit (i.e. 6, 12 and 18 months of age). Stool samples will be collected during each diarrheal episode to identify RoV infection. The primary outcome will be Rotarix vaccine failure events (i.e. symptomatic RoV infection despite vaccination), secondary outcomes will be antibody responses and genotypic characterization of the infection virus in Rotarix failure events. Discussion: This study will be the largest and best powered study of its kind to be conducted to date in infants, and will be critical for our understanding of RoV immunity, human genetics in the Vietnam population, and mechanisms determining RoV vaccine-mediated protection. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03587389. Registered on 16 July 2018.

Concomitant administration of a liquid formulation of human rotavirus vaccine (porcine circovirus-free) with routine childhood vaccines in infants in the United States: Results from a phase 3, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

In response to the detection of porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) in the human rotavirus vaccine (HRV), a PCV-free HRV (no detection of PCV-1 and PCV-2 according to the detection limit of tests used) was developed. Liquid (Liq) PCV-free HRV previously showed immunogenicity and safety profiles comparable to lyophilized (Lyo) HRV.

METHODS

This was a phase 3a, randomized, single-blind study (NCT03207750) conducted in the United States. Healthy infants aged 6-12 weeks received 2 doses (0, 2 months) of either Liq PCV-free HRV or Lyo HRV with routine vaccines (0, 2, 4 months): diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, hepatitis B and inactivated poliovirus combination vaccine (DTaP-HBV-IPV), monovalent tetanus toxoid-conjugated vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib-TT), and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Co-primary objectives were: (i) to assess non-inferiority of immune responses to routine vaccine antigens 1 month post-dose 3 following co-administration with Liq PCV-free HRV compared to Lyo HRV; (ii) to rule out a 10% decrease in seroresponse to pertussis antigens after dose 3. Other objectives were to evaluate immunogenicity and safety of HRV vaccines.

RESULTS

Of 1272 vaccinated infants, 990 (489 in Liq PCV-free HRV and 501 in Lyo HRV group) were included in the per-protocol set. All statistical criteria were met, thus co-primary objectives were demonstrated. Seroprotection/seropositivity rates in both groups were high: 100% for diphtheria/tetanus, ≥99.3% for HBV, ≥99.8% for polio, ≥99.8% for each pertussis antigen, ≥90.8% for all pneumococcal serotypes except serotype 3 (≥69.1%), and ≥ 97.4% for Hib. Most infants seroconverted for anti-RV antibodies (76.3% of Liq PCV-free HRV and 78.9% of Lyo HRV recipients). Geometric mean concentrations/titers were comparable between groups. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine pediatric vaccines co-administered with Liq PCV-free HRV showed non-inferior immune responses and similar safety profiles to those following co-administration with Lyo HRV.

Risk of intussusception after monovalent rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) in Indian infants: A self-controlled case series analysis

Background

An association between rotavirus vaccination and intussusception has been documented in post-licensure studies in some countries. We evaluated the risk of intussusception associated with monovalent rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age in India.

Methods

Active prospective surveillance for intussusception was conducted at 22 hospitals across 16 states from April 2016 through September 2017. Data on demography, clinical features and vaccination were documented. Age-adjusted relative incidence for 1–7, 8–21, and 1–21 days after rotavirus vaccination in children aged 28–364 days at intussusception onset was estimated using the self-controlled case-series (SCCS) method. Only Brighton Collaboration level 1 cases were included.

Results

Out of 670 children aged 2–23 months with intussusception, 311 (46.4%) children were aged 28–364 days with confirmed vaccination status. Out of these, 52 intussusception cases with confirmed receipt of RVV were included in the SCCS analysis. No intussusception case was observed within 21 days of dose 1. Only one case occurred during 8–21 days after the dose 2. Post-dose 3, two cases in 1–7 days and 7 cases during 8–21 days period were observed. There was no increased risk of intussusception during 1–7 days after the doses 1 and 2 (zero cases observed) or dose 3 (relative incidence [RI], 1.71 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.0–5.11]). Similarly, no increased risk during 8–21 days after the dose 1 (zero cases observed), dose 2 (RI, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.0–3.28]) or dose 3 (RI, 2.52 [95% CI, 0.78–5.61]). The results were similar for 1–21 day periods after the doses separately or pooled.

Conclusions

The risk of intussusception during the first 21 days after any dose of rotavirus vaccine (Rotavac) was not higher among the Indian infants than the background risk, based on limited SCCS analysis of 52 children.

Current and new rotavirus vaccines

As of 2019, four rotavirus vaccines have been prequalified by the WHO for use worldwide. This review highlights current knowledge regarding rotavirus vaccines available, and provides a brief summary of the rotavirus vaccine pipeline.

Investigation of two suspected diarrhoeal-illness outbreaks in Northern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, South Africa, April-July 2013: The role of rotavirus

BACKGROUND

Suspected diarrhoeal-illness outbreaks affecting mostly children < 5 years were investigated between May and July 2013 in Northern Cape province (NCP) and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province. This study describes the epidemiological, environmental and clinical characteristics and diarrhoeal-illnesses causative agent(s).

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. Cases were patients presenting at healthcare facilities with diarrhoeal-illness between 09 April and 09 July 2013 in NCP and 01 May and 31 July 2013 in KZN. Laboratory investigations were performed on stools and water samples using microscopy, culture and sensitivity screening and molecular assays.

RESULTS

A total of 953 cases including six deaths (case fatality rate [CFR]: 0.6%) were recorded in the Northern Cape province outbreak. Children < 5 years accounted for 58% of cases. Enteric viruses were detected in 51% of stools, with rotavirus detected in 43%. The predominant rotavirus strains were G3P[8] (45%) and G9P[8] (42%). Other enteric viruses were detected, with rotavirus co-infections (63%). No enteric pathogens detected in water specimens. KwaZulu-Natal outbreak: A total of 1749 cases including 26 deaths (CFR: 1.5%) were recorded. Children < 5 years accounted for 95% of cases. Rotavirus was detected in 55% of stools; other enteric viruses were detected, mostly as rotavirus co-infections. The predominant rotavirus strains were G2P[4] (54%) and G9P[8] (38%).

CONCLUSION

Although source(s) of the outbreaks were not identified, the diarrhoeal-illnesses were community-acquired. It is difficult to attribute the outbreaks to one causative agent(s) because of rotavirus co-infections with other enteric pathogens. While rotavirus was predominant, the outbreaks coincided with the annual rotavirus season.

Assessment of risk of intussusception after pilot rollout of rotavirus vaccine in the Indian public health system

BACKGROUND

Pre-licensure trials of ROTAVAC® were not adequately powered to assess risk of intussusception, a rare adverse event associated with other rotavirus vaccines in some settings. We examined the risk of intussusception after ROTAVAC® vaccination among Indian infants during pilot rollout of the vaccine in the public health system in three states - Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.

METHODS

Passive surveillance for intussusception was set up in 35 sentinel health facilities covering 26.3 million population in the three states under monitoring of an Interministerial-Interagency Steering Committee. Clinical and immunization data were collected by independent teams. An expert committee blinded to vaccination status, classified intussusception cases using Brighton criteria. The self-controlled case-series method was used to estimate risk of intussusception (Brighton Level 1) after ROTAVAC® vaccination.

RESULTS

151 intussusception cases were included in the analysis. The relative incidence (incidence during the risk period compared to the control period) 1-21 days after doses 1 and 2 combined was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.0-5.28) and that for three doses combined was 1.88 (95% CI, 0.76-4.30). Attributable risk 1-21 days after doses 1 and 2 combined was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.0-0.25) and that for 3 doses combined was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.0-0.70) per 100,000 doses.

CONCLUSIONS

No increased risk of intussusception within 21 days of receipt of the first two doses combined or all 3 doses combined of ROTAVAC® was detected.

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.

An overview of rotavirus vaccination programs in developing countries

INTRODUCTION

Rotavirus is the leading cause of acute diarrhea among children <5 years worldwide. As all children are equally susceptible to infection and disease development, rotavirus vaccination programs are the best upstream approach to preventing rotavirus disease, and the subsequent risk of hospitalization or death.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of global rotavirus vaccine policy, summarize the burden of rotavirus disease in developing countries, review data on the effectiveness, impact, safety, and the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination programs, and identify areas for further research and improvement.

EXPERT OPINION

Rotavirus vaccines continue to be an effective, safe, and cost-effective solution to preventing rotavirus disease. As two new rotavirus vaccines enter the market (Rotasiil and Rotavac) and Asian countries continue to introduce rotavirus vaccines into their national immunization programs, documenting vaccine safety, effectiveness, and impact in these settings will be paramount.

Immunogenicity and safety of porcine circovirus-free human rotavirus vaccine in healthy infants: a phase III, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) material was detected in the human rotavirus vaccine (HRV) in 2010. In this study (NCT02914184) we compared immunogenicity and safety of the PCV-free HRV vaccine (PCV-free HRV) with HRV. PCV-free HRV is an HRV with no detection of PCV-1 and PCV-2 according to the limit of detection of the tests used.

METHODS

Healthy infants 6-12 weeks of age were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive 2 doses of 1 of the 3 lots of PCV-free HRV or HRV. The study objectives were to demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the PCV-free HRV and non-inferiority of PCV-free HRV as compared to HRV in terms of immunogenicity, 1-2 months post-dose 2. Reactogenicity and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1612 infants were enrolled and 1545 completed the study. Study objectives were demonstrated since the pre-defined criteria were met. Among participants receiving PCV-free HRV and HRV, 79.27% and 81.76% seroconverted and geometric mean concentrations were 159.5 and 152.8 U/mL, respectively. The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the pooled PCV-free HRV and HRV groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 PCV-free HRV lots demonstrated consistency and PCV-free HRV was non-inferior compared to HRV in terms of immunogenicity.

Predictors of oral rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity in rural Zimbabwean infants

BACKGROUND

Oral rotavirus vaccines (RVV) have poor immunogenicity in low-income countries, for reasons that remain unclear. This study identified the determinants of RVV immunogenicity among infants in rural Zimbabwe.

METHODS

Anti-rotavirus IgA titres were measured among a sub-group of infants enrolled in the Sanitation Hygiene Infant Nutrition Efficacy (SHINE) trial (NCT01824940). SHINE was a cluster-randomized trial of improved infant and young child feeding, and improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in two rural Zimbabwean districts. Infants received RVV as part of the national immunisation programme. Among HIV-unexposed infants in the non-WASH trial arms, we evaluated associations between potential risk factors (vaccine schedule and dose, maternal and infant nutritional status, infant diarrhoea, and household environment) and RVV immunogenicity (seroconversion, seropositivity and geometric mean titres) using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Among 219 infants with seroconversion data, 43 (20%) successfully seroconverted and 176 (80%) failed to seroconvert to RVV. Seroconversion was positively associated with a higher length-for-age Z-score (LAZ) around the time of vaccination (adjusted RR 1.27 (95% CI 1.04, 1.55), P = 0.021), and negatively associated with concurrent OPV and RVV administration (adjusted RR 0.36 (0.19, 0.71), P = 0.003). Among 472 infants with post-vaccination titres, a higher LAZ score was associated with increased seropositivity (aRR 1.21 (95% CI 1.06, 1.38), P = 0.004), and higher birthweight was associated with increased IgA titres (0.45 (95%CI 0.18, 1.09) U/mL greater per 100 g gain in birthweight; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Infant ponderal and linear growth were positively associated with RVV immunogenicity, while concurrent administration of OPV was negatively associated with RVV immunogenicity. Together, these findings suggest that improving foetal growth and separating RVV and OPV administration are plausible approaches to increasing RVV immunogenicity.

Antirotavirus IgA seroconversion rates in children who receive concomitant oral poliovirus vaccine: A secondary, pooled analysis of Phase II and III trial data from 33 countries

BACKGROUND

Despite the success of rotavirus vaccines over the last decade, rotavirus remains a leading cause of severe diarrheal disease among young children. Further progress in reducing the burden of disease is inhibited, in part, by vaccine underperformance in certain settings. Early trials suggested that oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), when administered concomitantly with rotavirus vaccine, reduces rotavirus seroconversion rates after the first rotavirus dose with modest or nonsignificant interference after completion of the full rotavirus vaccine course. Our study aimed to identify a range of individual-level characteristics, including concomitant receipt of OPV, that affect rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity in high- and low-child-mortality settings, controlling for individual- and country-level factors. Our central hypothesis was that OPV administered concomitantly with rotavirus vaccine reduced rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Pooled, individual-level data from GlaxoSmithKline's Phase II and III clinical trials of the monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1), Rotarix, were analyzed, including 7,280 vaccinated infants (5-17 weeks of age at first vaccine dose) from 22 trials and 33 countries/territories (5 countries/territories with high, 13 with moderately low, and 15 with very low child mortality). Two standard markers for immune response were examined including antirotavirus immunoglobulin A (IgA) seroconversion (defined as the appearance of serum antirotavirus IgA antibodies in subjects initially seronegative) and serum antirotavirus IgA titer, both collected approximately 4-12 weeks after administration of the last rotavirus vaccine dose. Mixed-effect logistic regression and mixed-effect linear regression of log-transformed data were used to identify individual- and country-level predictors of seroconversion (dichotomous) and antibody titer (continuous), respectively. Infants in high-child-mortality settings had lower odds of seroconverting compared with infants in low-child-mortality settings (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.53, p < 0.001). Similarly, among those who seroconverted, infants in high-child-mortality settings had lower IgA titers compared with infants in low-child-mortality settings (mean difference [β] = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90, p < 0.001). Infants who received OPV concomitantly with both their first and their second doses of rotavirus vaccine had 0.63 times the odds of seroconverting (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.84, p = 0.002) compared with infants who received OPV but not concomitantly with either dose. In contrast, among infants who seroconverted, OPV concomitantly administered with both the first and second rotavirus vaccine doses was found to be positively associated with antirotavirus IgA titer (β = 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.53, p = 0.009). Our findings may have some limitations in terms of generalizability to routine use of rotavirus vaccine because the analysis was limited to healthy infants receiving RV1 in clinical trial settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that OPV given concomitantly with RV1 was a substantial contributor to reduced antirotavirus IgA seroconversion, and this interference was apparent after the second vaccine dose of RV1, as with the original clinical trials that our reanalysis is based on. However, our findings do suggest that the forthcoming withdrawal of OPV from the infant immunization schedule globally has the potential to improve RV1 performance.

Immunogenicity of four doses of oral poliovirus vaccine when co-administered with the human neonatal rotavirus vaccine (RV3-BB)

BACKGROUND

The RV3-BB human neonatal rotavirus vaccine was developed to provide protection from severe rotavirus disease from birth. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential for mutual interference in the immunogenicity of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and RV3-BB.

METHODS

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 1649 participants was conducted from January 2013 to July 2016 in Central Java and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Participants received three doses of oral RV3-BB, with the first dose given at 0-5 days (neonatal schedule) or ~8 weeks (infant schedule), or placebo. Two sub-studies assessed the immunogenicity of RV3-BB when co-administered with either trivalent OPV (OPV group, n = 282) or inactivated polio vaccine (IPV group, n = 333). Serum samples were tested for antibodies to poliovirus strains 1, 2 and 3 by neutralization assays following doses 1 and 4 of OPV.

RESULTS

Sero-protective rates to poliovirus type 1, 2 or 3 were similar (range 0.96-1.00) after four doses of OPV co-administered with RV3-BB compared with placebo. Serum IgA responses to RV3-BB were similar when co-administered with either OPV or IPV (difference in proportions OPV vs IPV: sIgA responses; neonatal schedule 0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.14; p = 0.847; infant schedule -0.10, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.001; p = 0.046: sIgA GMT ratio: neonatal schedule 1.23, 95% CI 0.71-2.14, p = 0.463 or infant schedule 1.20, 95% CI 0.74-1.96, p = 0.448).

CONCLUSIONS

The co-administration of OPV with RV3-BB rotavirus vaccine in a birth dose strategy did not reduce the immunogenicity of either vaccine. These findings support the use of a neonatal RV3-BB vaccine where either OPV or IPV is used in the routine vaccination schedule.

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').

Stability of a monovalent rotavirus vaccine after exposure to different temperatures observed in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus infection and its associated hospitalization of children less than 5 years old in middle- and low-income countries remains a public health challenge. We hypothesized that the Rotarix®potency is affected by non-optimal temperatures which translates into reduced vaccine effectiveness in these settings.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of non-optimal temperatures on the potency of the Rotarix® vaccine in South Africa.

METHODS

Rotarix® vaccine was exposed to temperatures reflecting breaches in the cold chain. Vero cells (ATCC CCL-81) grown in a 24-well tissue culture plates were infected with Rotarix® vaccine viruses after exposure to non-optimal temperatures and the potency of the vaccine was determined using the plaque assay.

RESULTS

Exposure of the Rotarix® vaccine to seasonal temperatures in KwaZulu-Natal for 6 hours and to extreme temperatures of 40oC for 72 hours as well as to -20°C and -80°C for 12 hours did not affect the potency of the vaccine beyond its expected standard of >7 x 105 PFU/ml.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that the Rotarix® vaccine remains potent even after exposure to non-optimal temperatures. However, this study only explored the effect of a constant 'adverse' temperature on vaccine potency and not the effect of temperature fluctuations.

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 of different dosing schedules of the human live attenuate rotavirus vaccine (RV1) in infants and children: a meta-analysis

Rotavirus immunization strategies have become part of a comprehensive global public health program to control rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis, particularly in infants and children in developing countries. Several studies have reported the efficacy of different rotavirus vaccine dosing schedules, but with mixed findings. Therefore a systematic review of the published literature on rotavirus vaccination dosing schedules using the live attenuated RV1 rotavirus vaccine in infants and children, including randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), published between January 1998 to January 2018 was conducted, with meta-analysis of the published data. The literature search was performed using six databases. The initial review identified 495 publications, of which three satisfied the selection eligibility criteria. The three studies that assessed RV1 rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity compared a two-dose vaccination schedule with a three-dose vaccination schedule. The use of a three-dose vaccination schedule did not show a statistically significant seroconversion rate when compared with a two-dose vaccination schedule (OR = 0.87; 95% CI,: 0.65--1.17;, p- = 0.298). Analysis of included studies with one-month follow-up time showed that the three-dose vaccination schedule did not result in have significantly increased geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) compared with the two-dose vaccination schedule (p = 0.311).Rotavirus immunogenicity did not increase significantly with the three-dose schedule at 6, 10 and 14 weeks with the two-dose schedule at 10 and 14 weeks. These findings indicate that further controlled studies should be undertaken to support the optimum immunization schedules for rotavirus in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, particularly for infants and children in developing countries.

Non-interference of Bovine-Human reassortant pentavalent rotavirus vaccine ROTASIIL® with the immunogenicity of infant vaccines in comparison with a licensed rotavirus vaccine

Background

A newly developed bovine-human reassortant pentavalent vaccine (BRV-PV, ROTASIIL®) was tested for its potential effect on the immunogenicity of concomitantly administered EPI vaccines in infants in a randomized controlled study in India.

Methods

In this Phase III, multicenter, open label, randomized, controlled study, three doses of BRV-PV or two doses of Rotarix® and one dose of placebo were given to healthy infants at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age. Subjects also received three doses of DTwP-HepB-Hib (diphtheria, tetanus, whole-cell pertussis, hepatitis B, and haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate – pentavalent vaccine) and oral polio vaccine concomitantly at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age and a single dose of inactivated polio vaccine at 14 weeks of age. Blood samples were collected four weeks after the final vaccination to assess immune responses to all the vaccines administered. For diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, Hib, polio type 1, and polio type 3 antibodies, non-interference was to be supported if the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the seroprotection rate difference for the BRV-PV group minus the Rotarix® group was >10.0%. For pertussis antibodies, non-interference was to be supported if the lower limit of the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) was >0.5.

Results

A total of 1500 infants were randomized to either BRV-PV (1125 infants) or Rotarix® (375 infants), of which 1341 completed the study as per the protocol. More than 97% of subjects achieved seroprotective antibody titres against diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, Hib, polio type 1, and polio type 3 in both groups. The difference in seroprotection rates between the BRV-PV group and the Rotarix® group for all these antibodies was less than 1%. The ratio of GMCs of anti-pertussis IgG concentrations for the BRV-PV group versus Rotarix® was 1.04 [90% CI: 0.90; 1.19].

Conclusion

BRV-PV does not interfere with the immunogenicity of concomitantly administered routine infants vaccines.

Effect of Age at Vaccination on Rotavirus Vaccine Effectiveness in Bolivian Infants

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus vaccines are less effective in developing countries versus developed countries. One hypothesis for this difference in performance is that higher levels of maternal antibodies in developing countries may interfere with vaccine response, suggesting that delayed dosing could be beneficial. The present analysis aims to assess whether rotavirus vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies by age at vaccination during routine use in Bolivia.

METHODS

Data were merged from 2 postlicensure evaluations of monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1) in Bolivia, where 2 doses of RV1 are recommended at 2 and 4 months of age. For each dose, children were classified as receiving each dose "early," "on-time" or "late." Stratified unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate VE, using unvaccinated children as the referent. VE was calculated as (1 - odds ratio) × 100%. Models were adjusted for hospital, age and time since RV1 introduction (via including terms for month and year of birth).

RESULTS

VE for 2 doses of RV1 tended to be higher in infants receiving the first dose early (VE, 92%; 95% confidence interval: 70%-98%), when compared with infants receiving their first dose on-time [72% (62%-81%)] or late [68% (51%-79%)]. Estimates of VE were not substantially different when comparing children by age at second dose [early: VE, 76% (50%-89%); on-time: VE, 70% (50%-89%); late: VE, 75% (60%, 84%)], including all children.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that early administration may improve VE and support the current World Health Organization recommendations for the RV1 schedule.

Evaluation of Intussusception after Monovalent Rotavirus Vaccination in Africa

BACKGROUND

Postlicensure evaluations have identified an association between rotavirus vaccination and intussusception in several high- and middle-income countries. We assessed the association between monovalent human rotavirus vaccine and intussusception in lower-income sub-Saharan African countries.

METHODS

Using active surveillance, we enrolled patients from seven countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) who had intussusception that met international (Brighton Collaboration level 1) criteria. Rotavirus vaccination status was confirmed by review of the vaccine card or clinic records. The risk of intussusception within 1 to 7 days and 8 to 21 days after vaccination among infants 28 to 245 days of age was assessed by means of the self-controlled case-series method.

RESULTS

Data on 717 infants who had intussusception and confirmed vaccination status were analyzed. One case occurred in the 1 to 7 days after dose 1, and 6 cases occurred in the 8 to 21 days after dose 1. Five cases and 16 cases occurred in the 1 to 7 days and 8 to 21 days, respectively, after dose 2. The risk of intussusception in the 1 to 7 days after dose 1 was not higher than the background risk of intussusception (relative incidence [i.e., the incidence during the risk window vs. all other times], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], <0.001 to 1.16); findings were similar for the 1 to 7 days after dose 2 (relative incidence, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.87). In addition, the risk of intussusception in the 8 to 21 days or 1 to 21 days after either dose was not found to be higher than the background risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of intussusception after administration of monovalent human rotavirus vaccine was not higher than the background risk of intussusception in seven lower-income sub-Saharan African countries. (Funded by the GAVI Alliance through the CDC Foundation.).

Impact of rotavirus vaccines in low and middle-income countries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rotavirus vaccines are playing a pivotal role in improving lives of infants and young children in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many of these countries have adopted the vaccine into their routine immunization, whereas others are considering introduction. This article provides an update on the impact of rotavirus vaccines in LMICs on morbidity and mortality in children aged less than 5 years, and their cost-effectiveness.

RECENT FINDINGS

The WHO, in 2013, updated its recommendation to prioritize introduction of rotavirus vaccines in the routine immunization schedule, without age restrictions. Despite the decreased efficacy of the vaccines in LMICs, data from Sub-Saharan Africa have demonstrated a decrease in rotavirus-related morbidity, with some sites reporting an indirect protective effect on children age ineligible to receive the vaccine. Even with improvements in sanitation, nutritional status in children, and other health-related indices in LMICs, the use of rotavirus vaccines will play an important role in preventing rotavirus-related gastroenteritis. Economic models predict a reduction in economic burden because of rotavirus-related health costs, making vaccine introduction cost-effective in resource-constrained settings.

SUMMARY

Increasing evidence from impact studies shows the significant impact of rotavirus vaccination on hospitalizations and economic burden because of rotavirus gastroenteritis in LMICs. Universal rotavirus vaccination is recommended, and introductions should be monitored by robust surveillance systems to measure effectiveness and impact.

Decreased performance of live attenuated, oral rotavirus vaccines in low-income settings: causes and contributing factors

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have shown that the oral rotavirus vaccines are less effective in infants born in low income countries compared to those born in developed countries. Identifying the specific factors in developing countries that decrease and/or compromise the protection that rotavirus vaccines offer, could lead to a path for designing new strategies for the vaccines' improvement.

AREAS COVERED

We accessed PubMed to identify rotavirus vaccine performance studies (i.e., efficacy, effectiveness and immunogenicity) and correlated performance with several risk factors. Here, we review the factors that might contribute to the low vaccine efficacy, including passive transfer of maternal rotavirus antibodies, rotavirus seasonality, oral polio vaccine (OPV) administered concurrently, microbiome composition and concomitant enteric pathogens, malnutrition, environmental enteropathy, HIV, and histo blood group antigens.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

We highlight two major factors that compromise rotavirus vaccines' efficacy: the passive transfer of rotavirus IgG antibodies to infants and the  co-administration of rotavirus vaccines with OPV. We also identify other potential risk factors that require further research because the data about their interference with the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines are inconclusive and at times conflicting.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the human rotavirus vaccine, RIX4414 oral suspension, when co-administered with routine childhood vaccines in Chinese infants

This study evaluated the immunogenicity of the human rotavirus (RV) vaccine (RIX4414) when co-administered with routine childhood vaccines in Chinese infants (NCT01171963). Healthy infants aged 6–16 weeks received 2 doses of either RIX4414 or placebo according to a 0, 1-month schedule. Infants received routine diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTPa) and oral poliovirus (OPV) vaccines either separately from or concomitantly with RIX4414/placebo (separate and co-administration cohorts, respectively). Anti-RV IgA seroconversion rates (one month post-dose-2) and seropositivity rates (at one year of age) were measured using ELISA. Immune responses against the DTPa and OPV antigens were measured one month post-DTPa dose-3 in the co-administration cohort. Solicited local and general symptoms were recorded for 8-days post-vaccination (total cohort). The according-to-protocol immunogenicity population included 511 infants in the separate cohort and 275 in the co-administration cohort. One month post-RIX4414 dose-2, anti-RV IgA seroconversion rates were 74.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.9–79.9) and 64.2% (95% CI: 55.4–72.3) in the separate and co-administration cohorts; seropositivity rates at one year of age were 71.5% (95% CI: 65.5–77.1) and 50.0% (95% CI: 40.9–59.1), respectively. One month post-DTPa dose-3, all infants in the co-administration cohort were seroprotected against diphtheria and tetanus, and seropositive for pertussis toxoid, pertactin and filamentous haemaglutinin. Two months post-OPV dose-3, seroprotection rates against anti-poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 were >99% in the co-administration cohort. Reactogenicity profiles were similar in both cohorts. RIX4414 was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Chinese infants and did not appear to interfere with the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of co-administered routine childhood vaccines.

Rotavirus Vaccine Schedules and Vaccine Response Among Infants in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Background

Rotavirus vaccine schedules may impact vaccine response among children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to review the literature evaluating the effects of monovalent (RV1) or pentavalent rotavirus vaccines schedules on vaccine response.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible trials conducted in LMICs comparing ≥2 vaccine schedules and reporting immunologic response or efficacy. We calculated seroconversion proportion differences and geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We abstracted data from 8 eligible trials of RV1. The point estimates for seroconversion proportions difference ranged from −0.25 to −0.09 for the 6/10-week schedule compared with 10/14. The range for the 6/10/14- compared with 10/14-week schedule was −0.02 to 0.10. Patterns were similar for GMC ratios and efficacy estimates.

Conclusions

The commonly used 6/10-week RV1 schedule in LMICs may not be optimal. Further research on the effect of rotavirus schedules using clinical endpoints is essential.

Contribution of Maternal Immunity to Decreased Rotavirus Vaccine Performance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

The role of maternal immunity, received by infants either transplacentally or orally from breast milk, in rotavirus vaccine (RV) performance is evaluated here. Breastfeeding withholding has no effect on vaccine responses, but higher levels of transplacental rotavirus-specific IgG antibody contribute to reduced vaccine seroconversion. The gaps in knowledge on the factors associated with low RV efficacy in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) remain, and further research is needed to shed more light on these issues.

Rotavirus Serum IgA Immune Response in Children Receiving Rotarix Coadministered With bOPV or IPV

BACKGROUND

Vaccine schedules including bivalent oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines will replace trivalent oral poliovirus vaccines in 2016.

METHODS

We evaluated rotavirus immunoglobulin A seroresponses when the second dose of Rotarix at 16 weeks was given concomitantly with inactivated or bivalent oral poliovirus vaccines.

RESULTS

Rotavirus immunoglobulin A seroresponse rate at week 28 was 15% lower in recipients of bivalent oral poliovirus vaccines compared with inactivated poliovirus vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine decreases rotavirus IgA seroresponse rates when coadministered at 16 weeks of age.

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.

The clinical development process for a novel preventive vaccine: An overview

Each novel vaccine candidate needs to be evaluated for safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in humans before it is licensed for use. After initial safety evaluation in healthy adults, each vaccine candidate follows a unique development path. This article on clinical development gives an overview on the development path based on the expectations of various guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). The manuscript describes the objectives, study populations, study designs, study site, and outcome(s) of each phase (Phase I-III) of a clinical trial. Examples from the clinical development of a malaria vaccine candidate, a rotavirus vaccine, and two vaccines approved for human papillomavirus (HPV) have also been discussed. The article also tabulates relevant guidelines, which can be referred to while drafting the development path of a novel vaccine candidate.

Noninterference of Rotavirus Vaccine With Measles-Rubella Vaccine at 9 Months of Age and Improvements in Antirotavirus Immunity: A Randomized Trial

Background. The burden of rotavirus morbidity and mortality is high in children aged <5 years in developing countries, and evaluations indicate waning protection from rotavirus immunization in the second year. An additional dose of rotavirus vaccine may enhance the immune response and lengthen the period of protection against disease, but coadministration of this dose should not interfere with immune responses to concurrently given vaccines.

Methods. A total of 480 9-month-old participants from Matlab, Bangladesh, were enrolled in a study with a primary objective to establish noninferiority of concomitant administration of measles-rubella vaccine (MR) and a third dose of human rotavirus vaccine (HRV; MR + HRV), compared with MR given alone. Secondary objectives included noninferiority of rubella antibody seroconversion and evaluating rotavirus IgA/IgG seroresponses in MR + HRV recipients.

Results. Two months after vaccination, 75.3% and 74.3% of MR + HRV and MR recipients, respectively, had seroprotective levels of measles virus antibodies; 100.0% and 99.6%, respectively, showed anti–rubella virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroprotection. In the MR + HRV group, antirotavirus immunoglobulin A and IgG seropositivity frequencies before vaccination (52.7% and 66.3%, respectively) increased to 69.6% and 88.3% after vaccination.

Conclusions. Vaccine-induced measles and rubella antibody responses are not negatively affected by concomitant administration of HRV. The HRV dose increases antirotavirus serum antibody titers and the proportion of infants with detectable antirotavirus antibody.

Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01700621.

Interference of Monovalent, Bivalent, and Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccines on Monovalent Rotavirus Vaccine Immunogenicity in Rural Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

Trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is known to interfere with monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1) immunogenicity. The interference caused by bivalent and monovalent OPV formulations, which will be increasingly used globally in coming years, has not been examined. We conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the effect of coadministration of different OPV formulations on RV1 immunogenicity.

METHODS

Healthy infants in Matlab, Bangladesh, were randomized to receive 3 doses of monovalent OPV type 1 or bivalent OPV types 1 and 3 at either 6, 8, and 10 or 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age or trivalent OPV at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age. All infants received 2 doses of RV1 at about 6 and 10 weeks of age. Concomitant administration was defined as RV1 and OPV given on the same day; staggered administration as RV1 and OPV given ≥1 day apart. Rotavirus seroconversion was defined as a 4-fold rise in immunoglobulin A titer from before the first RV1 dose to ≥3 weeks after the second RV1 dose.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline RV1 immunogenicity among the 409 infants included in the final analysis. Infants who received RV1 and OPV concomitantly, regardless of OPV formulation, were less likely to seroconvert (47%; 95% confidence interval, 39%-54%) than those who received both vaccines staggered ≥1 day (63%; 57%-70%; P < .001). For staggered administration, we found no evidence that the interval between RV1 and OPV administration affected RV1 immunogenicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Coadministration of monovalent, bivalent, or trivalent OPV seems to lower RV1 immunogenicity.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT01633216.

Effectiveness of a monovalent rotavirus vaccine in infants in Malawi after programmatic roll-out: an observational and case-control study

Background

Rotavirus is the main cause of severe acute gastroenteritis in children in Africa. Monovalent human rotavirus vaccine (RV1) was added into Malawi's infant immunisation schedule on Oct 29, 2012. We aimed to assess the impact and effectiveness of RV1 on rotavirus gastroenteritis in the 2 years after introduction.

Methods

From Jan 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, we recruited children younger than 5 years who were admitted into Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi, with acute gastroenteritis. We assessed stool samples from these children for presence of rotavirus with use of ELISA and we genotyped rotaviruses with use of RT-PCR. We compared rotavirus detection rates in stool samples and incidence of hospital admittance for rotavirus in children from Jan 1 to June 30, in the year before vaccination (2012) with the same months in the 2 years after vaccination was introduced (2013 and 2014). In the case-control portion of our study, we recruited eligible rotavirus-positive children from the surveillance platform and calculated vaccine effectiveness (one minus the odds ratio of vaccination) by comparing infants with rotavirus gastroenteritis with infants who tested negative for rotavirus, and with community age-matched and neighbourhood-matched controls.

Findings

We enrolled 1431 children, from whom we obtained 1417 stool samples (99%). We detected rotavirus in 79 of 157 infants (50%) before the vaccine, compared with 57 of 219 (40%) and 52 of 170 (31%) in successive calendar years after vaccine introduction (p=0·0002). In the first half of 2012, incidence of rotavirus hospital admission was 269 per 100 000 infants compared with 284 in the same months of 2013 (rise of 5·8%, 95% CI −23·1 to 45·4; p=0·73) and 153 in these months in 2014 (a reduction from the prevaccine period of 43·2%, 18·0–60·7; p=0·003). We recruited 118 vaccine-eligible rotavirus cases (median age 8·9 months; IQR 6·6–11·1), 317 rotavirus-test-negative controls (9·4 months; 6·9–11·9), and 380 community controls (8·8 months; 6·5–11·1). Vaccine effectiveness for two doses of RV1 in rotavirus-negative individuals was 64% (95% CI 24–83) and community controls was 63% (23–83). The point estimate of effectiveness was higher against genotype G1 than against G2 and G12.

Interpretation

Routine use of RV1 reduced hospital admissions for several genotypes of rotavirus in children younger than 5 years, especially in infants younger than 1 year. Our data support introduction of rotavirus vaccination at the WHO recommended schedule, with continuing surveillance in high-mortality countries.

Funding

Wellcome Trust, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) recommended immunization schedule for children aged 0 through 18 years, India, 2013 and updates on immunization

JUSTIFICATION

There is a need to review/revise recommendations about existing vaccines in light of recent developments in the field of vaccinology where new developments are taking place regularly at short intervals.

PROCESS

Following an IAP ACVIP meeting on 3rd and 4th August, 2013, a draft of revised recommendations for the year 2013 and updates on certain new vaccine formulations was prepared and circulated among the meeting participants to arrive at a consensus.

OBJECTIVES

To review and revise recommendations for 2013 Immunization timetable for pediatricians in office practice and issue statements on new vaccine formulations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The major change in the 2013 Immunization timetable was made in the recommendations pertaining to pertussis immunization. Taking in to the consideration of recent outbreaks of pertussis in many industrialized countries using acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines and subsequent finding of faster waning of the same in comparison to whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccines and superior priming with wP vaccines than aP vaccines, the committee has now recommended wP vaccines for the primary series of infant vaccination. Guidelines are now also issued on the preference/selection of a particular aP vaccine in case it is not feasible to use wP vaccine, and use of Tdap vaccine during pregnancy. The administration schedule of monovalent human rotavirus vaccine, RV1 has been revised to 10 and 14 weeks from existing 6 and 10 weeks. Recommendation is made for the need of booster dose of live attenuated SA-14-14-2 JE vaccine. Updates and recommendations are issued on new typhoid conjugate vaccine, inactivated vero-cell culture derived SA-14-14-2 JE vaccine, inactivated vero-cell derived Kolar strain, 821564XY JE vaccine, and new meningococcal conjugate vaccines. This year the recommended immunization schedule with range for persons aged 0 through 18 years is being published together instead of two separate schedules. A subcategory of general instruction is added in footnotes. The comments and footnotes for several vaccines are revised and separate instructions for routine vaccination and catch-up vaccination are added in the footnotes section wherever applicable.

Efficacy of a monovalent human-bovine (116E) rotavirus vaccine in Indian infants: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe dehydrating gastroenteritis in developing countries. Safe, effective, and affordable rotavirus vaccines are needed in these countries. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of a monovalent human-bovine rotavirus vaccine for severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in low-resource urban and rural settings in India.

METHODS

We did a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at three sites in Delhi (urban), Pune (rural), and Vellore (urban and rural) between March 11, 2011, and Nov 5, 2012. Infants aged 6-7 weeks were randomly assigned (2:1), via a central interactive voice or web response system with a block size of 12, to receive either three doses of oral human-bovine natural reassortant vaccine (116E) or placebo at ages 6-7 weeks, 10 weeks, and 14 weeks. Infants' families, study investigators, paediatricians in referral hospitals, laboratory staff, and committee members were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was incidence of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (≥11 on the Vesikari scale). Efficacy outcomes and adverse events were ascertained through active surveillance. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered with Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI/2010/091/000102) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01305109).

FINDINGS

4532 infants were assigned to receive the 116E vaccine and 2267 to receive placebo, of whom 4354 (96%) and 2187 (96%) infants, respectively, were included in the primary per-protocol efficacy analysis. 71 events of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis were reported in 4752 person-years in infants in the vaccine group compared with 76 events in 2360 person-years in those in the placebo group; vaccine efficacy against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis was 53·6% (95% CI 35·0-66·9; p=0·0013) and 56·4% (36·6-70·1; p<0·0001) in the first year of life. The number of infants needed to be immunised to prevent one severe rotavirus gastroenteritis episode was 55 (95% CI 37-97). The incidence of severe rotavirus gastroenteritis per 100 person-years was 1·5 in the vaccine group and 3·2 in the placebo group, with an incidence rate ratio of 0·46 (95% CI 0·33-0·65). Prevalence of immediate, solicited, and serious adverse events was similar in both groups. One case of urticaria in the vaccine group and one each of acute gastroenteritis and suspected sepsis in the placebo group were regarded as related to the study product. We recorded six cases of intussusception in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group, all of which happened after the third dose. 25 (<1%) infants in the vaccine group and 17 (<1%) in the placebo group died; no death was regarded as related to the study product.

INTERPRETATION

Monovalent human-bovine (116E) rotavirus vaccine is effective and well tolerated in Indian infants.

FUNDING

Department of Biotechnology and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, Government of India; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to PATH, USA; Research Council of Norway; UK Department for International Development; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; and Bharat Biotech International, Hyderabad, India.