Evaluation of Circulating Intestinally Committed Memory B Cells in Children Vaccinated with Attenuated Human Rotavirus Vaccine

A review of behavioral methods for the evaluation of cognitive performance in animal models: Current techniques and links to human cognition

INTRODUCTION

Memory is defined as the ability to store, maintain and retrieve information. Learning is the acquisition of information that changes behavior and memory. Stress, dementia, head trauma, amnesia, Alzheimer's, Huntington, Parkinson's, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (WKS) may be mentioned among the diseases in which memory and learning are affected. The task of understanding deficits in memory and learning in humans is daunting due to the complexity of neural and cognitive mechanisms in the nervous system. This job is made more difficult for clinicians and researchers by the fact that many techniques used to research memory are not ethically acceptable or technically feasible for use in humans. Thus, animal models have been necessary alternative for studying normal and disordered learning and memory. This review attempts to bridge these domains to allow biomedical researchers to have a firm grasp of "memory" and "learning" as constructs in humans whereby they may then select the proper animal cognitive test.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Various tests (open field habituation test, Y-maze test, passive avoidance test, step-down inhibitory avoidance test, active avoidance test, 8-arms radial maze test, Morris water maze test, radial arm water maze, novel object recognition test and gait function test) have been designed to evaluate different kinds of memory. Each of these tests has their strengths and limits. Abnormal results obtained using these tasks in non-human animals indicate malfunctions in memory which may be due to several physiological and psychological diseases of nervous system. Further studies by using the discussed tests can be very beneficial for achieving a therapeutic answer to these diseases.

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy, safety and effectiveness of licensed rotavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis for Latin America and the Caribbean

BACKGROUND

RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years old, were both introduced into national immunization programs in 2006. As many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have included either RV5 or RV1 in their routine childhood vaccination programs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze efficacy, safety and effectiveness data from the region.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Scielo, Lilacs and the Cochrane Central Register, for controlled efficacy, safety and effectiveness studies published between January 2000 until December 2011, on RV5 and RV1 across Latin America (where both vaccines are available since 2006). The primary outcome measures were: rotavirus-related gastroenteritis of any severity; rotavirus emergency department visits and hospitalization; and severe adverse events.

RESULTS

The results of the meta-analysis for efficacy show that RV1 reduced the risk of any-severity rotavirus-related gastroenteritis by 65% (relative risk (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25; 0.50), and of severe gastroenteritis by 82% (RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.12; 0.26) versus placebo. In trials, both vaccines significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization and emergency visits by 85% (RR 0.15, 95%CI 0.09; 0.25) for RV1 and by 90% (RR 0.099, 95%CI 0.012; 0.77) for RV5. Vaccination with RV5 or RV1 did not increase the risk of death, intussusception, or other severe adverse events which were previously associated with the first licensed rotavirus vaccine. Real-world effectiveness studies showed that both vaccines reduced rotavirus hospitalization in the region by around 45-50% for RV5 (for 1 to 3 doses, respectively), and, by around 50-80% for RV1 (for 1 to 2 doses, respectively). For RV1, effectiveness against hospitalization was highest (around 80-96%) for children vaccinated before 12 months of age, compared with 5-60% effectiveness in older children. Both vaccines were most effective in preventing more severe gastroenteritis (70% for RV5 and 80-90% for RV1) and severe gastroenteritis (50% for RV5 and 70-80% for RV1).

CONCLUSION

This systematic literature review confirms rotavirus vaccination has been proven effective and well tolerated in protecting children in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Vaccination to gain humoral immune memory

The concept of immune memory forms the biological basis for vaccination programs. Despite advancements in the field of immune memory and vaccination, most current vaccines are evaluated by magnitude of antigen-specific antibody titers in serum or mucosa after vaccination. It has been shown, however, that antibody-mediated humoral immune memory is established regardless of the magnitude and duration of immune reactions, suggesting that assessment of vaccine efficacy should be performed for several years after vaccination. This long-term investigation is disadvantageous for prevalent and pandemic infections. Long-lived memory plasma cells and memory helper T cells which contribute to humoral immune memory are generated in the bone marrow after migration of memory cell precursors through bloodstream. Thus, it may be a novel evaluation strategy to assess the precursors of memory cells in the blood in the early phase of the immune reaction(s). We here review recent advances on the generation and maintenance of immune memory cells involved in humoral immunity and introduce a current concept of direct and short-term assessment of humoral immune memory formation upon vaccination as a correlate of protection.

Correlates of protection for rotavirus vaccines: Possible alternative trial endpoints, opportunities, and challenges

Rotavirus (RV) is a major vaccine-preventable killer of young children worldwide. Two RV vaccines are globally commercially available and other vaccines are in different stages of development. Due to the absence of a suitable correlate of protection (CoP), all RV vaccine efficacy trials have had clinical endpoints. These trials represent an important challenge since RV vaccines have to be introduced in many different settings, placebo-controlled studies are unethical due to the availability of licensed vaccines, and comparator assessments for new vaccines with clinical endpoints are very large, complex, and expensive to conduct. A CoP as a surrogate endpoint would allow predictions of vaccine efficacy for new RV vaccines and enable a regulatory pathway, contributing to the more rapid development of new RV vaccines. The goal of this review is to summarize experiences from RV natural infection and vaccine studies to evaluate potential CoP for use as surrogate endpoints for assessment of new RV vaccines, and to explore challenges and opportunities in the field.

Rotavirus

Rotaviruses (RV) are ubiquitous, highly infectious, segmented double-stranded RNA genome viruses of importance in public health because of the severe acute gastroenteritis they cause in young children and many animal species. They are very well adapted to their host, with symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfections being virtually universal during the first 3 years of life. Antibodies are the major arm of the immune system responsible for protecting infants from RV reinfection. The relationship between the virus and the B cells (Bc) that produce these antibodies is complex and incompletely understood: most blood-circulating Bc that express RV-specific immunoglobulin (Ig) on their surface (RV-Ig) are naive Bc and recognize the intermediate capsid viral protein VP6 with low affinity. When compared to non-antigen-specific Bc, RV-Bc are enriched in CD27+ memory Bc (mBc) that express IgM. The Ig genes used by naive RV-Bc are different than those expressed by RV-mBc, suggesting that the latter do not primarily develop from the former. Although RV predominantly infects mature villus enterocytes, an acute systemic viremia also occurs and RV-Bc can be thought of as belonging to either the intestinal or systemic immune compartments. Serotype-specific or heterotypic RV antibodies appear to mediate protection by multiple mechanisms, including intracellular and extracellular homotypic and heterotypic neutralization. Passive administration of RV-Ig can be used either prophylactically or therapeutically. A better understanding of the Bc response generated against RV will improve our capacity to identify improved correlates of protection for RV vaccines.

Correlates of protection against human rotavirus disease and the factors influencing protection in low-income settings

Rotaviruses (RV) are the leading cause of gastroenteritis in infants and children worldwide and are associated with high mortality predominately in low-income settings. The virus is classified into G and P serotypes and further into P genotypes based on differences in the surface-exposed proteins VP7 and VP4, respectively. Infection results in a variable level of protection from subsequent reinfection and disease. This protection is predominantly homotypic in some settings, whereas broader heterotypic protection is reported in other cohorts. Two antigenically distinct oral RV vaccines are licensed and are being rolled out widely, including in resource-poor setting, with funding provided by the GAVI alliance. First is a monovalent vaccine derived from a live-attenuated human RV strain, whereas the second is a pentavalent bovine-human reassortment vaccine. Both vaccines are highly efficacious in high-income settings, but greatly reduced levels of protection are reported in low-income countries. Here, the current challenges facing mucosal immunologists and vaccinologists aiming to define immunological correlates and to understand the variable levels of protection conferred by these vaccines in humans is considered. Such understanding is critical to maximize the public health impact of the current vaccines and also to the development of the next generation of RV vaccines, which are needed.

Simultaneous assessment of rotavirus-specific memory B cells and serological memory after B cell depletion therapy with rituximab

The mechanisms that contribute to the maintenance of serological memory are still unclear. Rotavirus (RV) memory B cells (mBc) are enriched in IgM⁺ and CD27^- subpopulations, which are associated with autoimmune diseases pathogenesis. In patients with autoimmune diseases treated with Rituximab (RTX), some autoantibodies (auto-Abs) decrease after treatment, but other auto-Abs and pathogen-specific IgG Abs remain unchanged. Thus, maintenance of autoimmune and pathogen-specific serological memory may depend on the type of antigen and/or Ab isotype evaluated. Antigen-specific mBc and antigen-specific Abs of different isotypes have not been simultaneously assessed in patients after RTX treatment. To study the relationship between mBc subpopulations and serological memory we characterized total, RV- and tetanus toxoid (TT)-specific mBc by flow cytometry in patients with autoimmune diseases before and after treatment with RTX. We also measured total, RV- and TT-Abs, and some auto-Abs by kinetic nephelometry, ELISA, and EliA tests, respectively. Minor differences were observed between the relative frequencies of RV-mBc in healthy controls and patients with autoimmune disease. After RTX treatment, naïve Bc and total, RV- and TT-specific mBc [IgM⁺, switched (IgA⁺/IgG⁺), IgM⁺ only, IgD⁺ only, and CD27^- (IgA⁺/IgG⁺/IgM⁺)] were significantly diminished. An important decrease in total plasma IgM and minor decreases in total IgG and IgA levels were also observed. IgM rheumatoid factor, IgG anti-CCP, and IgG anti-dsDNA were significantly diminished. In contrast, RV-IgA, RV-IgG and RV-IgG₁, and TT-IgG titers remained stable. In conclusion, in patients with autoimmunity, serological memory against RV and TT seem to be maintained by long-lived plasma cells, unaffected by RTX, and an important proportion of total IgM and serological memory against some auto-antigens seem to be maintained by short-lived plasma cells, dependent on mBc precursors depleted by RTX.

Circulating human rotavirus specific CD4 T cells identified with a class II tetramer express the intestinal homing receptors α4β7 and CCR9

Using a consensus epitope prediction approach, three rotavirus (RV) peptides that induce cytokine secretion by CD4 T cells from healthy volunteers were identified. The peptides were shown to bind HLA-DRB1*0101 and then used to generate MHC II tetramers. RV specific T cell lines specific for one of the three peptides studied were restricted by MHC class II molecules and contained T cells that bound the tetramer and secreted cytokines upon activation with the peptide. The majority of RV and Flu tetramer(+) CD4 T cells in healthy volunteers expressed markers of antigen experienced T cells, but only RV specific CD4 T cells expressed intestinal homing receptors. CD4 T cells from children that received a RV vaccine, but not placebo recipients, were stained with the RV-VP6 tetramer and also expressed intestinal homing receptors. Circulating RV-specific CD4 T cells represent a unique subset that expresses intestinal homing receptors.

Rotavirus specific plasma secretory immunoglobulin in children with acute gastroenteritis and children vaccinated with an attenuated human rotavirus vaccine

Rotavirus (RV)-specific secretory immunoglobulin (RV-SIg) has been previously detected in serum of naturally RV infected children and shown to reflect the intestinal Ig immune response. Total plasma SIgA and plasma RV-SIg were evaluated by ELISA in children with gastroenteritis due or not due to RV infection and in 50 children vaccinated with the attenuated RIX4414 human RV vaccine and 62 placebo recipients. RV-SIg was only detected in children with evidence of previous RV infection or with acute RV gastroenteritis. Vaccinees had higher RV-SIg titers than placebo recipients and RV-SIg titers increased after the second vaccine dose. RV-SIg measured after the second dose correlated with protection when vaccinees and placebo recipients were analyzed jointly. RV-SIg may serve as a valuable correlate of protection for RV vaccines.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Immune markers and correlates of protection for vaccine induced immune responses

Vaccines have been a major innovation in the history of mankind and still have the potential to address the challenges posed by chronic intracellular infections including tuberculosis, HIV and malaria which are leading causes of high morbidity and mortality across the world. Markers of an appropriate humoral response currently remain the best validated correlates of protective immunity after vaccination. Despite advancements in the field of immunology over the past few decades currently there are, however, no sufficiently validated immune correlates of vaccine induced protection against chronic infections in neither human nor veterinary medicine. Technological and conceptual advancements within cell-mediated immunology have led to a number of new immunological read-outs with the potential to emerge as correlates of vaccine induced protection. For T(H)1 type responses, antigen-specific production of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) has been promoted as a quantitative marker of protective cell-mediated immune responses over the past couple of decades. More recently, however, evidence from several infections has pointed towards the quality of the immune response, measured through increased levels of antigen-specific polyfunctional T cells capable of producing a triad of relevant cytokines, as a better correlate of sustained protective immunity against this type of infections. Also the possibilities to measure antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells (CTL) during infection or in response to vaccination, through recombinant major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I tetramers loaded with relevant peptides, has opened a new vista to include CTL responses in the evaluation of protective immune responses. Here, we review different immune markers and new candidates for correlates of a protective vaccine induced immune response against chronic infections and how successful they have been in defining the protective immunity in human and veterinary medicine.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Immunology of gut mucosal vaccines

Understanding the mechanisms underlying the induction of immunity in the gastrointestinal mucosa following oral immunization and the cross-talk between mucosal and systemic immunity should expedite the development of vaccines to diminish the global burden caused by enteric pathogens. Identifying an immunological correlate of protection in the course of field trials of efficacy, animal models (when available), or human challenge studies is also invaluable. In industrialized country populations, live attenuated vaccines (e.g. polio, typhoid, and rotavirus) mimic natural infection and generate robust protective immune responses. In contrast, a major challenge is to understand and overcome the barriers responsible for the diminished immunogenicity and efficacy of the same enteric vaccines in underprivileged populations in developing countries. Success in developing vaccines against some enteric pathogens has heretofore been elusive (e.g. Shigella). Different types of oral vaccines can selectively or inclusively elicit mucosal secretory immunoglobulin A and serum immunoglobulin G antibodies and a variety of cell-mediated immune responses. Areas of research that require acceleration include interaction between the gut innate immune system and the stimulation of adaptive immunity, development of safe yet effective mucosal adjuvants, better understanding of homing to the mucosa of immunologically relevant cells, and elicitation of mucosal immunologic memory. This review dissects the immune responses elicited in humans by enteric vaccines.

Antigen-specific IgA B memory cell responses to Shigella antigens elicited in volunteers immunized with live attenuated Shigella flexneri 2a oral vaccine candidates

We studied the induction of antigen-specific IgA memory B cells (B(M)) in volunteers who received live attenuated Shigella flexneri 2a vaccines. Subjects ingested a single oral dose of 10(7), 10(8) or 10(9) CFU of S. flexneri 2a with deletions in guaBA (CVD 1204) or in guaBA, set and sen (CVD 1208). Antigen-specific serum and stool antibody responses to LPS and Ipa B were measured on days 0, 7, 14, 28 and 42. IgA B(M) cells specific to LPS, Ipa B and total IgA were assessed on days 0 and 28. We show the induction of significant LPS-specific IgA B(M) cells in anti-LPS IgA seroresponders. Positive correlations were found between anti-LPS IgA B(M) cells and anti-LPS IgA in serum and stool; IgA B(M) cell responses to IpaB were also observed. These B(M) cell responses are likely play an important role in modulating the magnitude and longevity of the humoral response.

Membrane vesicles released by intestinal epithelial cells infected with rotavirus inhibit T-cell function

Rotavirus (RV) predominantly replicates in intestinal epithelial cells (IEC), and "danger signals" released by these cells may modulate viral immunity. We have recently shown that human model IEC (Caco-2 cells) infected with rhesus-RV release a non-inflammatory group of immunomodulators that includes heat shock proteins (HSPs) and TGF-β1. Here we show that both proteins are released in part in association with membrane vesicles (MV) obtained from filtrated Caco-2 supernatants concentrated by ultracentrifugation. These MV express markers of exosomes (CD63 and others), but not of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) or nuclei. Larger quantities of proteins associated with MV were released by RV-infected cells than by non-infected cells. VP6 co-immunoprecipitated with CD63 present in these MV, and VP6 co-localized with CD63 in RV-infected cells, suggesting that this viral protein is associated with the MV, and that this association occurs intracellularly. CD63 present in MV preparations from stool samples from 36 children with gastroenteritis due or not due to RV were analyzed. VP6 co-immunoprecipitated with CD63 in 3/8 stool samples from RV-infected children, suggesting that these MV are released by RV-infected cells in vivo. Moreover, fractions that contained MV from RV-infected cells induced death and inhibited proliferation of CD4(+) T cells to a greater extent than fractions from non-infected cells. These effects were in part due to TGF-β, because they were reversed by treatment of the T cells with the TGF-β-receptor inhibitor ALK5i. MV from RV-infected and non-infected cells were heterogeneous, with morphologies and typical flotation densities described for exosomes (between 1.10 and 1.18 g/mL), and denser vesicles (>1.24 g/mL). Both types of MV from RV-infected cells were more efficient at inhibiting T-cell function than were those from non-infected cells. We propose that RV infection of IEC releases MV that modulate viral immunity.

BAFF, stimulatory DNA and IL-15 stimulates IgA(+) memory B cells and provides a novel approach for analysis of memory responses to mucosal vaccines

Assessment of immune responses induced by mucosal vaccines is to a large extent based on measurement of IgA levels in mucosal secretions and detection of short-lived effector IgA-secreting cells circulating in peripheral blood. Since these immunological parameters poorly reflect long-term IgA-mediated responses, we sought to investigate novel approaches that would enable detection of vaccine specific IgA memory B cells. We demonstrate that stimulation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells in vitro with immunostimulatory DNA in combination with B cell-activating factor (BAFF) and IL-15 promotes differentiation of IgA memory B cells to IgA-secreting cells. By using the inactivated oral cholera vaccine Dukoral we demonstrate that vaccine specific IgA memory B cells are induced by oral immunization and are circulating for at least 9 months after vaccination. We also show that stimulated IgA memory B cells do not secrete IgA unless they reencounter the specific antigen.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

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.

A TGF-beta mediated regulatory mechanism modulates the T cell immune response to rotavirus in adults but not in children

Children with acute RV-gastroenteritis (GE) had low or undetectable levels of circulating IFN-gamma(+), IL-13(+), IL-2(+), IL-10(+) or IL-17(+) RV-T cells. IFN-gamma(+) T cells and low frequencies of IL-10(+) and IL-2(+) CD4(+) T cells were found in adults with RV-GE during acute and convalescence phases, respectively. Circulating single IFN-gamma(+)>double IFN-gamma(+)/IL-2(+)>single IL-2(+)RV-CD4(+)T cells were observed in healthy adults. In this group, frequencies of IFN-gamma(+) RV-T cells increased after removing CD25(+)cells, blocking TGF-beta with its natural inhibitor, LAP, or inhibiting TGF-betaRI signalling pathway with ALK5i. The frequencies of IFN-gamma(+) RV-T cells were also incremented in PBMC depleted of CD25(+)cells and treated with ALK5i, suggesting that TGFbeta inhibition may be independent of Treg cells. The ALK5i effect was observed in adults but not in children with RV-GE, who had normal numbers of TGF-beta+ Treg cells. Thus, a TGF-beta-mediated regulatory mechanism that modulates RV-T cells in adults is not evident in children.

Antigen-specific B memory cell responses to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and invasion plasmid antigen (Ipa) B elicited in volunteers vaccinated with live-attenuated Shigella flexneri 2a vaccine candidates

We evaluated B memory responses in healthy adult volunteers who received one oral dose of live-attenuated Shigella flexneri 2a vaccine. LPS-specific B(M) cells increased from a median of 0 at baseline to 20 spot forming cells (SFC)/10(6) expanded cells following vaccination (p=0.008). A strong correlation was found between post-vaccination anti-LPS B(M) cell counts and peak serum anti-LPS IgG titers (rs=0.95, p=0.0003). Increases in B(M) specific for IpaB approaching significance were also observed. In sum, oral vaccination with live-attenuated S. flexneri 2a elicits B(M) cells to LPS and IpaB, suggesting that B(M) responses to Shigella antigens should be further studied as a suitable surrogate of protection in shigellosis.

Cholera toxin-specific memory B cell responses are induced in patients with dehydrating diarrhea caused by Vibrio cholerae O1

BACKGROUND

Infection with Vibrio cholerae induces durable immunity against subsequent disease, a process hypothesized to reflect anamnestic immune responses at the intestinal mucosa. The presence of antigen-specific memory B cells may therefore be a more direct measure of protection than serum antibody responses.

METHODS

We measured immunoglobulin (Ig) G memory B cells specific to cholera toxin B subunit (CTB) in 14 patients up to 90 days after V. cholerae O1 infection, by polyclonal stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells followed by standard enzyme-linked immunospot assay.

RESULTS

All patients generated CTB-specific IgG memory B cell responses by day 30 (mean, 0.10% of total circulating IgG memory B cells; range, 0.037%-0.28%), which persisted to day 90 (mean, 0.07%; range, 0.003%-0.27%). In contrast, circulating CTB-specific IgG antibody-secreting cells and serum vibriocidal and anti-CTB antibody responses peaked on day 7 and declined to undetectable or significantly lower levels by day 90.

CONCLUSIONS

CTB-specific IgG memory B cell responses are detectable in the circulation at least 3 months after V. cholerae O1 infection and remain measurable even after serum antibody titers have declined to undetectable or considerably lower levels. This suggests that antigen-specific memory B cells may be an important long-term marker of the immune response to cholera.

Characterization of rotavirus specific B cells and their relation with serological memory

We quantified circulating total, rotavirus (RV) and Tetanus toxin (TT) memory B cells (mBc) in healthy adults using a limiting dilution assay (LDA) and a flow cytometry assay (FCA) that permit evaluation of both CD27+ and CD27- mBc. RV mBc were enriched in the CD27-, IgG+ and in the CD27+, IgM+ subsets. The numbers of RV mBc were higher by FCA than by LDA and results of the two assays did not correlate. TT IgGmBc and RV IgA mBc determined by FCA and by LDA correlated with TT plasma IgG and RV plasma IgA, respectively. The mean ratio of specific mBc/mug/ml of the corresponding plasma immunoglobulin was lower for TT IgG than for RV IgA mBc. Our studies contribute to understand the relationship between circulating mBc and serological memory, and enhance our capacity to develop better correlates of protection against RV disease.