A rotavirus vaccine for prophylaxis of infants against rotavirus gastroenteritis

Oral and intranasal vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: Current progress, prospects, advantages, and challenges

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a deadly pandemic in the 21st century, resulting in many deaths, economic loss, and international immobility. Vaccination represents the only mechanism to defeat this virus. Several intramuscular vaccines have been approved and are currently used worldwide.

MAIN BODY

However, global mass vaccination has not been achieved owing to several limitations, including the need for expertise to administer the injection-based vaccine, improper distribution of the vaccine, and lack of cold chain facilities, particularly in resource-poor, low-income countries. Mucosal vaccines are typically administered either orally or nasally, and several studies have shown promising results for developing these vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 that might serve as viable alternatives to current vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 invades the human body via oral and nasal mucosal surfaces; thus, an oral or nasal vaccine can trigger the immune system to inhibit the virus at the mucosal level, preventing further transmission via a strong mucosal and systematic immune response. Although several approaches toward developing a mucosal vaccine are currently being tested, additional attention is required.

CONCLUSION

In this article, the current approaches used to develop effective oral and nasal mucosal vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and their benefits, prospects, and challenges have been summarized.

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.

Longer-term Direct and Indirect Effects of Infant Rotavirus Vaccination Across All Ages in the United States in 2000-2013: Analysis of a Large Hospital Discharge Data Set

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus disease rates dramatically declined among children <5 years of age since the rotavirus vaccine was introduced in 2006; population-level impacts remain to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

Data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases were used to conduct a time-series analysis of monthly hospital discharges across age groups for acute gastroenteritis and rotavirus from 2000 to 2013. Rate ratios were calculated comparing prevaccine and postvaccine eras.

RESULTS

Following vaccine introduction, a decrease in rotavirus hospitalizations occurred with a shift toward biennial patterns across all ages. The 0-4-year age group experienced the largest decrease in rotavirus hospitalizations (rate ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, .09-.23). The 5-19-year and 20-59-year age groups experienced significant declines in rotavirus hospitalization rates overall; the even postvaccine calendar years were characterized by progressively lower rates, and the odd postvaccine years were associated with reductions in rates that diminished over time. Those aged ≥60 years experienced the smallest change in rotavirus hospitalization rates overall, with significant reductions in even postvaccine years compared with prevaccine years (rate ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, .39-.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect impacts of infant rotavirus vaccination are apparent in the emergence of biennial patterns in rotavirus hospitalizations that extend to all age groups ineligible for vaccination. These observations are consistent with the notion that young children are of primary importance in disease transmission and that the initial postvaccine period of dramatic population-wide impacts will be followed by more complex incidence patterns across the age range in the long term.

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.

Rotavirus epidemiology and vaccine demand: considering Bangladesh chapter through the book of global disease burden

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus is the major cause of gastroenteritis in children throughout the world. Every year, a large number of children aged < 5 years die from rotavirus-related diarrhoeal diseases. Though these infections are vaccine-preventable, the vast majority of children in low-income countries suffer from the infection. The situation leads to severe economic loss and constitutes a major public health problem.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases including PubMed and Google scholar using the following words: "features of rotavirus," "epidemiology of rotavirus," "rotavirus serotypes," "rotavirus in Bangladesh," "disease burden of rotavirus," "rotavirus vaccine," "low efficacy of rotavirus vaccine," "inactivated rotavirus vaccine". Publications until July 2017 have been considered for this work.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Currently, two live attenuated vaccines are available throughout the world. Many countries have included rotavirus vaccines in national immunization program to reduce the disease burden. However, due to low efficacy of the available vaccines, satisfactory outcome has not yet been achieved in developing countries such as Bangladesh. Poor economic, public health, treatment, and sanitation status of the low-income countries necessitate the need for the most effective rotavirus vaccines. Therefore, the present scenario demands the development of a highly effective rotavirus vaccine. In this regard, inactivated rotavirus vaccine concept holds much promise for reducing the current disease burden. Recent advancements in developing an inactivated rotavirus vaccine indicate a significant progress towards disease prophylaxis and control.

Characterization and protective efficacy in an animal model of a novel truncated rotavirus VP8 subunit parenteral vaccine candidate

The cell-attachment protein VP8* of rotavirus is a potential candidate parenteral vaccine. However, the yield of full-length VP8 protein (VP8*, residues 1-231) expressed in Escherichia coli was low, and a truncated VP8 protein (ΔVP8*, residues 65-231) cannot elicit efficient protective immunity in a mouse model. In this study, tow novel truncated VP8 proteins, VP8-1 (residues 26-231) and VP8-2 (residues 51-231), were expressed in E. coli and evaluated for immunogenicity and protective efficacy, compared with VP8* and ΔVP8*. As well as ΔVP8*, the protein VP8-1 and VP8-2 were successfully expressed in high yield and purified in homogeneous dimeric forms, while the protein VP8* was expressed with lower yield and prone to aggregation and degradation in solution. Although the immunogenicity of the protein VP8*, VP8-1, VP8-2 and ΔVP8* was comparable, immunization of VP8* and VP8-1 elicited significantly higher neutralizing antibody titers than that of VP8-2 and ΔVP8* in mice. Furthermore, when assessed using a mouse maternal antibody model, the efficacy of VP8-1 to protect against rotavirus-induced diarrhea in pups was comparable to that of VP8*, both were dramatically higher than that of VP8-2 and ΔVP8*. Taken together, the novel truncated protein VP8-1, with increased yield, improved homogeneity and high protective efficacy, is a viable candidate for further development of a parenterally administrated prophylactic vaccine against rotavirus infection.

Disease caused by rotavirus infection

Although rotavirus vaccines are available, rotaviruses remain the major cause of childhood diarrheal disease worldwide. The Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals Rixensart, Belgium) and RotaTeq (Merck and Co., Inc. Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA) vaccines are effective for reducing the morbidity and mortality of rotavirus infection. This article aims to assess the epidemiology of rotaviral gastroenteritis and the efficacy and effectiveness of licensed rotavirus vaccines. This review concludes by presenting challenges in the field that require further exploration by and perspectives from basic and translational research in the future.

Screening of viral pathogens from pediatric ileal tissue samples after vaccination

In 2010, researchers reported that the two US-licensed rotavirus vaccines contained DNA or DNA fragments from porcine circovirus (PCV). Although PCV, a common virus among pigs, is not thought to cause illness in humans, these findings raised several safety concerns. In this study, we sought to determine whether viruses, including PCV, could be detected in ileal tissue samples of children vaccinated with one of the two rotavirus vaccines. A broad spectrum, novel DNA detection technology, the Lawrence Livermore Microbial Detection Array (LLMDA), was utilized, and confirmation of viral pathogens using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted. The LLMDA technology was recently used to identify PCV from one rotavirus vaccine. Ileal tissue samples were analyzed from 21 subjects, aged 15–62 months. PCV was not detected in any ileal tissue samples by the LLMDA or PCR. LLMDA identified a human rotavirus A from one of the vaccinated subjects, which is likely due to a recent infection from a wild type rotavirus. LLMDA also identified human parechovirus, a common gastroenteritis viral infection, from two subjects. Additionally, LLMDA detected common gastrointestinal bacterial organisms from the Enterobacteriaceae, Bacteroidaceae, and Streptococcaceae families from several subjects. This study provides a survey of viral and bacterial pathogens from pediatric ileal samples, and may shed light on future studies to identify pathogen associations with pediatric vaccinations.

Implication of nanoparticles/microparticles in mucosal vaccine delivery

Although polymeric nanoparticles/microparticles are well established for the mucosal administration of conventional drugs, they have not yet been developed commercially for vaccine delivery. The limitation of the mucosal (particularly oral) route of delivery, including low pH, gastric enzymes, rapid transit and poor absorption of large molecules, has made mucosal vaccine delivery challenging. Nevertheless, several polymeric delivery systems for mucosal vaccine delivery are currently being evaluated. The polymer-based approaches are designed to protect the antigen in the gut, to target the antigen to the gut-associated lymphoid tissue or to increase the residence time of the antigen in the gut through bioadhesion. M-cell targeting is a potential approach for mucosal vaccine delivery, which can be achieved using M-cell-specific lectins, microbial adhesins or immunoglobulins. While many hurdles must be overcome before targeted mucosal vaccine delivery becomes a practical reality, this is a potential area of research that has important implications for future vaccine development. This review comprises various aspects that could be decisive in the development of polymer based mucosal vaccine delivery systems.

A critical time for rotavirus vaccines: a review

Universal introduction of rotavirus vaccines into childhood immunization programs is expected to substantially reduce the mortality from rotavirus gastroenteritis in developing countries (currently estimated at 702,000 annual deaths among children less than 5 years of age). In addition, it is expected to virtually eliminate hospitalizations due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in developed countries. Two rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Belgium) and RotaTeq (Merck & Co., USA) have recently completed Phase III clinical trials, each involving more than 60,000 children. Both vaccines appear safe with respect to intussusception, and are highly efficacious in preventing severe gastroenteritis due to rotavirus strains carrying predominantly serotype G1. The monovalent human rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, possessing serotype P1A[8],G1, is being first introduced into developing countries, whereas the pentavalent bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, comprising G-types G1, G2, G3, G4 and P-type P1A[8], will be initially introduced into the USA and Europe. Current disease burden estimates and economic justification will be required wherever the vaccines are introduced. Confirmation of the safety of both vaccines will require extensive postlicensure evaluation in which it will be key to assure adherence to administration of the first dose of either vaccine before 3 months of age. Assessment of the ability of each vaccine to provide protection against an increasingly diverse population of rotavirus strains will crucially depend on continuous global strain surveillance. Finally, efforts to improve existing rotavirus vaccines and to develop alternative vaccines should continue, so as to ensure that the prerotavirus vaccine era is consigned to a historical context.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Distributional impact of rotavirus vaccination in 25 GAVI countries: estimating disparities in benefits and cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Other studies have demonstrated that the impact and cost effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination differs among countries, with greater mortality reduction benefits and lower cost-effectiveness ratios in low-income and high-mortality countries. This analysis combines the results of a country level model of rotavirus vaccination published elsewhere with data from Demographic and Health Surveys on within-country patterns of vaccine coverage and diarrhea mortality risk factors to estimate within-country distributional effects of rotavirus vaccination. The study examined 25 countries eligible for funding through the GAVI Alliance.

METHODS

For each country we estimate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of vaccination for each wealth quintile assuming current vaccination patterns and for a scenario where vaccine coverage is equalized to the highest quintile's coverage. In the case of India, variations in coverage and risk proxies by state were modeled to estimate geographic distributional effects.

RESULTS

In all countries, rates of vaccination were highest and risks of mortality were lowest in the top two wealth quintiles. However countries differ greatly in the relative inequities in these two underlying variables. Similarly, in all countries examined, the cost-effectiveness ratio for vaccination ($/Disability-Adjusted Life Year averted, DALY) is substantially greater in the higher quintiles (ranging from 2-10 times higher). In all countries, the greatest potential benefit of vaccination was in the poorest quintiles. However, due to reduced vaccination coverage, projected benefits for these quintiles were often lower. Equitable coverage was estimated to result in an 89% increase in mortality reduction for the poorest quintile and a 38% increase overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotavirus vaccination is most cost-effective in low-income groups and regions. However in many countries, simply adding new vaccines to existing systems targets investments to higher income children, due to disparities in vaccination coverage. Maximizing health benefits for the poorest children and value for money require increased attention to these distributional effects.

The etiology of severe acute gastroenteritis among adults visiting emergency departments in the United States

BACKGROUND

Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) remains a common cause of clinic visits and hospitalizations in the United States, but the etiology is rarely determined.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter emergency department-based study of adults with AGE. Subjects were interviewed on presentation and 3-4 weeks later. Serum samples, rectal swab specimens, and/or whole stool specimens were collected at presentation, and serum was collected 3-4 weeks later. Fecal specimens were tested for a comprehensive panel of viral, bacterial, and parasitic pathogens; serum was tested for calicivirus antibodies.

RESULTS

Pathogens were detected in 25% of 364 subjects, including 49% who provided a whole stool specimen. The most commonly detected pathogens were norovirus (26%), rotavirus (18%), and Salmonella species (5.3%). Pathogens were detected significantly more often from whole stool samples versus a rectal swab specimen alone. Nine percent of subjects who provided whole stool samples had >1 pathogen identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Viruses, especially noroviruses, play a major role as agents of severe diarrhea in adults. Further studies to confirm the unexpectedly high prevalence of rotaviruses and to explore the causes of illness among patients from whom a pathogen cannot be determined are needed. Studies of enteric pathogens should require the collection of whole stool samples.

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.

Economic evaluation of the national immunization program of rotavirus vaccination for children in Korea

The authors assessed the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination to develop an evidence-based national immunization program in Korea. A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and clinical outcomes of vaccination versus no vaccination. The birth cohort of 493189 infants in 2007 was followed until the age of 5 years. Korea-specific data for epidemiological characteristics and economic burden of rotavirus diarrhea were used for the modeled estimation. Efficacy of RotaTeq® was based on a recent clinical trial. Rotavirus vaccination would prevent 181238 symptomatic cases (reduction rate = 63.2%) over 5 years after birth. From the societal perspective, at a vaccination cost of 100000 Korean won (KW; 1 US$ ≈ 1200 KW) per dose, universal vaccination would cost 375 620 KW per case averted. The breakeven price of vaccine was 56061 KW. Rotavirus vaccination would reduce the burden of the disease substantially and be a cost-effective strategy to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in Korea.

Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™): a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis in developing countries

This article provides an overview of the clinical profile of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™) in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in developing countries, followed by a comprehensive review of pharmacoeconomic analyses with the vaccine in low- and middle-income countries. RVGE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality among children <5 years of age in developing countries. The protective efficacy of a two-dose oral series of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 has been demonstrated in several well designed clinical trials conducted in developing countries, and the 'real-world' effectiveness of the vaccine has also been shown in naturalistic and case-control trials after the introduction of universal vaccination programmes with RIX4414 in Latin American countries. The WHO recommends universal rotavirus vaccination programmes for all countries. Numerous modelled cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted with rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 across a wide range of low- and middle-income countries. Although data sources and assumptions varied across studies, results of the analyses consistently showed that the introduction of the vaccine as part of a national vaccination programme would be very (or highly) cost effective compared with no rotavirus vaccination programme, according to widely used cost-effectiveness thresholds for developing countries. Vaccine price was not known at the time the analyses were conducted and had to be estimated. In sensitivity analyses, rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 generally remained cost effective at the highest of a range of possible vaccine prices considered. Despite these favourable results, decisions regarding the implementation of universal vaccination programmes with RIX4414 may also be contingent on budgetary and other factors, underscoring the importance of subsidized vaccination programmes for poor countries through the GAVI Alliance (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization).

Childhood intussusception in Uzbekistan: analysis of retrospective surveillance data

BACKGROUND

Estimates of baseline incidence of childhood intussusception could help safety monitoring after the introduction of rotavirus vaccines. We studied the incidence of intussusception in Uzbekistan, a GAVI-fund eligible state in Central Asia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed intussusception cases in children <2 years of age treated during 2004-2008 at 15 hospitals in the Bukhara region of Uzbekistan. Demographic and clinical data as well as information on diagnostic and treatment practices were obtained from hospital records. We categorized cases using the Brighton collaboration clinical case definition and calculated the national incidence rate.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year study period, 67 confirmed cases were identified, of which 67% were boys. The median age was 12 months, and no seasonal trend in the distribution of cases was observed. The diagnostic methods used included abdominal radiography (87%) and ultrasonography (57%). Intussusception reduction by air enema was successful in 33 (49%) patients and 34 (50%) cases underwent surgery. A total of 4 deaths occurred, including 3 deaths in infants aged 0-6 months. The median length of hospital stay was 7.3 (range 0-37) days. The incidence of intussusception is estimated at 23 (95% CI 13.6-32.4) cases per 100,000 child-years, corresponding to approximately 237 cases annually.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to estimate the incidence of childhood intussusception prior to the introduction of the rotavirus vaccination in Uzbekistan. A prospective surveillance system using a standardized case definition is needed in order to better examine the occurrence of intussusception in developing countries.

Epidemiology of rotavirus infections in children less than 5 years of age: Germany, 2001-2008

BACKGROUND

rotavirus (RV) infection is the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in young children worldwide. In 2006, 2 live-attenuated RV-vaccines became available for use in infants ≤ 6 months of age. In Germany, a statutory notification system for RV infection has been in place since 2001 to monitor RV epidemiology. Our objective was to assess RV disease burden in German children <5 years of age.

METHODS

Detailed descriptive analysis of national RV surveillance data in children <5 years of age collected in Germany between January 2001 and December 2008.

RESULTS

between 2001 and 2008, 72% of all notified RV patients were children <5 years of age. The highest annual incidence (approximately, 200/10,000) was in children <2 years of age. In the <5 years age-group, approximately 50% of reported patients were hospitalized and of those, 9% acquired the infection nosocomially. Since 2004, a total of 8 children <5 years of age were reported as RV-associated deaths, and case fatality due to RV infection was <0.01/10,000.

CONCLUSIONS

the high incidence of RV infection and RV-associated hospitalization in children <5 years of age results in a high disease burden. Routine childhood RV vaccination would be a measure to reduce the burden in this age-group. However, cost-effectiveness analyses specific to the German setting should be considered in the decision-making process. An RV-surveillance system is in place in Germany that could potentially monitor the effect of an RV-vaccination program once implemented.

Global impact of rotavirus vaccines

The WHO has recently recommended the inclusion of rotavirus vaccine in the national immunization programs of all countries. In countries in the Americas, Europe and Australia that have adopted routine childhood immunization against rotavirus, significant reductions in the burden of severe childhood diarrhea have been observed. Besides protecting vaccinated children, disease rates also appear to be reduced in unvaccinated children, suggesting indirect benefits from vaccination (i.e., herd protection). Early clinical trial data from Africa and Asia are promising, and further efforts are needed to optimize the benefits of vaccination in developing countries where vaccines are likely to have their greatest impact.

WHO policy development processes for a new vaccine: case study of malaria vaccines

BACKGROUND

Recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) are crucial to inform developing country decisions to use, or not, a new intervention. This article analysed the WHO policy development process to predict its course for a malaria vaccine.

METHODS

The decision-making processes for one malaria intervention and four vaccines were classified through (1) consultations with staff and expert advisors to WHO's Global Malaria Programme (GMP) and Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals Department (IVB); (2) analysis of the procedures and recommendations of the major policy-making bodies of these groups; (3) interviews with staff of partnerships working toward new vaccine availability; and (4) review and analyses of evidence informing key policy decisions.

CASE DESCRIPTION

WHO policy formulation related to use of intermittent preventive treatment in infancy (IPTi) and the following vaccine interventions: Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (Hib), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), rotavirus vaccine (RV), and human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), five interventions which had relatively recently been through systematic WHO policy development processes as currently constituted, was analysed. Required information was categorized in three areas defined by a recent WHO publication on development of guidelines: safety and efficacy in relevant populations, implications for costs and population health, and localization of data to specific epidemiological situations.

DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

Data needs for a malaria vaccine include safety; the demonstration of efficacy in a range of epidemiological settings in the context of other malaria prevention interventions; and information on potential rebound in which disease increases subsequent to the intervention. In addition, a malaria vaccine would require attention to additional factors, such as costs and cost-effectiveness, supply and demand, impact of use on other interventions, and distribution issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Although policy issues may be more complex for future vaccines, the lead-time between the date of product regulatory approval and a recommendation for its use in developing countries is decreasing. This study presents approaches to define in advance core data needs to support evidence-based decisions, to further decrease this lead-time, accelerating the availability of a malaria vaccine. Specific policy areas for which information should be collected are defined, including studying its use within the context of other malaria interventions.

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.

Development of a rotavirus vaccine: clinical safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq

Initial approaches for rotavirus vaccines were based on the classical "Jennerian" approach and utilized simian and bovine rotavirus strains, which provided cross-protection against human rotavirus strains but did not cause illness in infants and young children because of their species-specific tropism. The demonstrated efficacy of these vaccines was not consistent across studies. Thus, human-animal reassortants containing an animal rotavirus backbone with human rotavirus surface G and/or P proteins were developed, which demonstrated more consistent efficacy than that observed with the non-reassortant rotavirus strains. The pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, contains 5 human-bovine reassortant rotaviruses consisting of a bovine (WC3) backbone with human rotavirus surface proteins representative of the most common G (G1, G2, G3, G4) or P (P1A[8]) types worldwide. The present review focuses on the development of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq. Results of a large-scale Phase III clinical study showed that three doses of RotaTeq were immunogenic, efficacious, and well tolerated with no increased clinical risk of intussusception. RotaTeq was efficacious against rotavirus gastroenteritis of any severity (74%) and severe disease (98-100%), using a validated clinical scoring system. Reductions in rotavirus-associated hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, for up to 2 years post-vaccination, were 95% in Europe, 97% in the United States, and 90% in the Latin American/Caribbean regions. RotaTeq was recently shown to be up to 100% effective in routine use in the US in reducing hospitalizations and ED visits and 96% effective in reducing physician visits. Additional studies in 8 different locations in the US have shown 85-95% reduction in rotavirus-associated hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the first 2-2.5 years of routine use.

Update on Rotarix: an oral human rotavirus vaccine

Worldwide, rotaviruses are the single most important agents of severe gastroenteritis in infants and young children. Globally, it is estimated that every year rotavirus gastroenteritis causes more than 125 million episodes of diarrhea and nearly 527,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. The development of new effective and safe rotavirus vaccines was recognized as the most effective intervention strategy that could yield a significant impact on the burden of rotavirus disease. Rotarix is an oral live-attenuated human rotavirus vaccine containing a single G1P[8] strain. The first oral dose may be administered as early as 6 weeks of age, with a minimum interval of 4 weeks prior to second dose; the vaccination course should be completed by the age of 24 weeks according to the manufacturer. In the USA, the upper age limit for the second dose has recently been recommended at 32 weeks of age by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The development program for Rotarix including Phase I, II and III multicenter studies involving over 100,000 infants has been established in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. The vaccine proved to be well tolerated, immunogenic, efficacious, safe and not associated with intussusception. It provided 85-96% protection against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis caused by G1 and non-G1 serotypes in Latin American and European clinical trials; and of public health importance, Rotarix reduced hospitalizations of all-cause gastroenteritis by 40 and 75%, respectively. Efficacy against G2P[4] strains ranged from 41% in Latin America to 81% in Europe. In the former, Rotarix afforded sustained high protection (80.5%; 95% CI: 71.3-87.1) against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis during the first 2 years of life in a region with a changing pattern of wild-type rotavirus circulation. In a recently completed vaccine trial in South Africa and Malawi, Rotarix showed an overall efficacy of 61.2% (95% CI: 44.0-73.2) by 1 year of age. Although these rates are lower than those from developed and middle-income countries, they look promising given the lack of other effective interventions. With the expanding introduction of rotavirus vaccines into national immunization programs, postmarketing surveillance should be conducted to measure the impact of rotavirus vaccination, as well as continued monitoring of circulating rotavirus strains.

Oral rotavirus vaccines: how well will they work where they are needed most?

Rotavirus vaccines hold promise to decrease the burden of severe diarrhea in the poorest countries, where 85% of deaths due to rotavirus occur. However, the potency of live oral vaccines is lower in these challenging settings than in middle- and upper-income countries. Many hypotheses have been suggested to explain these differences that could provide clues to improve the ultimate success of these novel vaccines. Although introduction today of even moderately effective vaccines will decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with rotavirus in low-income settings, research is urgently needed to understand why these differences in efficacy occur and what could be done to improve vaccine performance to maximize the life-saving benefits of vaccination.

Estimated research and development costs of rotavirus vaccines

Diseases like rotavirus afflict both upper- and lower-income countries, but most serious illnesses and deaths occur among the latter. It is a vital public health issue that vaccines for these types of global diseases can recover research and development (R&D) costs from high-priced markets quickly so that manufacturers can offer affordable prices to lower-income nations. Cost recovery depends on how high R&D costs are, and this study attempts to replace high, unverified estimates with lower, more verifiable estimates for two new vaccines, RotaTeq (Merck) and Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline or GSK), based on detailed searches of public information and follow-up interviews with senior informants. We also offer a new perspective on "cost of capital" as a claim for recovery from public bodies. Our estimates suggest that companies can recover all fixed costs quickly from affluent markets and thus can offer these vaccines to lower-income countries at prices they can afford. Better vaccines are a shared project between companies and public health agencies; greater transparency and consistency in reporting of R&D costs is needed so that fair prices can be established.

Immunological commonalities and distinctions between airway and digestive immunity

Airway and digestive tissues are the frontlines of the body's defense, being continuously exposed to the outside environment and encountering large numbers of antigens and microorganisms. To achieve immunosurveillance and immunological homeostasis in the harsh environments of the mucosal surfaces, the mucosal immune system tightly regulates a state of opposing but harmonized immune activation and quiescence. Recently, accumulating evidence has revealed that although the respiratory and intestinal immune systems share common mucosa-associated immunological features that are different from those of the systemic immune system, they also show distinctive immunological phenotypes, functions, and developmental pathways. We describe here the common and distinct immunological features of respiratory and intestinal immune systems and its application to the development of mucosal vaccines.

Incidence and risk factors for community-acquired acute gastroenteritis in north-west Germany in 2004

In developed countries, acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a major source of morbidity. However, only a few studies have estimated its incidence and the associated medical burden. This population-based study determined the incidence of community-acquired AGE patients seeking medical care and the relative role of various pathogens. Stool samples from patients with AGE presenting to a general practitioner (GP), pediatrician, or specialist in internal medicine for that reason were screened for various bacterial and viral enteropathogens. A control group was established as well. Incidences were calculated by the number of positive patients divided by the general population. The study was performed in north-west Germany in 2004. The incidence of AGE patients requiring medical consultation was 4,020/100,000 inhabitants. Children (<5 years of age) were at the highest risk (13,810/100,000 inhabitants). Of the patients, 6.6% were tested positive for an enteropathogenic bacteria and 17.7% for a viral agent. The predominant pathogens were norovirus (626/100,000) and rotavirus (270/100,000). Salmonella was the most frequently detected bacteria (162/100,000). The results presented confirm AGE and, specifically, AGE of viral origin as a major public health burden in developed countries.

Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix): a review of its use in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis

Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 is an oral vaccine composed of a monovalent, live, attenuated, human rotavirus strain of G1P[8] type. RIX4414 vaccination in infants aged 6-17 weeks at enrolment provided protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) of any severity and high-level protection against severe RVGE requiring hospitalization in large, randomized clinical trials conducted in a wide range of geographic regions. Protective efficacy was evident over the period (2 months) between the first and second doses of vaccine, and the protection afforded by the full two-dose course was sustained for at least 2 years, the limit to which efficacy was assessed. RIX4414 displayed protective efficacy against the common rotavirus G, P[8] types (G1P[8], G3P[8], G4P[8], and G9P[8]) and the fully heterotypic G2P[4] type. RIX4414 did not interfere with other common childhood injectable immunizations when administered concomitantly, suggesting that it should be possible to integrate the vaccine into most routine childhood vaccination schedules, including those still using oral poliovirus vaccine. RIX4414 was generally well tolerated and there was no evidence of an increased risk of intussusception. Although dependent on many factors, including prevalent infecting strains, efficacy rates, and vaccine costs, pharmacoeconomic analyses suggest that mass immunization with RIX4414 would be cost effective in many countries, especially when assessed from the societal perspective. Therefore, rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 offers a highly effective control strategy for reducing the burden of RVGE in infants.

Mechanisms of protection against rotavirus infection and disease

Rotavirus is a double-stranded RNA virus composed of 3 protein layers. These layers contain structural proteins (eg, VP4, VP6, and VP7) that are involved in the induction of immunity. Despite extensive research in animal models and humans, the mechanisms and effectors of protection against rotavirus after either natural infection or vaccination remain unclear. Complicating factors include the variety of immunologic responses produced after both natural infection and vaccination, and the fact that animal models do not fully mimic the human immunologic responses, even when inoculated with homologous rotaviruses. Nevertheless, it appears that neutralizing antibodies have a role in protection against rotavirus infection and disease, but that other effectors, such as non-neutralizing antibodies and T cells, have important effector properties as well. These effectors likely have overlapping functions, thus providing enhanced protection. The results of further research to elucidate the immunologic mechanism of protection will provide insight into improving the efficacy of current vaccines.

Evidence of intrafamilial transmission of rotavirus in a birth cohort in South India

Transmission of rotavirus infection was studied in a birth cohort of children based in an urban slum in Vellore and their familial contacts. Contemporaneous samples from index patients and their familial contacts were collected for analysis in three different settings. Firstly, samples were collected from familial contacts during a period of rotavirus infection in children from the cohort. Secondly, on occasions when a family member had rotavirus diarrhea, samples from the cohort child were taken for analysis. Lastly, asymptomatic surveillance samples collected at predetermined time points from both the cohort child and familial contacts were analyzed. From 560 samples collected from family members during symptomatic and asymptomatic rotavirus infections in these children, three rotavirus transmissions were identified, accounting for a secondary attack rate of 0.54%. In four instances of rotavirus diarrhea in a family member, one infection was transmitted to the cohort child. Nucleotide sequence and phylogenetic analysis demonstrated a high degree of similarity in all these pairs ranging between 99% and 100% at both the nucleotide and the deduced amino acid levels, highly suggestive of person-to-person transmission of rotavirus infection. There was complete concordance of rotavirus genotyping between these pairs. No transmission events were noted from 14 asymptomatic rotavirus infections identified during routine surveillance of family members. This study is the first to use phylogenetic analysis to study the intrafamilial spread of rotavirus infection.

Detection of a porcine-like rotavirus in a child with enteritis in Italy

During a 1-year rotavirus surveillance of children hospitalized with acute gastroenteritis in Brescia Hospital, Italy, a chimerical rotavirus strain, G3P[6], was detected, displaying the VP7 and VP4 genes of porcine origin and the NSP4 and VP6 genes of human origin. The reassortant nature of the virus rules out a direct zoonotic event.

Rotavirus vaccines: how they work or don't work

In 2004 and 2006, two new rotavirus vaccines - Rotarixtrade mark and RotaTeqtrade mark - were licensed worldwide. Both are live virus vaccines and are composed of either a monovalent attenuated human rotavirus or five bovine-human reassortant rotaviruses, respectively. Studies in humans and animals have reported correlations between rotavirus antibody levels and protection, the most consistent of which has been with rotavirus IgA. Cellular immunity was also found to have a role in protection after live rotavirus immunisation, particularly in mice. However, the primary importance of CD8+ T cells may be in resolution of infection and that of CD4+ T cells may be their helper function, particularly for antibody production. CD4+ T cells have been reported to have a more direct role in protection after mucosal immunisation with non-living rotavirus vaccines, possibly because of direct or indirect effects of the cytokines they generate. Immune effectors have overlapping functions, and protection against rotavirus by either live or non-living vaccines is probably enhanced by this redundancy.

Exploring the cost effectiveness of an immunization programme for rotavirus gastroenteritis in the United Kingdom

Rotavirus is the most common cause of gastroenteritis in children aged <5 years old, two new vaccines have recently been developed which can prevent associated morbidity and mortality. While apparently safe and efficacious, it is also important to establish whether rotavirus immunization is cost effective. A decision analytical model which employs data from a review of published evidence is used to determine the cost effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccine. The results suggest that some of the health sector costs, and all of the societal costs, of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children can be avoided by an immunization programme. The additional cost to the health sector may be considered worthwhile if there is a sufficient improvement in the quality-of-life of children and parents affected by gastroenteritis; this study did not find any evidence of research which has measured the utility gains from vaccination.

Implementing rotavirus vaccination in Asia

At the 2006 meeting of the Asian Pacific Pediatric Association (APPA), the Asia Pacific regional rotavirus community and international experts strongly recommended that rotavirus vaccines be used in National Immunization Programmes (NIP) in countries in Asia. Two rotavirus vaccine candidates are currently licensed and have been demonstrated to be safe, well tolerated and highly efficacious. Several additional vaccines are in the late stages of development. The conference participants agreed that decisions on the introduction of rotavirus vaccines may require additional disease burden data in some countries and that economic evaluations will help policymakers reach decisions on nationwide rotavirus vaccine implementation. Other potential issues that arise with vaccine implementation, for example, the concomitant use of rotavirus vaccines with other vaccines, were also discussed. Rotavirus vaccines have the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from rotavirus disease and impact children's health in Asia.

Vaccines against traveler's diarrhoea and rotavirus disease - a review

Diarrheal diseases constitute one of the most important health problems worldwide, preferentially in developing countries with a morbidity of estimated 5 billion and a mortality of 5 million cases per year. Children less than 5 years are particularly in danger with respect to the incidence and severity of the gastrointestinal symptoms. Travelers to developing countries are also at risk to develop diarrheal disorders; around 30-50% of them acquire so called "travelers's diarrhea" caused by bacteria, viruses or protozoa. It has been estimated that approximately 30-70% of diarrhea are due to bacteria, of which the most frequently detected enteric pathogens are non-invasive, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC). Their exotoxins, the heat stabile (ST) and the heat labile (LT) toxins are in large part responsible for the pathogenicity of the bacteria. About 20% of cases of traveler's diarrhea are caused by LT producing ETEC. This heat labile toxin exhibits a 80% sequence homology with cholera toxin. The presently available vaccine against cholera (Dukoral) contains inactivated Vibrio cholerae bacteria and the recombinant non-toxic B subunit of cholera toxin. Consequently, this vaccine displays also some efficacy against traveler's diarrhoea with up to 25% of travelers being protected against this disease. Rotaviruses are the leading recognized cause of diarrhoea-related illness and deaths among infants worldwide in developing and industrialized countries. Based on the high incidence of this disease two oral vaccines have been developed and will be available in Europe in 2006. Due to the impact of rotavirus diseases also in Austria vaccination against this disease has been already suggested in the Austrian vaccination schedules for infants from 6-24 weeks of age. One of the two vaccines, Rotarix, is an attenuated monovalent vaccine with a broad cross-reactivity against the most frequent serotypes. The second one, RotaTeq, is a pentavalent attenuated vaccine containing 5 human-bovine reassortants. Both vaccines display 85-98% efficacy against severe rotavirus disease and an excellent tolerability with no difference in side reactions to the placebo controls, particularly with respect to intussusceptions. With respect to increasing travel habits with infants and small children, particularly when visiting friends and relatives, vaccination against rotavirus infections will also be important in international travel.

[Examples for vaccines against diarrheal diseases--rotavirus and traveller's diarrhea]

Diarrheal diseases constitute one of the most important health problems worldwide. Children less than 5 years, living in developing countries, are particularly in danger with respect to the incidence and severity of the gastrointestinal disorders. Travelers to developing countries are also at risk to develop diarrheal disorders; around 30-50% of them acquire so called "travelers's diarrhea" caused by bacteria, viruses or protozoa. It has been estimated that approximately 30-70% of diarrhea are due to bacteria, of which the most frequently detected enteric pathogens are non-invasive, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC). Their exotoxins, the heat stabile (ST) and the heat labile (LT) toxins are in large part responsible for the pathogenicity of the bacteria. About 20% of cases of traveler's diarrhea are caused by LT producing ETEC. This heat labile toxin exhibits a 80% sequence homology with cholera toxin. The presently available vaccine against cholera (Dukoral) contains inactivated Vibrio cholerae bacteria and the recombinant non-toxic B subunit of cholera toxin. Consequently, this vaccine displays also some efficacy against traveler's diarrhoea with up to 25 % of travelers being protected against this disease. Rotaviruses are the leading recognized cause of diarrhoea-related illness and deaths among infants worldwide in developing and industrialized countries. Based on the high incidence of this disease two oral vaccines have been developed and are available in Europe in 2007. Due to the impact of rotavirus diseases also in Austria vaccination against this disease has been already suggested in the Austrian vaccination schedules for infants from 6-24 weeks of age. One of the two vaccines, Rotarix, is an attenuated monovalent vaccine with a broad cross-reactivity against the most frequent serotypes. The second one, RotaTeq, is a pentavalent attenuated vaccine containing 5 human-bovine reassortants. Both vaccines display 85-98% efficacy against severe rotavirus disease and an excellent tolerability with no difference in side reactions to the placebo controls, particularly with respect to intussusceptions.

Dose response and efficacy of a live, attenuated human rotavirus vaccine in Mexican infants

OBJECTIVE

Immunization against rotavirus has been proposed as the most cost-effective intervention to reduce the disease burden associated with this infection worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine the dose response, immunogenicity, and efficacy of 2 doses of an oral, attenuated monovalent G1[P8] human rotavirus vaccine in children from the same setting in Mexico, where the natural protection against rotavirus infection was studied.

METHODS

From June 2001 through May 2003, 405 healthy infants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 vaccine groups (virus concentrations 10(4.7), 10(5.2), and 10(5.8) infectious units) and to a placebo group and were monitored to the age of 2 years. The vaccine/placebo was administered concurrently with diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis/hepatitis B/Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine at 2 and 4 months of age. After the administration of the first vaccine/placebo dose, weekly home visits to collect information regarding infant health were conducted. Stool samples were collected during each gastroenteritis episode and tested for rotavirus antigen and serotype.

RESULTS

The vaccine was well tolerated and induced a greater rate of seroconversion than observed in infants who received placebo. For the pooled vaccine groups, efficacy after 2 oral doses was 80% and 95% against any and severe rotavirus gastroenteritis, respectively. Efficacy was 100% against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and 70% against severe gastroenteritis of any cause with the vaccine at the highest virus concentration (10(5.8) infectious units). The predominant infecting rotavirus serotype in this cohort was wild-type G1 (85%). Adverse events, including fever, irritability, loss of appetite, cough, diarrhea, and vomiting, were similar among vaccinees and placebo recipients.

CONCLUSION

This new oral, live, attenuated human rotavirus vaccine was safe, immunogenic, and highly efficacious in preventing any and, more importantly, severe rotavirus gastroenteritis in healthy infants. This vaccine produced comparable protection to natural infection.