Immunogenicity, reactogenicity and safety of the human rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™) oral suspension (liquid formulation) when co-administered with expanded program on immunization (EPI) vaccines in Vietnam and the Philippines in 2006–2007

Lot-to-lot consistency of a hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T vaccine and non-inferiority to separate DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV antigen-matching vaccines at 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 weeks of age co-administered with oral rotavirus vaccine in healthy infants in India: A multi-center, randomized, controlled study

Background

Combination vaccines reduce the number of pediatric injections but must be as safe, immunogenic, and effective as each of the individual vaccines given separately. Additionally, consistency in manufacturing lots is essential for WHO prequalification. This study aimed to establish the lot-to-lot consistency of a fully liquid, hexavalent diphtheria (D)-tetanus (T)-whole-cell pertussis (wP)-inactivated poliovirus (IPV)-hepatitis B (HB)-Haemophilus influenzae b (PRP-T) (DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T) vaccine and to demonstrate non-inferiority to licensed DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV vaccines.

Methods

A Phase III, randomized, active-controlled, and open-label study was conducted at multiple centers across India. Healthy infants who had received a birth dose of oral poliovirus vaccine and hepatitis B vaccine received one of three lots of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T or separate DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV vaccines at 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 weeks of age. Oral rotavirus vaccine was co-administered at 6–8 weeks of age and 10–12/14–16 weeks of age. DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T lot-to-lot consistency and non-inferiority (pooled DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T) versus DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV post-third dose were assessed using seroprotection rates (anti-D, anti-T, anti-HBs, anti-PRP, anti-polio 1, 2, 3) and adjusted geometric mean concentrations (anti-PT, anti-FIM). Safety was assessed by parental reports.

Results

Lot-to-lot consistency was demonstrated for DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T and non-inferiority versus DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV was confirmed with 95% CIs for seroprotection rate differences and adjusted geometric mean concentration ratios within pre-defined clinical margins. Pooled seroprotection rate was ≥ 99.7% for anti-D ≥ 0.01 IU/mL, anti-T ≥ 0.01 IU/mL, anti-HBs ≥ 10 mIU/mL, anti-PRP ≥ 0.15 µg/mL, and anti-polio 1, 2, and 3 ≥ 8 (1/dil) and vaccine response rate was 83.9% for anti-PT and 97.7% for anti-FIM. There were no safety concerns.

Conclusions

Immunogenicity of three lots of the fully liquid DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T vaccine was consistent and non-inferior to licensed comparators following vaccination at 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 weeks of age. There were no safety concerns and no evidence of any effect of co-administration with rotavirus vaccine.

Rotavirus vaccines: progress and new developments

INTRODUCTION

Rotavirus is the primary cause of severe acute gastroenteritis among children under the age of five globally, leading to 128,500 to 215,000 vaccine-preventable deaths annually. There are six licensed oral, live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines: four vaccines pre-qualified for global use by WHO, and two country-specific vaccines. Expansion of rotavirus vaccines into national immunization programs worldwide has led to a 59% decrease in rotavirus hospitalizations and 36% decrease in diarrhea deaths due to rotavirus in vaccine-introducing countries.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the current rotavirus vaccines in use, global coverage, vaccine efficacy from clinical trials, and vaccine effectiveness and impact from post-licensure evaluations. Vaccine safety, particularly as it relates to the risk of intussusception, is also summarized. Additionally, an overview of candidate vaccines in the pipeline is provided.

EXPERT OPINION

Considerable evidence over the past decade has demonstrated high effectiveness (80-90%) of rotavirus vaccines at preventing severe rotavirus disease in high-income countries, although the effectiveness has been lower (40-70%) in low-to-middle-income countries. Surveillance and research should continue to explore modifiable factors that influence vaccine effectiveness, strengthen data to better evaluate newer rotavirus vaccines, and aid in the development of future vaccines that can overcome the limitations of current vaccines.

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.

A phase III randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing liquid and lyophilized formulations of oral live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine (HRV) in Indian infants

The human rotavirus vaccine (HRV; Rotarix, GSK) is available as liquid (Liq) and lyophilized (Lyo) formulations, but only Lyo HRV is licensed in India. In this phase III, randomized, open-label trial (NCT02141204), healthy Indian infants aged 6-10 weeks received 2 doses (1 month apart) of either Liq HRV or Lyo HRV. Non-inferiority of Liq HRV compared to Lyo HRV was assessed in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of anti-RV immunoglobulin A (IgA), 1-month post-second dose (primary objective). Reactogenicity/safety were also evaluated. Seroconversion was defined as anti-RV IgA antibody concentration ≥20 units [U]/mL in initially seronegative infants (anti-RV IgA antibody concentration <20 U/mL) or ≥2-fold increase compared with pre-vaccination concentration in initially seropositive infants. Of the 451 enrolled infants, 381 (189 in Liq HRV and 192 in Lyo HRV group) were included in the per-protocol set. The GMC ratio (Liq HRV/Lyo HRV) was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.34), with the lower limit of the 95% CI reaching ≥0.5, the pre-specified statistical margin for non-inferiority. In the Liq HRV and Lyo HRV groups, 42.9% and 44.3% (baseline) and 71.4% and 73.4% (1-month post-second dose) of infants had anti-RV IgA antibody concentration ≥20 U/mL, and overall seroconversion rates were 54.5% and 50.0%. Incidences of solicited and unsolicited adverse events were similar between groups and no vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. Liq HRV was non-inferior to Lyo HRV in terms of antibody GMCs and showed similar reactogenicity/safety profiles, supporting the use of Liq HRV in Indian infants.

Rise of informal slums and the next global pandemic

Informal slums are growing exponentially in the developing world and these will serve as the breeding ground for a future global pandemic. Virtually every sustainable development goal is unmet in slums around the globe thus we must act now to divert a global humanitarian crisis.

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.

Structural Basis of Glycan Recognition of Rotavirus

Rotavirus (RV) is an important pathogen causing acute gastroenteritis in young humans and animals. Attachment to the host receptor is a crucial step for the virus infection. The recent advances in illustrating the interactions between RV and glycans promoted our understanding of the host range and epidemiology of RVs. VP8*, the distal region of the RV outer capsid spike protein VP4, played a critical role in the glycan recognition. Group A RVs were classified into different P genotypes based on the VP4 sequences and recognized glycans in a P genotype-dependent manner. Glycans including sialic acid, gangliosides, histo-blood group antigens (HBGAs), and mucin cores have been reported to interact with RV VP8*s. The glycan binding specificities of VP8*s of different RV genotypes have been studied. Here, we mainly discussed the structural basis for the interactions between RV VP8*s and glycans, which provided molecular insights into the receptor recognition and host tropism, offering new clues to the design of RV vaccine and anti-viral agents.

Safety and immunogenicity of two formulations of rotavirus vaccine in Vietnamese infants

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

ROTAVIN-M1® (licensed, frozen vaccine) and ROTAVIN (second-generation, liquid candidate vaccine) are two rotavirus vaccine formulations developed from a live attenuated G1P8 (KH0118) strain by Center for Research and Production of Vaccines and Biologicals (POLYVAC), Vietnam. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of these two formulations.

METHODS

A Phase 3, randomized, partially double-blinded, active-controlled study was conducted in healthy infants aged 60-91 days in Vietnam. Infants received two doses of ROTAVIN or ROTAVIN-M1 in a ratio of 2:1 with an interval of 8 weeks. Solicited reactions were collected for 7 days after each vaccination. Blood samples were collected pre-vaccination and 4 weeks after the second vaccination in a subset of infants. Non-inferiority criteria required that the lower bound of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the post-vaccination anti-rotavirus IgA GMC (Geometric Mean Concentration) ratio of ROTAVIN/ROTAVIN-M1 should be >0.5. A co-primary objective was to compare the safety of the two vaccines in terms of solicited reactions.

RESULTS

A total of 825 infants were enrolled. The post-vaccination GMC was 48.25 (95% CI: 40.59, 57.37) in the ROTAVIN group and 35.04 (95% CI: 27.34, 44.91) in the ROTAVIN-M1 group with an IgA GMC ratio of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.86) thus meeting the pre-set criteria for non-inferiority. A total of 605 solicited reactions were reported in 297 (36.0%) participants with 35.4% in the ROTAVIN group and 37.2% in the ROTAVIN-M1 group. There were no cases of intussusception or death reported in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data generated, it can be concluded that ROTAVIN is immunologically non-inferior and has similar safety profile to ROTAVIN-M1 when administered to infants in a two-dose schedule. Therefore, it can be considered as a more suitable option for programmatic use to prevent rotavirus diarrhoea in Vietnam and the Mekong region.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03703336, October 11, 2018.

Association of Rotavirus Vaccines With Reduction in Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Children Younger Than 5 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

IMPORTANCE

Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after introduction are noteworthy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of different rotavirus vaccines by synthesizing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies published in 4 databases: Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until July 1, 2020, using search terms including "rotavirus" and "vaccin*."

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies involving more than 100 children younger than 5 years that reported the effectiveness, safety, or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), risk differences, and 95% CIs. Adjusted indirect treatment comparison was performed to assess the differences in the protection of Rotarix and RotaTeq.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization. Safety-associated outcomes involved serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 20 RCTs and 38 case-control studies revealed that Rotarix (RV1) significantly reduced RVGE (RR, 0.316 [95% CI, 0.224-0.345]) and RVGE hospitalization risk (OR, 0.347 [95% CI, 0.279-0.432]) among children fully vaccinated; RotaTeq (RV5) had similar outcomes (RVGE: RR, 0.350 [95% CI, 0.275-0.445]; RVGE hospitalization risk: OR, 0.272 [95% CI, 0.197-0.376]). Rotavirus vaccines also demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. Additionally, no significant differences in the protection of RV1 and RV5 against rotavirus disease were noted in adjusted indirect comparisons. Moderate associations were found between reduced RVGE risk and Rotavac (RR, 0.664 [95% CI, 0.548-0.804]), Rotasiil (RR, 0.705 [95% CI, 0.605-0.821]), and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (RR, 0.407 [95% CI, 0.332-0.499]). All rotavirus vaccines demonstrated no risk of serious adverse events. A positive correlation was also found between immunogenicity and vaccine protection (eg, association of RVGE with RV1: coefficient, -1.599; adjusted R2, 99.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The high protection and low risk of serious adverse events for rotavirus vaccines in children who were fully vaccinated emphasized the importance of worldwide introduction of rotavirus vaccination. Similar protection provided by Rotarix and RotaTeq relieves the pressure of vaccines selection for health care authorities.

Rotavirus genotype trends from 2013 to 2018 and vaccine effectiveness in southern Vietnam

OBJECTIVES

Rotavirus (RV) genotypes vary geographically, and this can affect vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study investigated the genotype distribution of RV and explored VE before introducing the RV vaccine to the national immunization programme in Vietnam.

METHODS

This hospital-based surveillance study was conducted at Children's Hospital 1, Ho Chi Minh City in 2013-2018. Stool samples and relevant data, including vaccination history, were collected from children aged <5 years who were hospitalized with gastroenteritis. RV was detected using enzyme immunoassays and then genotyped. Children aged ≥6 months were included in the VE analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 5176 children were included in this study. RV was detected in 2421 children (46.8%). RV positivity decreased over the study period and was associated with age, seasonality, location and previous vaccination. Among 1105 RV-positive samples, G3P[8] was the most prevalent genotype (43.1%), followed by G8P[8] (19.7%), G1P[8] (12.9%) and G2P[4] (12.9%). Overall VE was 69.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.3-80.6%] in fully vaccinated children and 58.6% (95% CI 44.1-69.4%) in children who had received at least one dose of RV vaccine. VE was highest for G3P[8] (95% CI 75.1-84.5%) and lowest for G2P[4] (95% CI 32.4-57.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

RV remains a major cause of acute gastroenteritis requiring hospitalization in southern Vietnam. The RV vaccine is effective, but its effectiveness varies with RV genotype.

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.

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.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

The rotavirus vaccine development pipeline

Rotavirus disease is a leading global cause of mortality and morbidity in children under 5 years of age. The effectiveness of the two globally used oral rotavirus vaccines quickly became apparent when introduced into both developed and developing countries, with significant reductions in rotavirus-associated mortality and hospitalizations. However, the effectiveness and impact of the vaccines is reduced in developing country settings, where the burden and mortality is highest.

New rotavirus vaccines, including live oral rotavirus candidates and non-replicating approaches continue to be developed, with the major aim to improve the global supply of rotavirus vaccines and for local implementation, and to improve vaccine effectiveness in developing settings. This review provides an overview of the new rotavirus vaccines in development by developing country manufacturers and provides a rationale why newer candidates continue to be explored. It describes the new live oral rotavirus vaccine candidates as well as the non-replicating rotavirus vaccines that are furthest along in development.

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.

Epidemiological trends for hospital admissions for acute rotavirus gastroenteritis in Belgium following the introduction of routine rotavirus vaccination and the subsequent switch from lyophilized to liquid formulation of Rotarix™

This study describes epidemiological trends for acute rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in Belgium in children aged ⩽5 years during the period June 2007 to May 2014 after the introduction of routine rotavirus (RV) vaccination. This period encompassed the switch from lyophilized to the liquid formulation of Rotarix™ (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) in August 2011. Uptake of RV vaccine remained consistently high throughout the study period with Rotarix the brand most often used. RV was present in 9% (1139/12 511) of hospitalized cases with acute gastroenteritis included in the study. Epidemiological trends for hospital admissions for RVGE remained consistent throughout the study period, with no evidence of any change associated with the switch from lyophilized to liquid formulation of Rotarix. This suggests both formulations perform similarly, with the liquid formulation not inferior regarding ability to reduce hospital admissions for acute RVGE in children aged ⩽5 years. A strong seasonal effect was observed with most RVGE occurring in the winter months but with some variability in intensity, with highest incidence found in those aged 6–24 months. The main observation was the decreased number of hospital admissions for RVGE in Belgium that occurred during winter 2013/2014.

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.

Family impact of Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Taiwan and Vietnam: an Ethnographic Study

Background

Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccines, rotavirus was the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis in infants and young children, and it continues to be the leading cause in countries without vaccination programs. Rotavirus gastroenteritis results in substantial economic burden and has a pronounced effect on the family of those who are ill. Both in Taiwan and in Vietnam, rotavirus illness is viewed as a priority disease. This study assessed, in Taiwan and Vietnam, the impact of rotavirus gastroenteritis on the family among a group of parents whose children had recently been hospitalized for this illness.

Methods

In the first half of 2013, parents of children who had been hospitalized due to rotavirus infection were recruited from hospitals in Taiwan (n = 12) and Vietnam (n = 22), and participated in focus group sessions or in-depth ethnographic interviews.

Results

In both countries, the results point to a substantial burden on the parents concerning emotions and logistics of daily tasks, and to considerable disruptions of the family routine. Taiwanese parents reported satisfaction with the health care system, a great deal of effort to suppress emotions, a fair amount of knowledge about rotavirus, and little extra costs related to the illness. On the other hand, parents in Vietnam expressed concern about the emotional well-being of and the health care treatments for their children, were less knowledgeable regarding rotavirus infection, and experienced a substantial financial burden due to indirect costs that were related to accessing treatment.

Conclusions

Families in Taiwan and Vietnam suffer from a considerable economic and emotional burden related to rotavirus gastroenteritis. One way to substantially reduce this burden is to provide universal and affordable rotavirus vaccination to susceptible children, especially since cost-effectiveness studies have demonstrated that universal vaccination would be safe and efficacious against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in these countries.

The epidemiology and aetiology of diarrhoeal disease in infancy in southern Vietnam: a birth cohort study

•

The diarrhoeal disease burden in a large, prospective infant cohort in Vietnam is defined.

•

Minimum incidence of clinic-based diarrhoea in infants: 271/1000 infant-years.

•

Rotavirus was most commonly identified, followed by norovirus and bacterial pathogens.

•

Frequent repeat infections with the same pathogen within 1 year.

•

Inclusion of rotavirus in the immunization schedule for Vietnam is warranted.

Objectives

Previous studies indicate a high burden of diarrhoeal disease in Vietnamese children, however longitudinal community-based data on burden and aetiology are limited. The findings from a large, prospective cohort study of diarrhoeal disease in infants in southern Vietnam are presented herein.

Methods

Infants were enrolled at birth in urban Ho Chi Minh City and a semi-rural district in southern Vietnam, and followed for 12 months (n = 6706). Diarrhoeal illness episodes were identified through clinic-based passive surveillance, hospital admissions, and self-reports.

Results

The minimum incidence of diarrhoeal illness in the first year of life was 271/1000 infant-years of observation for the whole cohort. Rotavirus was the most commonly detected pathogen (50% of positive samples), followed by norovirus (24%), Campylobacter (20%), Salmonella (18%), and Shigella (16%). Repeat infections were identified in 9% of infants infected with rotavirus, norovirus, Shigella, or Campylobacter, and 13% of those with Salmonella infections.

Conclusions

The minimum incidence of diarrhoeal disease in infants in both urban and semi-rural settings in southern Vietnam was quantified prospectively. A large proportion of laboratory-diagnosed disease was caused by rotavirus and norovirus. These data highlight the unmet need for a rotavirus vaccine in Vietnam and provide evidence of the previously unrecognized burden of norovirus in infants.

Rotavirus in organ transplantation: drug-virus-host interactions

Although rotavirus is usually recognized as the most common etiology of diarrhea in young children, it can in fact cause severe diseases in organ transplantation recipients irrespective of pediatric or adult patients. This comprehensive literature analysis revealed 200 cases of rotavirus infection with 8 related deaths in the setting of organ transplantation been recorded. Based on published cohort studies, an average incidence of 3% (187 infections out of 6176 organ recipients) was estimated. Rotavirus infection often causes severe gastroenteritis complications and occasionally contributes to acute cellular rejection in these patients. Immunosuppressive agents, universally used after organ transplantation to prevent organ rejection, conceivably play an important role in such a severe pathogenesis. Interestingly, rotavirus can in turn affect the absorption and metabolism of particular immunosuppressive medications via several distinct mechanisms. Even though rotaviral enteritis is self-limiting in general, infected transplantation patients are usually treated with intensive care, rehydration and replacement of nutrition, as well as applying preventive strategies. This article aims to properly assess the clinical impact of rotavirus infection in the setting of organ transplantation and to disseminate the interactions among the virus, host and immunosuppressive medications.

Reactogenicity and safety of a liquid human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414) in healthy adults, children and infants in China: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase I studies

We report the findings of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase I studies undertaken to support licensure of the liquid formulation of the human G1P[8] rotavirus (RV) vaccine (RIX4414; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA) in China. Healthy adults aged 18–45 y (n = 48) and children aged 2–6 y (n = 50) received a single dose of the human RV vaccine or placebo. Healthy infants (n = 50) aged 6–16 weeks at the time of first vaccination received two oral doses of the human RV vaccine or placebo according to a 0, 1 mo schedule. In infants, blood samples were collected prior to vaccination and one month post-dose 2 to assess anti-RV IgA antibody concentrations using ELISA. Stool samples were collected from all infants on the day of each vaccination, at 7 and 15 d after each vaccination and one month post-dose 2. Stool samples were analyzed by ELISA for detection of RV antigen to assess RV antigen excretion. The reactogenicity profile of the human RV vaccine was found to be comparable to that of placebo in all age groups studied. The anti-RV IgA antibody seroconversion rate in infants after two vaccine doses was 86.7% (95% CI: 59.5–98.3). Vaccine take in infants who received the liquid human RV vaccine was 86.7% (95% CI: 59.5–98.3). A Phase III efficacy study of the human RV vaccine in the infant population in China has now been completed (ROTA-075/NCT01171963).

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A dose-escalation safety and immunogenicity study of a new live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine (Rotavin-M1) in Vietnamese children

We tested a candidate live, oral, rotavirus vaccine (Rotavin-M1™) derived from an attenuated G1P [8] strain (KH0118-2003) isolated from a child in Vietnam. The vaccine was tested first for safety in 29 healthy adults. When deemed safe, it was further tested for safety and immunogenicity in 160 infants (4 groups) aged 6-12 weeks in a dose and schedule ranging study. The vaccine was administered in low titer (10(6.0)FFU/dose) on a 2-dose schedule given 2 months apart (Group 2L) and on a 3-dose schedule given 1 month apart (Group 3L) and in high titer (10(6.3)FFU/dose) in 2 doses 2 months apart (Group 2H) and in 3 doses 1 month apart (Group 3H). For comparison, 40 children (group Rotarix™) were given 2 doses of the lyophilized Rotarix™ vaccine (10(6.5)CCID(50)/dose) 1 month apart. All infants were followed for 30 days after each dose for clinical adverse events including diarrhea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, irritability and intussusception. Immunogenicity was assessed by IgA seroconversion and viral shedding was monitored for 7 days after administration of each dose. Two doses of Rotavin-M1 (10(6.3)FFU/dose) were well tolerated in adults. Among infants (average 8 weeks of age at enrollment), administration of Rotavin-M1 was safe and did not lead to an increased rate of fever, diarrhea, vomiting or irritability compared to Rotarix™, indicating that the candidate vaccine virus had been fully attenuated by serial passages. No elevation of levels of serum transaminase, blood urea, or blood cell counts were observed. The highest rotavirus IgA seroconversion rate (73%, 95%CI (58-88%)) was achieved in group 2H (2 doses--10(6.3)FFU/dose, 2 months apart). The 2 dose schedules performed slightly better than the 3 dose schedules and the higher titer doses performed slightly better than the lower titer doses. These rates of seroconversion were similar to that of the Rotarix™ group (58%, 95%CI (42-73%)). However more infants who received Rotarix™ (65%) shed virus in their stool after the first dose than those who received Rotavin-M1 (44-48%) (p<0.05) and the percent shedding decreased after subsequent doses of either vaccine. Rotavin-M1 vaccine is safe and immunogenic in Vietnamese infants. A trial in progress will assess the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of Rotavin-M1 (2 doses at 10(6.3)FFU/dose) in a larger number of infants. The trial registration numbers are NCT01375907 and NCT01377571.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in low- and middle-income countries. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in high-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all children should be vaccinated with a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) or a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.), with a stronger recommendation for countries where deaths due to diarrhoea comprise more than 10% of all deaths. Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines on all-cause diarrhoea, hospital admission, death, and safety profiles.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality, which was reflected as follows: high quality ("vaccine prevents..."); moderate quality ("vaccine probably prevents..."); or low quality ("vaccine may prevent...").

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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