1
|
Bergman H, Henschke N, Hungerford D, Pitan F, Ndwandwe D, Cunliffe N, Soares-Weiser K. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 11:CD008521. [PMID: 34788488 PMCID: PMC8597890 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea-related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea-related deaths worldwide. Rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), RotaTeq (Merck), and, more recently, Rotasiil (Serum Institute of India Ltd.), and Rotavac (Bharat Biotech Ltd.). OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS On 30 November 2020, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies, and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children that compared rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO with either placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analyses by under-five country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS Sixty trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 228,233 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed Rotarix, 15 trials RotaTeq (88,934 participants), five trials Rotasiil (11,753 participants), and four trials Rotavac (8432 participants). Rotarix Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 93% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (14,976 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 52% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (3874 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (31,671 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 36% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (26,479 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 58% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (15,882 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 90% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (18,145 participants, 6 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 51% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (6269 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (28,834 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 26% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (23,317 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (13,768 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (2764 participants, 1 trial; high-certainty evidence). RotaTeq Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 97% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6775 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 96% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6744 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify RotaTeq studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low- or medium-mortality countries. Rotasiil Rotasiil has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality. Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 48% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Rotavac Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality. Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence); no Rotavac studies have reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea at two-years follow-up. Safety No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) was detected with Rotarix (103,714 participants, 31 trials; high-certainty evidence), RotaTeq (82,502 participants, 14 trials; moderate to high-certainty evidence), Rotasiil (11,646 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), or Rotavac (8210 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Deaths were infrequent and the analysis had insufficient evidence to show an effect on all-cause mortality. Intussusception was rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, but more episodes are prevented in high-mortality settings as the baseline risk is higher. In high-mortality countries some results suggest lower efficacy in the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events, including intussusception, from any of the prequalified rotavirus vaccines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Daniel Hungerford
- Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Duduzile Ndwandwe
- Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council , Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
At Thobari J, Damayanti W, Haposan JH, Nirwati H, Iskandar K, Samad, Fahmi J, Sari RM, Bachtiar NS, Watts E, Bines JE, Soenarto Y. Safety and immunogenicity of human neonatal RV3 rotavirus vaccine (Bio Farma) in adults, children, and neonates in Indonesia: Phase I Trial. Vaccine 2021; 39:4651-4658. [PMID: 34244006 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2021] [Revised: 05/09/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite safe and effective WHO prequalified rotavirus vaccines, at least 84 million children remain unvaccinated. A birth dose schedule of the RV3-BB vaccine was reported to be highly efficacious against severe rotavirus disease in Indonesian infants and is under further development at PT Bio Farma, Indonesia. The aim is to develop a rotavirus vaccine starting from birth that could improve the implementation, safety, and effectiveness of vaccines. METHODS A multi-site phase I study of a human neonatal RV3 rotavirus vaccine (Bio Farma) in adults, children, neonates in Indonesia from April 2018 to March 2019. The adult and child cohorts were open-labeled single-dose, while the neonatal cohort was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled three-doses at the age of 0-5 days, 8-10 weeks, and 12-14 weeks. The primary objective was to assess the safety of vaccines with the immunogenicity and vaccine virus fecal shedding as the secondary endpoints in neonates. RESULTS Twenty-five adults, 25 children, and 50 neonates were recruited, and all but one in the neonatal cohort completed all study procedures. Three serious adverse events were reported (1 adult & 2 neonates), but none were assessed related to investigational product (IP). The neonatal vaccine group had a significantly higher positive immune response (cumulative seroconverted SNA and IgA) 28 days after three doses than those in the placebo group (72% vs. 16.7%, respectively). The GMT of serum IgA in the vaccine group was significantly higher at post IP dose 1 (p < 0.05) and post IP dose 3 (p < 0.001) compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSION The trial results show that the RV3 rotavirus vaccine (Bio Farma) is well tolerated in all participant cohorts (adults, children, and neonates). Three doses of this vaccine administered in a neonatal schedule were immunogenic. These promising results support further clinical development of the RV3 rotavirus vaccine (Bio Farma).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jarir At Thobari
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
| | - Wahyu Damayanti
- Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Department of Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada / Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Jonathan Hasian Haposan
- Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Hera Nirwati
- Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Kristy Iskandar
- Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Universitas Gadjah Mada Academic Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Samad
- Department of Pediatrics, dr. Soeradji Tirtonegoro General Hospital, Klaten, Central Java, Indonesia
| | | | | | | | - Emma Watts
- Murdoch Childrens Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Julie E Bines
- Murdoch Childrens Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Yati Soenarto
- Center for Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Department of Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada / Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gidengil C, Goetz MB, Newberry S, Maglione M, Hall O, Larkin J, Motala A, Hempel S. Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2021; 39:3696-3716. [PMID: 34049735 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States. METHODS We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089). RESULTS Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE). CONCLUSIONS Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney Gidengil
- RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 920, Boston, MA 02116, United States; Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
| | - Matthew Bidwell Goetz
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90073, United States
| | - Sydne Newberry
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States
| | - Margaret Maglione
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States
| | - Owen Hall
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States
| | - Jody Larkin
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States
| | - Aneesa Motala
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States; Southern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, 2001 N Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States
| | - Susanne Hempel
- RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States; Southern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, 2001 N Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Thermostable, Dissolvable Buccal Film Rotavirus Vaccine Is Highly Effective in Neonatal Gnotobiotic Pig Challenge Model. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:vaccines9050437. [PMID: 33946555 PMCID: PMC8147248 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9050437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2021] [Revised: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/27/2021] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Difficulties related to storage and transport of currently available live oral rotavirus vaccines can have detrimental consequences on the efficacy of the vaccines. Thus, there is a great need for thermostable vaccines that can eliminate the necessity for cold chain storage or reconstitution before administration. In this study, we developed a dissolvable oral polymeric film comprised of a live attenuated thermostable tetravalent rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RRV-TV) powder and antacid (CaCO3). Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the vaccine after buccal delivery was evaluated in the gnotobiotic pig model of human rotavirus (HRV) infection and diarrhea. Two doses of the vaccine were highly immunogenic and conferred strong protection against virus shedding and diarrhea upon challenge with a high dose of a virulent G1 HRV in gnotobiotic pigs. Those pigs vaccinated with the preserved film vaccine had significantly delayed onset of diarrhea; reduced duration and area under the curve of diarrhea; delayed onset of fecal virus shedding; and reduced duration and peak of fecal virus shedding titers compared to pigs in both the placebo and the reconstituted liquid oral RRV-TV vaccine groups. Associated with the strong protection, high titers of serum virus neutralization antibodies against each of the four RRV-TV mono-reassortants and G1 HRV-specific serum IgA and IgG antibodies, as well as intestinal IgA antibodies, were induced by the preserved film vaccine. These results demonstrated the effectiveness of our thermostable buccal film rotavirus vaccine and warrant further investigation into the promise of the novel technology in addressing drawbacks of the current live oral HRV vaccines.
Collapse
|
5
|
Soares‐Weiser K, Bergman H, Henschke N, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD008521. [PMID: 31684685 PMCID: PMC6816010 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech). OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac. RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence). RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up. Children vaccinated and followed up for two years Rotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events. 21 October 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All published trials found in the last search (4 Apr, 2018) were included and 15 ongoing studies are currently awaiting completion (see 'Characteristics of ongoing studies').
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares‐Weiser
- CochraneEditorial & Methods DepartmentSt Albans House, 57 ‐ 59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Hanna Bergman
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Nicholas Henschke
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Femi Pitan
- Chevron Corporation2 Chevron DriveLekkiLagosNigeria
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- University of LiverpoolInstitute of Infection and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesLiverpoolUKL69 7BE
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech). OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac.RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence).RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence).Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up.Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsRotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares‐Weiser
- CochraneEditorial & Methods DepartmentSt Albans House, 57 ‐ 59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Hanna Bergman
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Nicholas Henschke
- CochraneCochrane ResponseSt Albans House57‐59 HaymarketLondonUKSW1Y 4QX
| | - Femi Pitan
- Chevron Corporation2 Chevron DriveLekkiLagosNigeria
| | - Nigel Cunliffe
- University of LiverpoolInstitute of Infection and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesLiverpoolUKL69 7BE
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ella R, Bobba R, Muralidhar S, Babji S, Vadrevu KM, Bhan MK. A Phase 4, multicentre, randomized, single-blind clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity of the live, attenuated, oral rotavirus vaccine (116E), ROTAVAC®, administered simultaneously with or without the buffering agent in healthy infants in India. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2018; 14:1791-1799. [PMID: 29543547 PMCID: PMC6067888 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1450709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2017] [Revised: 02/16/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/02/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The World Health Organization recommends that rotavirus vaccines should be included in all national immunization programs. Some currently licensed oral rotavirus vaccines contain a buffering agent (either as part of a ready-to-use liquid formulation or added during reconstitution) to reduce possible degradation of the vaccine virus in the infant gut, which poses several programmatic challenges (the large dose volume or the reconstitution requirement) during vaccine administration. Because ROTAVAC®, a WHO prequalified vaccine, was derived from the 116E neonatal strain, we evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of ROTAVAC® without buffer and ROTAVAC® with buffer in a phase 4, multicentre, single-blind, randomized clinical trial in healthy infants in India. METHODS 900 infants, approximately 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age, were assigned to 3 groups to receive ROTAVAC® (0.5 mL dose) orally: (i) 2.5 mL of citrate-bicarbonate buffer 5 minutes prior to administration of ROTAVAC® (Group I), (ii) ROTAVAC®, alone, without any buffer (Group II), or (iii) ROTAVAC®, mixed with buffer immediately before administration (Group III). Non-inferiority was compared among the groups for differences in serological responses (detected by serum anti-rotavirus IgA) and safety. RESULTS Geometric mean titers post vaccination at day 84 (28 days after dose 3) were 19.6 (95%CI: 17.0, 22.7), 20.7 (95%CI: 17.9, 24) and 19.2 (95%CI: 16.8, 22.1) for groups I, II and III respectively. Further, seroconversion rates and distribution of adverse events were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS Administration of ROTAVAC® at a 0.5 mL dose volume without buffering agent was shown to be well tolerated and immunogenic. Given the homologous nature of the strain, it is plausible that ROTAVAC® replicates well and confers immunity even without buffer administration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raches Ella
- Bharat Biotech International Limited, Genome Valley, Shameerpet, Hyderabad, India
| | - Radhika Bobba
- Bharat Biotech International Limited, Genome Valley, Shameerpet, Hyderabad, India
| | - Sanjay Muralidhar
- Bharat Biotech International Limited, Genome Valley, Shameerpet, Hyderabad, India
| | - Sudhir Babji
- Division of Gastrointestinal Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chandir S, Ahamed KU, Baqui AH, Sutter RW, Okayasu H, Pallansch MA, Oberste MS, Moulton LH, Halsey NA. Effect of Buffer on the Immune Response to Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in Bangladesh: A Community Based Randomized Controlled Trial. J Infect Dis 2014; 210 Suppl 1:S390-7. [DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
9
|
Maglione MA, Das L, Raaen L, Smith A, Chari R, Newberry S, Shanman R, Perry T, Goetz MB, Gidengil C. Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of U.S. children: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2014; 134:325-37. [PMID: 25086160 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-1079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 152] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Concerns about vaccine safety have led some parents to decline recommended vaccination of their children, leading to the resurgence of diseases. Reassurance of vaccine safety remains critical for population health. This study systematically reviewed the literature on the safety of routine vaccines recommended for children in the United States. METHODS Data sources included PubMed, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices statements, package inserts, existing reviews, manufacturer information packets, and the 2011 Institute of Medicine consensus report on vaccine safety. We augmented the Institute of Medicine report with more recent studies and increased the scope to include more vaccines. Only studies that used active surveillance and had a control mechanism were included. Formulations not used in the United States were excluded. Adverse events and patient and vaccine characteristics were abstracted. Adverse event collection and reporting was evaluated by using the McHarm scale. We were unable to pool results. Strength of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or insufficient. RESULTS Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. There is moderate evidence that rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. Limitations of the study include that the majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for AEs; and the severity of AEs was inconsistently reported. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Matthew Bidwell Goetz
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and
| | - Courtney Gidengil
- RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California;Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Dubin G, Toussaint JF, Cassart JP, Howe B, Boyce D, Friedland L, Abu-Elyazeed R, Poncelet S, Han HH, Debrus S. Investigation of a regulatory agency enquiry into potential porcine circovirus type 1 contamination of the human rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix: approach and outcome. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2013; 9:2398-408. [PMID: 24056737 DOI: 10.4161/hv.25973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
In January 2010, porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1) DNA was unexpectedly detected in the oral live-attenuated human rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK] Vaccines) by an academic research team investigating a novel, highly sensitive analysis not routinely used for adventitious agent screening. GSK rapidly initiated an investigation to confirm the source, nature and amount of PCV1 in the vaccine manufacturing process and to assess potential clinical implications of this finding. The investigation also considered the manufacturer's inactivated poliovirus (IPV)-containing vaccines, since poliovirus vaccine strains are propagated using the same cell line as the rotavirus vaccine strain. Results confirmed the presence of PCV1 DNA and low levels of PCV1 viral particles at all stages of the Rotarix manufacturing process. PCV type 2 DNA was not detected at any stage. When tested in human cell lines, productive PCV1 infection was not observed. There was no immunological or clinical evidence of PCV1 infection in infants who had received Rotarix in clinical trials. PCV1 DNA was not detected in the IPV-containing vaccine manufacturing process beyond the purification stage. Retrospective testing confirmed the presence of PCV1 DNA in Rotarix since the initial stages of its development and in vaccine lots used in clinical studies conducted pre- and post-licensure. The acceptable safety profile observed in clinical trials of Rotarix therefore reflects exposure to PCV1 DNA. The investigation into the presence of PCV1 in Rotarix could serve as a model for risk assessment in the event of new technologies identifying adventitious agents in the manufacturing of other vaccines and biological products.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary Dubin
- GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines; King of Prussia, PA USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Patel M, Glass RI, Jiang B, Santosham M, Lopman B, Parashar U. A Systematic Review of Anti-Rotavirus Serum IgA Antibody Titer as a Potential Correlate of Rotavirus Vaccine Efficacy. J Infect Dis 2013; 208:284-94. [DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jit166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 139] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
12
|
Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Bergman H, Ben-Aharon I, Nagpal S, Goldberg E, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11:CD008521. [PMID: 23152260 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Currently licensed rotavirus vaccines include a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) and a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.). Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only. OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to May 2012), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (10 May 2012), CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), EMBASE (1974 to 10 May 2012), LILACS (1982 to 10 May 2012), and BIOSIS (1926 to 10 May 2012). We also searched the ICTRP (10 May 2012), www.ClinicalTrials.gov (28 May 2012) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We stratified the analysis by child mortality, and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality. MAIN RESULTS Forty-one trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 186,263 participants. Twenty-nine trials (101,671 participants) assessed RV1, and 12 trials (84,592 participants) evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.RV1Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 86% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.26; 40,631 participants, six trials; high-quality evidence), and, based on one large multicentre trial in Latin America and Finland, probably prevents 40% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72; 17,867 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV1 probably prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 5414 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, 34% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98; 4939 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).Children aged up to two years: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 85% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.20; 32,854 participants, eight trials; high-quality evidence), and probably 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, RV1 probably prevents 42% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence), and 18% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).RV5Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV5 probably prevents 87% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45; 2344 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Finland, may prevent 72% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), but there was insufficient data to assess the effect on severe all-cause diarrhoea.Children aged up to two years: Four studies provided data for severe rotavirus and all-cause diarrhoea in countries with low-mortality rates. Three trials reported on severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 probably prevents 82% (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50; 3190 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and another trial in Finland reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 may prevent 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.70; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a vaccine effect on mortality (181,009 participants, 34 trials; low-quality evidence), although the trials were not powered to detect an effect on this end point.Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination. No significant difference was found between children receiving RV1 or RV5 and placebo in the number of serious adverse events, and intussusception in particular. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS RV1 and RV5 prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.
Collapse
|
13
|
Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Bergman H, Ben-Aharon I, Nagpal S, Goldberg E, Pitan F, Cunliffe N. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD008521. [PMID: 22336845 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008521.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in low- and middle-income countries. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in high-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all children should be vaccinated with a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) or a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.), with a stronger recommendation for countries where deaths due to diarrhoea comprise more than 10% of all deaths. Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only. OBJECTIVES To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines on all-cause diarrhoea, hospital admission, death, and safety profiles. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) in October 2011, and in June 2011 we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), , EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (28 June 2011) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomized controlled trials in children comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality, which was reflected as follows: high quality ("vaccine prevents..."); moderate quality ("vaccine probably prevents..."); or low quality ("vaccine may prevent..."). MAIN RESULTS Forty-three trials, including nine new trials for this update, met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 190,551 participants. Thirty-one trials assessed RV1, and 12 trials evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.In children aged less than one year, RV1, compared to placebo, probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.50; seven trials, 12,130 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 80% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; seven trials, 35,004 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, RV5 prevents 73% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; four trials, 7614 participants; high-quality evidence), and 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; three trials, 6953 participants; high-quality evidence). Both vaccines prevent over 80% of rotavirus diarrhoea cases that require hospitalization. For all-cause diarrhoea, based on two multi-centred trials from South Africa, Malawi, and Europe, RV1 may reduce severe cases by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; two trials, 8291 participants; low--quality evidence). Also, based on one trial from Finland, RV5 may reduce severe cases by 72% (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; one trial, 1029 participants; low-quality evidence).During the second year of life, compared to placebo, RV1 probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea of any severity (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.43; six trials, 8041 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.21; eight trials, 32,854 participants; moderate-quality evidence). RV5 prevents 49% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases of any severity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; four trials, 9784 participants; high-quality evidence), and 56% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88; four trials, 9783 participants; high-quality evidence). For all-cause diarrhoea, RV1 probably reduces severe cases by 51% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.60; two trials, 6269 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and RV5 showed no difference with placebo (three trials, 8533 participants).Reported serious adverse events (including intussusception) after vaccination were measured in 95,178 children for RV1 and 77,480 for RV5, with no difference between the vaccines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS RV1 and RV5 vaccines are effective in preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. These data support the WHO's global vaccine recommendation. The potential for reduced vaccine efficacy in low-income countries needs to be investigated. No increased risk of intussusception was detected, but surveillance monitoring studies are probably advisable in countries introducing the vaccine nationally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Soares-Weiser
- Enhance Reviews Ltd,Wantage, UK. 2Cochrane Editorial Unit, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK. 3Enhance Reviews, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|