Evaluation of safety and immunogenicity of a live attenuated tetravalent (G1–G4) Bovine-Human Reassortant Rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV) in healthy Indian adults and infants

Immunogenicity of RV1 and RV5 vaccines administered in standard and interchangeable mixed schedules: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial in Mexican infants

Introduction

Rotavirus-associated diarrheal diseases significantly burden healthcare systems, particularly affecting infants under five years. Both Rotarix™ (RV1) and RotaTeq™ (RV5) vaccines have been effective but have distinct application schedules and limited interchangeability data. This study aims to provide evidence on the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of mixed RV1-RV5 schedules compared to their standard counterparts.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity of mixed rotavirus vaccine schedules compared to standard RV1 and RV5 schedules in a cohort of 1,498 healthy infants aged 6 to 10 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven groups receiving various combinations of RV1, and RV5. Standard RV1 and RV5 schedules served as controls of immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety analysis. IgA antibody levels were measured from blood samples collected before the first dose and one month after the third dose. Non-inferiority was concluded if the reduction in seroresponse rate in the mixed schemes, compared to the standard highest responding scheme, did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of -0.10. Reactogenicity traits and adverse events were monitored for 30 days after each vaccination and analyzed on the entire cohort.

Results

Out of the initial cohort, 1,365 infants completed the study. Immunogenicity analysis included 1,014 infants, considering IgA antibody titers ≥20 U/mL as seropositive. Mixed vaccine schedules demonstrated non-inferiority to standard schedules, with no significant differences in immunogenic response. Safety profiles were comparable across all groups, with no increased incidence of serious adverse events or intussusception.

Conclusion

The study confirms that mixed rotavirus vaccine schedules are non-inferior to standard RV1 and RV5 regimens in terms of immunogenicity and safety. This finding supports the flexibility of rotavirus vaccination strategies, particularly in contexts of vaccine shortage or logistic constraints. These results contribute to the global effort to optimize rotavirus vaccination programs for broader and more effective pediatric coverage.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02193061.

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

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

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of hexavalent rotavirus vaccine in Chinese infants

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial was conducted in healthy Chinese infants to assess the efficacy and safety of a hexavalent live human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine (HRV) against rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE). A total of 6400 participants aged 6–12 weeks were enrolled and randomly assigned to either HRV (n ​= ​3200) or placebo (n ​= ​3200) group. All the subjects received three oral doses of vaccine four weeks apart. The vaccine efficacy (VE) against RVGE caused by rotavirus serotypes contained in HRV was evaluated from 14 days after three doses of administration up until the end of the second rotavirus season. VE against severe RVGE, VE against RVGE hospitalization caused by serotypes contained in HRV, and VE against RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization caused by natural infection of any serotype of rotavirus were also investigated. All adverse events (AEs) were collected for 30 days after each dose. Serious AEs (SAEs) and intussusception cases were collected during the entire study. Our data showed that VE against RVGE caused by serotypes contained in HRV was 69.21% (95%CI: 53.31–79.69). VE against severe RVGE and RVGE hospitalization caused by serotypes contained in HRV were 91.36% (95%CI: 78.45–96.53) and 89.21% (95%CI: 64.51–96.72) respectively. VE against RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization caused by natural infection of any serotype of rotavirus were 62.88% (95%CI: 49.11–72.92), 85.51% (95%CI: 72.74–92.30) and 83.68% (95%CI: 61.34–93.11). Incidences of AEs from the first dose to one month post the third dose in HRV and placebo groups were comparable. There was no significant difference in incidences of SAEs in HRV and placebo groups. This study shows that this hexavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine is an effective, well-tolerated, and safe vaccine for Chinese infants.

•

A multicenter, double-blind, phase III clinical trial for the efficacy and safety of hexavalent rotavirus vaccine (HRV).

•

The vaccine efficacy against rotavirus gastroenteritis caused by serotypes contained in HRV was 69.21%.

•

The efficacy against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and hospitalization caused by serotypesin HRV were 91.36% and 89.21%.

•

No significant difference between the incidences of adverse events and severe adverse events in HRV and placebo group.

•

This hexavalent live human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine iseffective, well tolerated and safe in Chinese infants.

Effect of rotavirus genetic diversity on vaccine impact

Group A rotaviruses (RVAs) are the leading cause of gastroenteritis, causing 0.2 million deaths and several million hospitalisations globally each year. Four rotavirus vaccines (Rotarix^TM , RotaTeq^TM , Rotavac^® and ROTASIIL^® ) have been pre-qualified by the World Health Organization (WHO), but the two newly pre-qualified vaccines (Rotavac^® and ROTASIIL^® ) are currently only in use in Palestine and India, respectively. In 2009, WHO strongly proposed that rotavirus vaccines be included in the routine vaccination schedule of all countries around the world. By the end of 2019, a total of 108 countries had administered rotavirus vaccines, and 10 countries have currently been approved by Gavi for the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in the near future. With 39% of global coverage, rotavirus vaccines have had a substantial effect on diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality in different geographical areas, although efficacy appears to be higher in high income settings. Due to the segmented RNA genome, the pattern of RVA genotypes in the human population is evolving through interspecies transmission and/or reassortment events for which the vaccine might be less effective in the future. However, despite the relative increase in some particular genotypes after rotavirus vaccine use, the overall efficacy of rotavirus mass vaccination worldwide has not been affected. Some of the challenges to improve the effect of current rotavirus vaccines can be solved in the future by new rotavirus vaccines and by vaccines currently in progress.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of a novel oral hexavalent rotavirus vaccine：a phase I clinical trial

Background Rotavirus infections, prevalent in human populations, are caused mostly by group A viruses. Immunization against rotaviruses in infancy is currently the most effective and economical strategy to prevent rotavirus infection. This study evaluated the safety of a novel hexavalent rotavirus vaccine and analyzed its dose and immunogenicity.Methods This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase I clinical trial enrolled healthy adults, toddlers, and infants in Zhengding County, Hebei Province, northern China. 40 adults and 40 children were assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive one vaccine dose, placebo 1, and placebo 2, respectively. 120 6-12 week old infants were assigned equivalently into 3 groups. The infants in each group were assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive three doses of vaccine, placebo 1, and placebo 2, at a 28-day interval. Adverse events (AEs) until 28 days after each dose and serious adverse events (SAEs) until 6 months after the third dose were reported. Virus shedding until 14 days after each dose in infants was tested. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and seroconversion rates were measured for anti-rotavirus IgA by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).Results The solicited and unsolicited AE frequencies and laboratory indexes were similar among the treatment groups. No vaccine-related SAEs were reported. The average percentage of rotavirus vaccine shedding in the infant vaccine groups was 5.00%. The post-3rd dose anti-rotavirus IgA antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMC) and seroconversion rate were higher in the vaccine groups than in the placebo groups.Conclusions The novel oral hexavalent rotavirus vaccine was generally well-tolerated in all adults, toddlers and infants, and the vaccine was immunogenic in infants.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

A Phase 4, multicentre, randomized, single-blind clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity of the live, attenuated, oral rotavirus vaccine (116E), ROTAVAC®, administered simultaneously with or without the buffering agent in healthy infants in India

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization recommends that rotavirus vaccines should be included in all national immunization programs. Some currently licensed oral rotavirus vaccines contain a buffering agent (either as part of a ready-to-use liquid formulation or added during reconstitution) to reduce possible degradation of the vaccine virus in the infant gut, which poses several programmatic challenges (the large dose volume or the reconstitution requirement) during vaccine administration. Because ROTAVAC®, a WHO prequalified vaccine, was derived from the 116E neonatal strain, we evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of ROTAVAC® without buffer and ROTAVAC® with buffer in a phase 4, multicentre, single-blind, randomized clinical trial in healthy infants in India.

METHODS

900 infants, approximately 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age, were assigned to 3 groups to receive ROTAVAC® (0.5 mL dose) orally: (i) 2.5 mL of citrate-bicarbonate buffer 5 minutes prior to administration of ROTAVAC® (Group I), (ii) ROTAVAC®, alone, without any buffer (Group II), or (iii) ROTAVAC®, mixed with buffer immediately before administration (Group III). Non-inferiority was compared among the groups for differences in serological responses (detected by serum anti-rotavirus IgA) and safety.

RESULTS

Geometric mean titers post vaccination at day 84 (28 days after dose 3) were 19.6 (95%CI: 17.0, 22.7), 20.7 (95%CI: 17.9, 24) and 19.2 (95%CI: 16.8, 22.1) for groups I, II and III respectively. Further, seroconversion rates and distribution of adverse events were similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of ROTAVAC® at a 0.5 mL dose volume without buffering agent was shown to be well tolerated and immunogenic. Given the homologous nature of the strain, it is plausible that ROTAVAC® replicates well and confers immunity even without buffer administration.

Improving rotavirus vaccine coverage: Can newer-generation and locally produced vaccines help?

There are two internationally available WHO-prequalified oral rotavirus vaccines (Rotarix and RotaTeq), two rotavirus vaccines licensed in India (Rotavac and Rotasiil), one in China (Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine) and one in Vietnam (Rotavin-M1), and several candidates in development. Rotavirus vaccination has been rolled out in Latin American countries and is beginning to be deployed in sub-Saharan African countries but middle- and low-income Asian countries have lagged behind in rotavirus vaccine introduction. We provide a mini-review of the leading newer-generation rotavirus vaccines and compare them with Rotarix and RotaTeq. We discuss how the development and future availability of newer-generation rotavirus vaccines that address the programmatic needs of poorer countries may help scale-up rotavirus vaccination where it is needed.

Live attenuated tetravalent (G1-G4) bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV): Randomized, controlled phase III study in Indian infants

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus remains the leading cause of diarrhoea among children <5years. We assessed immunogenic non-inferiority of a tetravalent bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV) over the licensed human-bovine pentavalent rotavirus vaccine RV5.

METHODS

Phase III single-blind study (parents blinded) in healthy infants randomized (1:1) to receive three doses of BRV-TV or RV5 at 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16weeks of age. All concomitantly received a licensed diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (DTwP-HepB-Hib) and oral polio vaccine (OPV). Immunogenic non-inferiority was evaluated in terms of the inter-group difference in anti-rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse (primary endpoint), and seroprotection/seroresponse rates to DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV vaccines. Seroresponse was defined as a ≥4-fold increase in titers from baseline to D28 post-dose 3. Non-inferiority was declared if the difference between groups (based on the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval [CI]) was above -10%. Each subject was evaluated for solicited adverse events 7days and unsolicited & serious adverse events 28days following each dose of vaccination.

RESULTS

Of 1195 infants screened, 1182 were randomized (590 to BRV-TV; 592 to RV5). Non-inferiority for rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse was not established: BRV-TV, 47.1% (95%CI: 42.8; 51.5) versus RV5, 61.2% (95%CI: 56.8; 65.5); difference between groups, -14.08% (95%CI: -20.4; -7.98). Serum IgA geometric mean concentrations at D28 post-dose 3 were 28.4 and 50.1U/ml in BRV-TV and RV5 groups, respectively. For all DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV antigens, seroprotection/seroresponse was elicited in both groups and the -10% non-inferiority criterion between groups was met. There were 16 serious adverse events, 10 in BRV-TV group and 6 in RV5 group; none were classified as vaccine related. Both groups had similar vaccine safety profiles.

CONCLUSION

BRV-TV was immunogenic but did not meet immunogenic non-inferiority criteria to RV5 when administered concomitantly with routine pediatric antigens in infants.

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.

Options for improving effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines in developing countries

Rotavirus gastroenteritis is a leading global cause of mortality and morbidity in young children due to diarrhea and dehydration. Over 85% of deaths occur in developing countries. In industrialised countries, 2 live oral rotavirus vaccines licensed in 2006 quickly demonstrated high effectiveness, dramatically reducing severe rotavirus gastroenteritis admissions in many settings by more than 90%. In contrast, the same vaccines reduced severe rotavirus gastroenteritis by only 30-60% in developing countries, but have been proven life-saving. Bridging this "efficacy gap" offers the possibility to save many more lives of children under the age of 5. The reduced efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in developing settings may be related to differences in transmission dynamics, as well as host luminal, mucosal and immune factors. This review will examine strategies currently under study to target the issue of reduced efficacy and effectiveness of oral rotavirus vaccines in developing settings.