1
|
Bergman H, Henschke N, Hungerford D, Pitan F, Ndwandwe D, Cunliffe N, Soares-Weiser K. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 11:CD008521. [PMID: 34788488 PMCID: PMC8597890 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Daniel Hungerford
- Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Duduzile Ndwandwe
- Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council , Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang Y, Li J, Liu P, Zhu F. The performance of licensed rotavirus vaccines and the development of a new generation of rotavirus vaccines: a review. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2021; 17:880-896. [PMID: 32966134 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1801071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuxiao Wang
- School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jingxin Li
- Vaccine Clinical Evaluation Department, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China
| | - Pei Liu
- School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Fengcai Zhu
- Vaccine Clinical Evaluation Department, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Soares‐Weiser K, Bergman H, Henschke N, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD008521. [PMID: 31684685 PMCID: PMC6816010 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
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').
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares‐Weiser
- CochraneEditorial & Methods DepartmentSt Albans House, 57 ‐ 59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Hanna Bergman
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Nicholas Henschke
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Femi Pitan
- Chevron Corporation2 Chevron DriveLekkiLagosNigeria
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- University of LiverpoolInstitute of Infection and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesLiverpoolUKL69 7BE
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares‐Weiser
- CochraneEditorial & Methods DepartmentSt Albans House, 57 ‐ 59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Hanna Bergman
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Nicholas Henschke
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Femi Pitan
- Chevron Corporation2 Chevron DriveLekkiLagosNigeria
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- University of LiverpoolInstitute of Infection and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesLiverpoolUKL69 7BE
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Bergman H, Ben-Aharon I, Nagpal S, Goldberg E, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11:CD008521. [PMID: 23152260 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
6
|
Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Bergman H, Ben-Aharon I, Nagpal S, Goldberg E, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD008521. [PMID: 22336845 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares-Weiser
- Enhance Reviews Ltd,Wantage, UK. 2Cochrane Editorial Unit, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK. 3Enhance Reviews, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
New insights in mucosal vaccine development. Vaccine 2011; 30:142-54. [PMID: 22085556 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 149] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2011] [Revised: 10/25/2011] [Accepted: 11/01/2011] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Mucosal surfaces are the major entrance for infectious pathogens and therefore mucosal immune responses serve as a first line of defence. Most current immunization procedures are obtained by parenteral injection and only few vaccines are administered by mucosal route, because of its low efficiency. However, targeting of mucosal compartments to induce protective immunity at both mucosal sites and systemic level represents a great challenge. Major efforts are made to develop new mucosal candidate vaccines by selecting appropriate antigens with high immunogenicity, designing new mucosal routes of administration and selecting immune-stimulatory adjuvant molecules. The aim of mucosal vaccines is to induce broad potent protective immunity by specific neutralizing antibodies at mucosal surfaces and by induction of cellular immunity. Moreover, an efficient mucosal vaccine would make immunization procedures easier and be better suited for mass administration. This review focuses on contemporary developments of mucosal vaccination approaches using different routes of administration.
Collapse
|
8
|
Espinoza F, Tregnaghi M, Gentile A, Abarca K, Casellas J, Collard A, Lefevre I, Jacquet JM. Primary and booster vaccination in Latin American children with a DTPw-HBV/Hib combination: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10:297. [PMID: 20950456 PMCID: PMC2967556 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2010] [Accepted: 10/15/2010] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell pertussis (DTPw)-based combination vaccines are an attractive option to rapidly achieve high coverage and protection against other important pathogens, such as hepatitis B virus (HBV) and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib). To ensure adequate antigen supply, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals has introduced a new DTPw antigen source and developed a new DTPw-HBV/Hib combination vaccine containing a reduced amount of Hib polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP). This study was undertaken to compare the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of this new DTPw-HBV/Hib vaccine with a licensed DTPw-HBV/Hib vaccine (Tritanrix™-HBV/Hib). METHODS This was a randomized, partially-blind, multicenter study in three countries in Latin America (Argentina, Chile and Nicaragua). Healthy children received either the new DTPw-HBV/Hib vaccine (1 of 3 lots; n = 439; double-blind) or Tritanrix™-HBV/Hib (n = 146; single-blind) co-administered with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at 2, 4 and 6 months, with a booster dose at 18-24 months. RESULTS One month after the end of the 3-dose primary vaccination course, the new DTPw-HBV/Hib vaccine was non-inferior to Tritanrix™-HBV/Hib in terms of seroprotection/vaccine response rates for all component antigens; ≥97.3% and ≥93.9% of subjects in the two groups, respectively, had seroprotective levels of antibodies against diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B and Hib and a vaccine response to the pertussis component. Persistence of antibodies against all vaccine antigens was comparable between groups, with marked increases in all antibody concentrations after booster administration in both groups. Both vaccines were generally well-tolerated as primary and booster doses. CONCLUSIONS Results confirm the suitability of this new DTPw-HBV/Hib vaccine comprising antigens from a new source and a reduced PRP content for inclusion into routine childhood vaccination programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00332566.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Angela Gentile
- Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutierrez, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Katia Abarca
- Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Javier Casellas
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Wavre, Belgium
| | - Alix Collard
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Wavre, Belgium
| | - Inge Lefevre
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Wavre, Belgium
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Ben-Aharon I, Goldberg E, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD008521. [PMID: 20464766 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus results in higher diarrhoea-related death in children less than five years of age than any other single agent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization has recommended the use of rotavirus vaccines in childhood immunization schedules. OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (Rotarix, RotaTeq, and Lanzhou Lamb Rotavirus (LLR)) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. SEARCH STRATEGY In February 2010, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (January 2010) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous data were combined using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS Thirty-four trials that included 175,944 participants met the inclusion criteria. They evaluated Rotarix (26 trials; 99,841 participants) and RotaTeq (eight trials; 76,103 participants), and had variable risk of bias (where information provided). None of the identified trials used LLR or compared rotavirus vaccines. Compared to placebo, Rotarix and RotaTeq were both effective at reducing rotavirus diarrhoea (severe cases and cases of any severity). They also reduced all-cause diarrhoea (severe cases), and hospitalizations and need for medical attention caused by rotavirus diarrhoea. However, few data were available for Rotarix and all-cause diarrhoea. Versus the placebo groups, participants in each vaccine group had similar numbers of deaths, serious adverse events, reactogenicity profiles (fever, diarrhoea, and vomiting), and adverse events that required discontinuation of the vaccination schedule. Both vaccines were immunogenic (measured by virus shedding in stool and/or seroconversion). Subgroup analyses indicate that both vaccines are effective in countries with different incomes, but few data are available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Rotarix and RotaTeq are effective vaccines for the prevention of rotavirus diarrhoea. The balance between benefit and harm favours benefit. Ongoing safety monitoring should be continued. Trials comparing LLR with placebo should be conducted and the results made available.
Collapse
|
10
|
Kim SY, Goldie SJ, Salomon JA. Cost-effectiveness of Rotavirus vaccination in Vietnam. BMC Public Health 2009; 9:29. [PMID: 19159483 PMCID: PMC2663769 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-29] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2008] [Accepted: 01/21/2009] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea leading to hospitalization or disease-specific death among young children. New rotavirus vaccines have recently been approved. Some previous studies have provided broad qualitative insights into the health and economic consequences of introducing the vaccines into low-income countries, representing several features of rotavirus infection, such as varying degrees of severity and age-dependency of clinical manifestation, in their model-based analyses. We extend this work to reflect additional features of rotavirus (e.g., the possibility of reinfection and varying degrees of partial immunity conferred by natural infection), and assess the influence of the features on the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination. METHODS We developed a Markov model that reflects key features of rotavirus infection, using the most recent data available. We applied the model to the 2004 Vietnamese birth cohort and re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness (2004 US dollars per disability-adjusted life year [DALY]) of rotavirus vaccination (Rotarix) compared to no vaccination, from both societal and health care system perspectives. We conducted univariate sensitivity analyses and also performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, based on Monte Carlo simulations drawing parameter values from the distributions assigned to key uncertain parameters. RESULTS Rotavirus vaccination would not completely protect young children against rotavirus infection due to the partial nature of vaccine immunity, but would effectively reduce severe cases of rotavirus gastroenteritis (outpatient visits, hospitalizations, or deaths) by about 67% over the first 5 years of life. Under base-case assumptions (94% coverage and $5 per dose), the incremental cost per DALY averted from vaccination compared to no vaccination would be $540 from the societal perspective and $550 from the health care system perspective. CONCLUSION Introducing rotavirus vaccines would be a cost-effective public health intervention in Vietnam. However, given the uncertainty about vaccine efficacy and potential changes in rotavirus epidemiology in local settings, further clinical research and re-evaluation of rotavirus vaccination programs may be necessary as new information emerges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sun-Young Kim
- Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Harvard Initiative for Global Health, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Sue J Goldie
- Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Harvard Initiative for Global Health, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Joshua A Salomon
- Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston MA, USA
- Harvard Initiative for Global Health, Cambridge, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
Acute viral gastroenteritis is, after respiratory tract infections, the second most common cause of childhood morbidity, hospitalizations and deaths. Amidst a large number of enteric viruses, rotavirus (RV) and norovirus (NV) have been presently recognized as the most important. RV is considered a single, major cause of severe acute diarrhea and the greatest cause of diarrhea-related deaths among children, whereas NV is a major cause of outbreaks, including those in medical facilities. Since improvements in sanitation and hygiene standards have demonstrated little impact on morbidity rate, vaccination early in life appears to be an effective tool to prevent this common disease. Currently, two efficacious oral vaccines are available in several countries in the world. The key challenge is their relatively high price, particularly for the poorest nations, where the need for routine vaccination is of great importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elzbieta Oldak
- Medical University of Bialystok, Department of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Waszyngtona 17, 15-274 Bialystok, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gurgel RQ, Cunliffe NA, Nakagomi O, Cuevas LE. Rotavirus genotypes circulating in Brazil before national rotavirus vaccination: A review. J Clin Virol 2008; 43:1-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2008.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2007] [Revised: 03/19/2008] [Accepted: 04/22/2008] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
13
|
Prymula R, Plisek S. Clinical experience with DTPw-HBV and DTPw-HBV/Hib combination vaccines. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2008; 8:503-13. [PMID: 18352853 DOI: 10.1517/14712598.8.4.503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Combined diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell pertussis (DTPw) vaccines remain the cornerstone of many childhood vaccination programs. Larger DTPw-based combination vaccines facilitate high coverage and protection against other childhood pathogens, such as hepatitis B (HBV) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib). Such vaccines have been available since the mid-1990s (Tritanrix-HBV and Tritanrix-HBV/Hib; GlaxoSmithKline [GSK] Biologicals), demonstrating excellent immunogenicity in various schedules. In order to address growing demand for DTPw-based vaccines, GSK Biologicals have developed the Zilbrix range using a new DTPw antigen source and containing reduced quantities of polyribosylribitol phosphate [PRP]. OBJECTIVE This article presents clinical trial results for both DTPw-based vaccines. METHODS GSK Biologicals provided a comprehensive data package, which was supplemented with a Medline literature search. CONCLUSION New antigen sources and reduced PRP will ensure the continued supply of DTPw-based combination vaccines for vital global mass vaccination campaigns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman Prymula
- University of Defense, Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Military Health Science, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lepage P, Vergison A. Prevention of childhood rotavirus disease through the use of Rotarix™and RotaTeq™vaccines. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2007; 7:1881-92. [DOI: 10.1517/14712598.7.12.1881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
|
15
|
Deen JL, Clemens JD. Issues in the design and implementation of vaccine trials in less developed countries. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5:932-40. [PMID: 17080029 DOI: 10.1038/nrd2159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
There is a growing need for vaccine trials in developing countries. This need arises from the fact that some vaccines do not perform as well in developing as in industrialized country populations and because some newly developed candidates target diseases found only in less-developed countries. Here we discuss several key issues in the design and implementation of vaccine trials in less-developed countries. These include the phasing of vaccine trials on safety, immunogenicity and efficacy to achieve licensure; the recent use of trials to obtain other information crucial to the ultimate deployment of vaccines (such as immunological correlates of protection, indirect vaccine effects, and practical information on the feasibility, costs and acceptability of vaccine introduction); and several ethical issues that have arisen in connection with trials done in developing countries.
Collapse
|