8 global impact of rv vaccines expt rev vaccines 2010

1,321 views
1,182 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,321
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

8 global impact of rv vaccines expt rev vaccines 2010

  1. 1. Review For reprint orders, please contact reprints@expert-reviews.com Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), 395–407 (2010)Jacqueline E Tate†, The WHO has recently recommended the inclusion of rotavirus vaccine in the nationalManish M Patel, immunization programs of all countries. In countries in the Americas, Europe and Australia thatA Duncan Steele, have adopted routine childhood immunization against rotavirus, significant reductions in the burden of severe childhood diarrhea have been observed. Besides protecting vaccinated children,Jon R Gentsch, disease rates also appear to be reduced in unvaccinated children, suggesting indirect benefitsDaniel C Payne, from vaccination (i.e., herd protection). Early clinical trial data from Africa and Asia are promising,Margaret M Cortese, and further efforts are needed to optimize the benefits of vaccination in developing countriesOsamu Nakagomi, where vaccines are likely to have their greatest impact.Nigel A Cunliffe,Baoming Jiang, Keywords : diarrhea • rotavirus • rotavirus vaccination • vaccine effectivenessKathleen M Neuzil, Every year, over half a million children under In this review, we briefly review the epide-Lucia H de Oliveira, 5 years of age die from rotavirus diarrhea, the miology of rotavirus and the history of vaccineRoger I Glass and most common cause of severe, dehydrating development efforts. We then summarize earlyUmesh D Parashar diarrhea worldwide. More than 80% of these data on the effectiveness and impact of vaccin-† Author for correspondence rotavirus-related deaths occur in developing ation from high- and middle-income countriesNational Center for countries of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia that have adopted routine childhood immun-Immunization and Respiratory (Figure 1) [1–3] . Moreover, rotavirus is responsible ization against rotavirus. Finally, we outline keyDiseases, Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, 1600 for 25–50% of all diarrheal hospitalizations in outstanding questions and potential areas forClifton Rd. NE, MS-A47, Atlanta, both developing and developed countries, and further research, especially to optimize the ben-GA 30333, USA 23 million outpatient healthcare encounters efits of vaccination in developing countries whereTel.: +1 404 639 4559 annually in young children [1] . Almost all chil- vaccines are likely to have their greatest impact.Fax: +1 404 639 8665 dren by 5 years of age will have been infectedjqt8@cdc.gov with rotavirus (Figure 2) . Epidemiology of rotavirus Owing to the tremendous global burden of Rotavirus is a nonenveloped, dsRNA virus with a rotavirus disease, development of vaccines against segmented genome [10,11] . The genotypes (glyco- this pathogen has been a priority for the past three protein [G] and protease-cleaved [P] types) are decades. Two live, orally administered rotavirus defined by two structural viral proteins (VPs) in vaccines, RotaTeq® (Merck and Co., Inc., PA, USA the outer capsid: VP4, the P protein; and VP7, and Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Lyon, France) the G protein. Natural fluctuations in genotype and Rotarix™ (GSK Biologicals, Rixensart, prevalence occur over time and by region of the Belgium), with good efficacy against severe rota- world, with G1, G2, G3 and G4 being the most virus disease and reassuring safety profiles in clini- common genotypes worldwide. G9 emerged as a cal trials [4,5] have been licensed in many countries globally important strain in the 1990s and G12 worldwide. In 2006, WHO’s Strategic Advisory strains have been documented in many countries Group of Experts (SAGE) reviewed the results over the last decade [12] . of the pivotal safety and efficacy trials for these Rotavirus infects the proximal small intestine, vaccines conducted in the Americas and Europe resulting in destruction of the epithelial surface and strongly recommended their inclusion into and blunting of the microvilli, leading to mal- national immunization programs of countries absorption and diarrhea [11] . A nonstructural pro- in these regions [6] . In April and October 2009, tein (NSP4) of rotavirus acts as an enterotoxin in SAGE reviewed additional efficacy data from tri- the mouse model and probably plays a role early als in Africa and Asia, and postlicensure studies in in human disease pathogenesis [13] . The clinical the Americas, and extended the recommendation spectrum of rotavirus disease in children ranges for vaccination to all regions of the world [7–9] . from mild, watery diarrhea of limited durationwww.expert-reviews.com 10.1586/ERV.10.17 ISSN 1476-0584 395
  2. 2. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al. <10 deaths per 100,000 10–50 deaths per 100,000 50–100 deaths per 100,000 100–500 deaths per 100,000 Figure 1. Estimated rotavirus mortality rates in children under 5 years of age worldwide. Adapted with permission from [2] .to severe diarrhea with vomiting and fever that, in some children, food or water, but these improvements have had a lesser impactcan result in rapid dehydration with shock, electrolyte imbalance on infection with rotavirus, which is most commonly spread fromand death [14–17] . Natural rotavirus infections may commonly person to person [14,23–27] . Instead, early studies that followedspread beyond the intestines into the blood stream, causing sys- cohorts of children in their first 2–3 years of life identified epi-temic viremia [18–22] . Rotavirus antigen has been detected in the demiologic features of rotavirus that indicated the disease mightserum of greater than 90% of rotavirus-positive children until best be controlled through vaccination. Specifically, these studiesapproximately 5 days following symptom onset [18] . demonstrated that children previously infected with rotavirus Although rotavirus infects virtually all children by 5 years of age were protected against subsequent disease. Protection was great-in both developed and developing countries, there are significant est against moderate-to-severe disease and the level of protectiondifferences between the two settings in terms of the age at which increased with each new infection [23,28] . These data implied thatdisease first occurs, the seasonality of rotavirus illness, the distribu- an attenuated rotavirus vaccine that mimics natural infectiontion of serotypes and the proportion of severe outcomes, particularly could provide protection against disease and that multiple vaccinemortality. In high-income countries, few children die from rota- doses would probably be required to confer optimal protection.virus and, globally, most children who die each year from rotavirusinfection are from low-income countries [1] . The increased risk of Historymortality in low-income settings is probably due to a combination Since early animal models suggest that local intestinal immu-of factors, including limited access to healthcare (hydration therapy) nity is important in protection from disease, rotavirus vaccineand a greater prevalence of malnutrition and other comorbidities. development has focused on orally administered vaccines [29] . First- generation rotavirus vaccines used a ‘Jennerian’ approach whereRotavirus vaccines vaccines were developed using animal rotavirus strains that areImprovements in sanitation and hygiene have had a great impact naturally attenuated for humans and whose serotypes were hetero-on reducing diarrheal disease and deaths due to bacterial and typic compared with the most common human rotaviruses [30] .parasitic agents that are spread primarily through contaminated The performance of these vaccines was variable, with high efficacy396 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  3. 3. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Reviewagainst severe rotavirus disease in Finlandbut little or no efficacy in developing coun-tries [31–40] . The best efficacy in a developingcountry setting of one such vaccine, a rhesus 527,000 deathsrotavirus vaccine, was observed for a clinicaltrial in Venezuela where the serotype of thepredominate circulating G3 strain matched 2.3 million hospitalizationsthe serotype of the vaccine [41,42] . This find-ing suggested that serotype-specific immu-nity might be required to achieve optimal 23 million outpatient visitsprotection and led to efforts to developsecond-generation multivalent vaccines. Second-generation rotavirus vaccines used 114 million episodesa ‘modified Jennerian’ approach where anaturally attenuated animal strain was usedas the backbone for the vaccine and genescoding for the most common human rota-virus G types were substituted for the ani-mal rotavirus G type by reassortment in cell Figure 2. Global rotavirus disease burden.culture [30] . Pivotal clinical efficacy studies Adapted from [130] .of the rhesus human rotavirus reassortantvaccine were conducted in Finland, the USA and Venezuela, where Currently licensed pentavalent (RotaTeq, RV5) &the vaccine showed 91, 82 and 88% efficacy against severe rotavirus monovalent (Rotarix, RV1) rotavirus vaccinesgastroenteritis during the first year of follow-up, respectively [43–45] . Despite the setback with the withdrawal of a licensed and recom- In August 1998, a rhesus-based, tetravalent rotavirus vaccine mended rotavirus vaccine, the burden of rotavirus disease was still(RRV-TV) with three of the four common human rotavirus G types deemed substantial by the public health community and develop-(G1, G2 and G4) and the rhesus parent with G3 closely related to ment of other rotavirus vaccines continued. In 2006, results fromthe human G3, the fourth common serotype, was introduced in the clinical trials of two new rotavirus vaccines were published [4,5] .USA [46] . By May 1999, almost 1 million doses of the vaccine had Both are live, attenuated, orally administered vaccines (Table 1) .been administered [46] . In July 1999, the vaccination program was One, RotaTeq is a pentavalent, human–bovine reassortant vac-suspended after the vaccine was associated with a rare adverse event, cine (RV5) that contains a bovine rotavirus backbone with singleintussusception, a form of bowel obstruction in which one por- human rotavirus gene substitutions for each of the five commontion of the bowel telescopes into a distal portion [47,48] . In the first G and P human rotavirus genotypes (G1, G2, G3, G4 and P[8])3–14 days after receipt of the first dose of RRV-TV, risk of intus- and is administered on a three-dose schedule [55] . The second vac-susception was most elevated (>20-fold) and a smaller increased cine, Rotarix, is a monovalent, two-dose vaccine (RV1) based onrisk (~fivefold) was also observed within 3–14 days after the sec- a single rotavirus strain of the most common human genotype,ond dose [49] . Overall, the risk of intussusception was estimated as G1P[8], observed globally [56,57] . Both of these vaccines have beenone case per 10,000 children vaccinated with RRV-TV [50] . evaluated in a variety of settings (Table 2) . Some researchers have suggested that the risk of intussusceptionassociated with RRV-TV was age dependent and that the abso- Efficacy of RV5 & RV1 in pivotal prelicensure trialslute number of intussusception events and possibly the relative In clinical trials performed predominantly in the USA andrisk of intussusception associated with the first dose of RRV-TV Finland, RV5 reduced hospitalizations due to rotavirus gastro-increased with increasing age at vaccination [51,52] . However, the enteritis by 96% (95% CI: 91–98%), emergency departmentWHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), visits by 94% (95% CI: 89–97%) and doctor’s office visits byafter reviewing all the available data, concluded that there was a 86% (95% CI: 74–93%) [5] . While the per-protocol analysishigh risk of RRV-TV-associated intussusception in infants immu- examined the efficacy against G1–G4 strains, the majority ofnized after day 60 and that insufficient evidence was available cases in the clinical trial were G1. Only sufficient numbers ofto conclude that the use of RRV-TV at any age under 60 days cases were enrolled to detect significant serotype-specific effi-was associated with a lower risk [53] . The GACVS noted that the cacy against G1 and G2 strains but significant reductions inpossibility of an age-dependent risk of intussusception should be rates of rotavirus hospitalizations and emergency departmenttaken into account in testing future rotavirus vaccines. RRV-TV visits were detected for G1, G3, G4 and G9 [5] . The RV5 safetyvaccine was voluntarily withdrawn from the market and is not in trial enrolled over 70,000 infants specifically to evaluate theuse today. A Phase II trial to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity risk of intussusception. No association with this adverse eventand potentially efficacy of two doses of RRV-TV administered to was found within 42 days after any dose of RV5 (relative riskyoung infants under the age of 2 months is ongoing in Ghana [54] . [RR]: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.4–6.4) [5] .www.expert-reviews.com 397
  4. 4. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al. vaccines were subsequently introducedTable 1. Characteristics of available rotavirus vaccines. into numerous countries in the Americas,Characteristic RV5 RV1 Europe and Australia, and Phase III clini-Manufacturer Merck & Co. (PA, USA) GlaxoSmithKline (Rixensart, cal trials of both candidate vaccines were Belgium) conducted in Africa and Asia.Parent strain Bovine rotavirus strain WC3, Human rotavirus strain 89–12, type G6P7[5] type G1P1A[8] Efficacy of RV5 & RV1 in Africa & Asia Phase III clinical trials for RV1 wereFormulation Five reassortants: G1xWC3, No reassortants G2xWC3, G3xWC3, G4xWC3, performed in South Africa and Malawi, P1A[8]xWC3 and Phase II immunogenicity studies for RV1 were conducted in Bangladesh. Vaccine titer ≥2.0–2.8 × 10 infectious units ≥10 median cell culture 6 6 per strain, depending on infective dose after Trials for RV5 were performed in Kenya, serotype (1.15 × 107 infectious reconstitution, per dose Ghana, Mali, Bangladesh and Vietnam. units per dose) Vaccine performance with both vaccines Method of attenuation Naturally attenuated (animal Passaged 43-times was observed to be lower in these setting strain); passage varied by when compared with the pivotal studies reassortant 7–69-times described in previous sections. In South Cell culture substrate Vero cells Vero cells Africa, two doses of RV1 administered to infants at 10 and 14 weeks of age were 72% Dose volume (ml) 2 1 (95% CI: 40–88%) efficacious in prevent- Buffer Sodium citrate and phosphate Calcium carbonate ing severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and effi- Dose regimen Three oral doses Two oral doses cacy increased to 82% (95% CI: 55–94%) Shedding following 9–21 35–80 when a three-dose schedule administered at first dose (%) 6, 10 and 14 weeks was used [7,62] . In Malawi, RV: Rotavirus the two- and three-dose schedules of RV1 Adapted from [97]. yielded similar results with a two-dose vac- cine efficacy of 49% (95% CI: 11–72%) RV1 was 85% (95% CI: 71–93%) efficacious in preventing severe and three-dose vaccine efficacy of 50% (95% CI: 11–72%) [7,62] .(Vesikari score ≥11) rotavirus gastroenteritis during the first year of However, the background rates of rotavirus disease were muchlife in clinical trials in Latin America and 96% (95% CI: 90–99%) greater in Malawi than in South Africa, so despite a lower effi-effective against severe disease in clinical trials in Europe [4,58] . No cacy the vaccine was able to prevent 3.9 episodes of severe rotavi-risk of intussusception in the 30 days post-RV1 vaccination was rus gastroenteritis per 100 vaccinated children in Malawi versusobserved (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.30–2.42) [4] . In Latin America, 2.5 episodes per 100 vaccinated children in South Africa [7,62] .while fully heterotypic G2P[4] strains that share neither G nor Preliminary results for the clinical trials for RV5 showed similarP type with the RV1 vaccine strain were uncommon, protection variability by setting as the RV1 trials although the methodologyappeared to be lower (44%; 95% CI: <0–84%) for severe disease for assessing clinical efficacy varied for the two vaccines. In the(Vesikari score ≥11) against these strains [59] . However, in the sec- three African RV5 clinical trial sites (Kenya, Ghana and Mali),ond large efficacy trial conducted in Europe and in results of a a three-dose regimen of RV5 administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeksmeta-analysis integrating all previous trial results, RV1 provided of age was 64% (95% CI: 40–79%) effective against severe rota-statistically significant protection against severe rotavirus diarrhea virus gastroenteritis during the first year of follow-up [8] . Duringcaused by G2P[4] strains (86%; 95% CI: 24–99% and 67%; the first year of follow-up in the Asian trial sites (Vietnam and95% CI: 15–87%, respectively) [58,60,61] . Bangladesh), three doses of RV5 were 51% (95% CI: 13–73%) In 2006, based on the initial clinical trial data from Latin effective against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis [8] .America, Europe and the USA, the SAGE recommended the useof rotavirus vaccines in countries where successful Phase III effi- Effectiveness & impact of RV5 & RV1 under routine usecacy trials had been performed and where data from these trials in the Americas, Australia & Europesuggested that the public health impact could be great [6] . This USASAGE recommendation did not include countries in Africa and To assess the impact and field effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination,Asia, where rotavirus disease burden and mortality is high, because post-introduction surveillance commenced in 2006 in the USAefficacy data were not available from these regions and the perfor- after the recommendation for routine use of rotavirus vaccine inmance and efficacy of live, oral vaccines in these regions has been all US infants [63] . In a case–control study of field effectiveness ofvariable. Rather, the SAGE reiterated earlier recommendations that vaccination conducted at a large pediatric hospital in Houston, TX,Phase III clinical trials be conducted in representative low-income USA, RV5 was 85–89% effective in preventing severe rotaviruscountries of Asia and Africa to demonstrate vaccine efficacy in these gastroenteritis, resulting in hospitalization or emergency depart-settings. Following the 2006 SAGE recommendation, rotavirus ment care, similar to the efficacy seen in prelicensure trials of398 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  5. 5. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Review Beginning/end of rotavirus season Peak week of activity 70 60 2000–2006 maximum 2000–2006 median % of tests rotavirus positive 50 2000–2006 minimum 2007–2008 season 40 2008–2009 season 30 20 Week of year 10 0 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Week of year Figure 3. Proportion of tests positive for rotavirus by week of year, USA, National Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Surveillance System (NREVSS), July 2000–June 2009. Adapted from [66] .RV5 [64] . In addition, in a national network of sentinel clinical Austrialaboratories where results of rotavirus tests ordered by physicians A similar impact was also observed in Austria following the intro-were analyzed, the timing and magnitude of the first two rotavirus duction of rotavirus vaccine into the universal mass vaccinationseasons following vaccine introduction were delayed by 6–15 weeks program in 2007 [71] . In the first 18 months of the program, ratesand decreased in peak magnitude by 42–60% (Figure 3) [65,66] . of hospitalization due to rotavirus fell 74% among age-eligibleSimilarly, declines in hospitalizations and doctor’s office visits for children. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be 61–98%.acute gastroenteritis were observed during the 2007–2008 seasonin many regions of the country [67] . Declines in disease were seen in Brazilall children under 5 years of age and not solely in age-eligible chil- In March 2006, Brazil initiated universal immunization ofdren suggesting possible indirect protection among unvaccinated infants with RV1. Since vaccine introduction, two cities inpopulations who were still at risk [67] . northeast Brazil (Aracaju and Recife), each with vaccine cov- erage of greater than 50%, have identified a predominance ofAustralia G2P[4] strains in children with severe rotavirus diarrhea [72–74] .The impact of the vaccination program in Australia has been Although rotavirus now accounts for a substantially lower pro-similar to that in the USA. RV1 was introduced in Queensland, portion of hospitalizations for diarrhea post vaccine introduc-Australia, in July 2007 and the proportion of positive rotavirus tion compared with the prevaccine era [75] , these findings havetests in children under 2 years of age detected through laboratory prompted debate about whether a possible lower effectivenesssurveillance declined by 45% in 2007 and 43% in 2008 compared of RV1 against G2P[4] strains has led to their predominancewith the prevaccine baseline [68] . Declines in the proportion of for over 2 years [72–74,76] . Two recent evaluations have affirmedrotavirus-positive tests were also observed in older children who that RV1 is effective against severe rotavirus diarrhea causedwere ineligible to be vaccinated which also suggests that the vaccine by G2P[4] strains [75,77] , although questions about effectivenessmay offer indirect benefits. In a post-introduction vaccine-effec- during the second year of life remain.tiveness evaluation among indigenous children in central Australiain 2007, RV1 was 85% effective against confirmed rotavirus infec- Mexicotion (84% effective against G9P[8] strains), 83% effective against Mexico introduced RV1 in a phased manner between Februarysevere all-cause gastroenteritis and 78% effective against all-cause 2006 and May 2007. By May 2007, rotavirus vaccination wasgastroenteritis of any severity [69] . In another similar study from the available for all Mexican infants. A recent investigation foundsame population in 2009, RV1 was 86% effective against rotavirus that in 2008, when coverage for one or more doses among infantshospitalization due to the G2P[4] strain [70] . under 12 months of age exceeded 70%, there was a 42% decline inwww.expert-reviews.com 399
  6. 6. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al. impact of the vaccine in El Salvador wasTable 2. Vaccine efficacy and postlicensure effectiveness data for also observed through national surveillance1 year of follow-up by setting. data where cases of rotavirus diarrhea haveSetting Vaccine Type of VE† (%) Severity Ref. declined by 79% following the introduction study (95% CI) of RV1.High and middle income [5] NicaraguaUSA and RV5 Efficacy 98 (88–100) Clark score >16,Finland efficacy against types In Nicaragua, one of the poorest countries G1–G4 in Latin America and eligible for support forUSA and RV5 Efficacy 74 (67–80) Any severity; efficacy [5] vaccine purchase from the GAVI Alliance, aFinland against types G1–G4 case–control evaluation found that RV5 was 52–63% effective in preventing severe rota-Finland RV1 Efficacy 90 (10–100) Vesikari score ≥11 [104] virus gastroenteritis (Vesikari score ≥11) andFinland and RV1 Efficacy 85 (75–92) Vesikari score ≥11 [4] 73–86% effective in preventing very severeLatin America rotavirus gastroenteritis (Vesikari score ≥15)Europe RV1 Efficacy 87 (80–92) Any severity [58] in the first year post vaccine introduction,Finland RV1 Efficacy 73 (27–91) Any severity [104] during a season with G2P[4] rotavirus pre- [64] dominance [79] . During the 2007 rotavirusUSA RV5 Effectiveness 88 (68–96) Hospitalization and ED visit season in Nicaragua when coverage with at least two doses among children underAustralia RV1 Effectiveness 85 (23–97) Hospitalization in [69] 12 months of age was still low at approxi- indigenous population mately 26%, hospitalizations and health-Brazil RV1 Effectiveness 79 (74–82) Hospitalization and ED [75] care visits for diarrhea of any cause declined visit; efficacy against by 11 and 23%, respectively, compared with G2P[4] the prevaccine baseline [80] .Brazil RV1 Effectiveness 85 (54–95) Hospitalization; [77] efficacy against G2P[4] Safety of rotavirus vaccinesMiddle-low and low income Although neither RV5 nor RV1 were asso-Asia (Vietnam, RV5 Efficacy 51 (13–73) Vesikari score ≥11 [8] ciated with intussusception during theBangladesh) clinical trials, post-introduction monitor- Africa (Kenya, RV5 Efficacy 64 (40–79) Vesikari score ≥11 [8] ing of vaccine safety is necessary as a low Ghana, Mali) level of risk cannot yet be excluded. The USA has conducted postlicensure moni- Africa (South RV1 Efficacy 62 (44–73) Vesikari score ≥11 [7] Africa, Malawi) toring since the introduction of RV5 in 2006 through the Vaccine Adverse Events Nicaragua RV5 Effectiveness 46 (18–64) Hospitalization [79] Reporting System, a national passive sur- El Salvador RV1 Effectiveness 76 (64–84) Hospitalization [7] veillance system and through the Vaccine † VE stands for vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness, depending on the type of study. Safety Datalink, a cohort of children ED: Emergency department; RV: Rotavirus. enrolled in a managed care network. Toall-cause diarrhea mortality among infants in this age group [78] . date available data from these systems do not suggest a risk ofMoreover, a 23% reduction was also observed among older chil- intussusception after receipt of RV5 but continued monitoringdren 12–23 months of age who were largely ineligible for rotavi- is necessary as a low level of risk has not yet been excluded forrus immunization [78] . Sustained reduction in mortality among RV5 and additional data are still needed for RV1 [81,82] . As morechildren under 2 years of age in 2009 and blunting of the sea- countries introduce rotavirus vaccines, continued monitoring issonal peak in diarrhea deaths when rotavirus is most prevalent in important. While there are no data to suggest that there wouldMexico provided further supporting evidence for vaccine effect as be regional differences in risk ratios for intussusception afterthe major contributing factor towards this reduction in all-cause vaccination, differences in background rates of intussusceptiongastroenteritis mortality. could result in differences in attributable risk, if any risk after vaccination did exist [83] .El Salvador Vaccine-acquired rotavirus disease after RV5 administration inIn El Salvador, a low-to-middle-income country in Central three infants with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)America, a case–control evaluation of RV1 effectiveness found has recently been reported suggesting that rotavirus vaccine maythat this vaccine was 74% effective against severe rotavirus gas- cause disease in severely immunocompromised children [84] . SCIDtroenteritis (Vesikari score ≥11) and 88% effective in preventing is now included as a contraindications for RV5 [85] . Rotavirusvery severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (Vesikari score ≥15) [7] . The vaccine is not contraindicated for children with other types of400 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  7. 7. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Reviewimmunodeficiencies but few data are available [85] . HIV-infected Coordinated efforts with GAVI, the manufacturers and otherand -exposed infants were included in the RV1 clinical trials and international partners are needed to ensure the affordability ofno significant safety concerns were identified [62] . rotavirus vaccines for low and lower middle-income countries, both now and in the future.Global introduction of rotavirus vaccines Rotavirus vaccines are poised to make a significant public healthThe 2009 global recommendation by the WHO for the inclusion impact on rotavirus-associated mortality in developing countries,of rotavirus vaccines in the routine childhood vaccine programs and as funding subsidies are made available and effectiveness datain all countries, and specifically in countries where the diarrheal are generated in early adopter countries showing the impact ofproportion of under-5-year-old mortality is 10% or more [7,9] , is a the vaccines, continued introduction of the vaccines in additionalsignificant step towards fully utilizing these vaccines. Several other countries is probable.important developments have occurred which will enhance theglobal impact of these rotavirus vaccines on childhood mortality Evaluating & improving performance of rotavirusas they are introduced more widely. vaccines in developing countries First, the efficacy of RV5 and RV1 vaccines in developing coun- While rotavirus vaccines are likely to have a tremendous impacttries, although moderate, has demonstrated that the vaccines have on rotavirus disease in developing countries, live, oral vaccinesa substantial public health impact on disease in these settings have had an inconsistent history in the developing world. Forwhere the highest rates of rotavirus mortality occur. Rotavirus example, OPV is less immunogenic and more doses are requiredvaccines significantly reduced serious rotavirus gastroenteritis in to protect children in India and other developing countries com-resource-poor settings in Africa and Asia, where the attack rate pared with children in the developed world [90–92] . Similarly, anfor severe and fatal rotavirus diarrhea is high. The protection oral cholera vaccine was found to be less immunogenic and aoccurred in settings where multiple G and P types circulated, higher titer of the vaccine was needed to offer protection againstwhere nonvaccine strains predominated, and where vaccine was disease in developing countries in Asia and Latin America [93,94] .administered to children under ‘real world conditions’ – concomi- Early rotavirus vaccines also faced challenges in the developingtant administration with oral polio vaccine (OPV), no restric- world, and several candidate rotavirus vaccines (RIT4237, WC3,tions on breastfeeding and inclusion of children exposed to HIV RRV and RRV-TV) had lower or no measurable efficacy in clini-infection [62] . Significantly, the vaccines do not interfere with the cal trials in South America and Africa than in Europe and Northimmune response to OPV vaccines [86,87] . These results are very America [37–40,95] . Even in clinical trials and in routine use inencouraging about the potential for rotavirus vaccines to reduce immunization programs, the effectiveness of current rotavirusthe significant morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus diarrhea vaccines has been inversely correlated with the childhood mortal-in the world’s poorest children. ity level in the country where the trial was conducted. Similarly, Second, the currently available vaccines have been shown to immune response to RV1, which has been more widely tested inbe safe with respect to intussusception and other serious adverse the developing world, appears to decrease with decreasing incomeevents. Recent recommendations by SAGE and the WHO level of the country [96] .GACVS have relaxed the restriction on the age window for vac- The reasons why live, oral rotavirus vaccines are less effica-cine administration. The SAGE recommendations extend the cious in developing countries are not clear and are probablyadministration of the first dose of vaccine up to 15 weeks of multifaceted [97] . First, children in these countries often haveage, similar to the US Advisory Committee on Immunization distinct medical conditions from those typically seen amongPractices (ACIP) recommendations and the last dose of either the children in the developed world. For example, a higher preva-two-dose RV1 or the three-dose RV5 vaccine should be admin- lence of comorbid infections in young children – HIV, malaria,istered by 32 weeks of age [7,63] . This expanded age recommen- tuberculosis and intestinal infections with other microorganismsdation would increase vaccine coverage in developing countries – may adversely affect vaccine performance. Second, malnutri-where children often present late for their routine childhood tion is more common and may influence vaccine effectiveness.vaccinations [88,89] . Third, in these developing country settings, levels of maternal Third, GAVI approved the inclusion of rotavirus vaccines for rotavirus antibodies are passively transferred to babies duringvaccine subsidy in GAVI-eligible countries and has requested ‘let- gestation and still present in infancy. Furthermore, rotavirus-ters of interest’ from countries wanting rotavirus vaccines. Several vaccine neutralizing activity of breast milk is usually higherAfrican and Asian countries submitted proposals to GAVI for than in developed countries, and may reduce vaccine titer andreview in late 2009. While subsidization by GAVI will make it adversely affect vaccine take; however, further studies are neededfinancially feasible for early adopter countries to use the current to confirm this [98,99] . Also, rotavirus vaccine is almost alwaysrotavirus vaccines, the long-term sustainability of vaccine pur- administered on the same schedule as OPV, and some data sug-chase for all GAVI-eligible countries cannot be guaranteed. The gest that the immune response to the first dose of rotavirusGAVI subsidy of rotavirus vaccine means that the UNICEF will vaccine in particular could be somewhat reduced when givenbe able to negotiate lower prices for low-income countries, but concomitantly with the first dose of OPV [86,100] . Finally, thethis support for the vaccines ends in 2015, and countries will be diversity of circulating strains in Africa and Asia is substantialexpected to cover the whole cost once the GAVI subsidy closes. and different from that seen in the Americas and Europe [101,102] .www.expert-reviews.com 401
  8. 8. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al.Globally, G1P[8] is the most predominant strain causing over strain evolution leads to reduced vaccine effectiveness. Since the70% of rotavirus infections in North America, Europe and rate at which potential strains that evade immunity evolve in anAustralia but causes only 30% of rotavirus infections in South immune population is unknown, conducting such investigationsAmerica and Asia, and 23% in Africa [101] . In parts of Asia and over a period of years after high vaccine uptake has been achievedAfrica, G9 strains have emerged as the predominantly circulat- may be important. Accompanying genetic characterization of rota-ing strain and G8 strains are isolated with increasing frequency viral strains from effectiveness studies will be important to assessin Africa as well [103] . While the vaccines have demonstrated pro- possible immune escape mechanisms.tection against the most commonly circulating strains (G1–G4 To have optimal public health impact, vaccines should protectand G9), effectiveness against less common strains has not been against severe rotavirus disease during the period when mostfully evaluated [5,58,59,104] . severe disease occurs, the first 2 years of life in developing coun- Thus, despite the promising efficacy data from the clinical tri- tries and the first 3 years of life in developed countries. Dataals in Africa and Asia, many unanswered questions about vac- from Europe and Latin America suggest that there is a slightcine effectiveness and how to improve vaccine performance in decrease in efficacy from the first to the second rotavirus seasonthese settings remain. As vaccines are introduced into the routine of follow-up, but overall protection was sustained at reasonableimmunization programs in Africa and Asia, ongoing monitoring levels [5,58,59,104] . This decrease in efficacy might be greater inis critical since vaccine performance varied by setting in clinical the developing world but further data are needed. Effectivenesstrials. Thus, to fully understand the impact of rotavirus vaccine of partial vaccination is also important as some severe diseaseintroduction in developing countries, several key epidemiologic occurs prior to completion of the full series and protection againstissues should be monitored including vaccine performance against breakthrough disease is important.severe disease during routine use, vaccine impact on rotavirus Several additional rotavirus vaccines are currently in variousdisease epidemiology, including changes in burden of severe dis- stages of development including vaccines based on neonatal rota-ease and death, age distribution of cases, seasonality and sero- virus strains in India [114,115] and Australia [116,117] ; a neonataltype distribution, indirect benefits for unvaccinated children, and dosing schedule of the previously withdrawn RRV-TV to addressduration of protection [105] . the intussusception issue [118] ; and a designer vaccine based on a Careful consideration of these issues prior to vaccine introduc- bovine strain that could include additional serotypes such as G8tion will enable development of surveillance systems capable of and G9, which are common in some developing countries [119] , andcapturing the full impact of the vaccine program. Initiation of that has been licensed to vaccine manufacturers in Brazil, Chinapopulation-based surveillance in a variety of high-disease-burden and India. These vaccines may offer less expensive alternatives tosettings prior to vaccine introduction will enable calculation of the currently available vaccines. Neonatal rotavirus strains havebaseline rates of disease, hospitalization, and death due to all- been found in nosocomial outbreaks of asymptomatic infectionscause diarrhea and rotavirus gastroenteritis, and documentation in newborn units. However, neonatal rotavirus strains usuallyof currently circulating strains. After vaccine introduction, these do not cause disease in infants and have been shown to protectsurveillance platforms will enable monitoring of changes in rates against severe rotavirus disease on reinfection [120,121] . A live, oralof mortality and morbidity, and any shifts in circulating strains vaccine based on a lamb rotavirus strain has been used in Chinaas well as serve as a basis for vaccine effectiveness evaluations. since 2001 but only limited data on safety, immunogenicity andFurthermore, these platforms can be used to explore reasons for effectiveness of this vaccine are available, which limits its widerlower efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in developing countries in use in other immunization programs [122,123] . In addition to thesecontrast to middle- and high-income countries, and to examine potential new oral vaccines, alternative approaches to rotavirusthe usefulness of potential ways to improve vaccine performance, vaccine administration such as rotavirus antigens for parenteralsuch as delaying age at first vaccination by 4–6 weeks to reduce delivery are also being explored so as to avoid a theoretical risk ofinterference by maternal antibodies, offering neonatal vaccina- intussusception [124–129] . A parenterally administered vaccine istion to target early disease, increasing the number of doses, alter- not susceptible to risk factors (e.g., breastfeeding and interferenceing breastfeeding practices immediately preceding and following from other floras in the gut) associated with live oral vaccines andimmunization, and using zinc or probiotic supplementation to thus could be equally immunogenic and effective in children inimprove the mucosal response to vaccination. low-income countries. The long-term impact of vaccines on circulating strains isunknown and continuous surveillance will be needed to address Expert commentarythis issue [12,106] . Studies in countries that have introduced rota- Two live, oral rotavirus vaccines are currently available. Thesevirus vaccines have, in some cases, reported higher prevalence of vaccines have shown high postlicensure effectiveness in high- andG2P[4] where RV1 is being used and an increase in G3P[8] where middle-income countries. Furthermore, increasing vaccine cover-RV5 is in use. However, information to date suggests that these age has been correlated with decreases in diarrhea and rotavirustrends may simply reflect natural strain variation rather than escape morbidity in these settings. Early data from clinical trials infrom vaccine immunity [75,107–113] . Long-term vaccine effectiveness Africa and Asia suggest that vaccines will have moderate effi-studies could provide a good platform to continuously assess levels cacy in these settings, but even a moderately effective vaccineof protection against individual serotypes to determine whether would have a substantial public health impact in these settings402 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  9. 9. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Reviewwith high disease burden. Thus, the WHO has recommended in burden of severe disease and death, age distribution of cases,that rotavirus vaccines be introduced into the national immuni- seasonality and serotype distribution, herd protection for unvac-zations programs of all countries worldwide. To improve vac- cinated children, and duration of protection. This informationcine performance and achieve the greatest public health impact, will enable us to use vaccines to their fullest potential.additional research is needed to ensure that these vaccines reachtheir fullest potential. Financial & competing interests disclosure Nigel A Cunliffe has received research grant support and lecture fees fromFive-year view GSK Biologicals and SPMSD. Osamu Nakagomi has received research grantsPostlicensure data showing high effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines from GlaxoSmithKline and Banyu Pharmatheuticals. Jacqueline E Tate,in routine use in high- and middle-income countries and promis- Manish M Patel, A Duncan Steele, Jon R Gentsch, Daniel C Payne,ing efficacy data from clinical trials in Africa and Asia suggest that Margaret M Cortese, Baoming Jiang, Roger I Glass and Umesh D Parasharrotavirus vaccine will have substantial impact on global rotavirus do not have any relevant disclosures. The authors have no other relevantmorbidity and mortality as these vaccines are introduced into affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with acountries’ national immunization programs. However, to reap financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materialsthe full benefit of rotavirus vaccination, further study of rotavi- discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.rus vaccines in developing countries should continue to explore No writing assistance was utilized in the production of thisways to improve vaccine performance in settings where rota- manuscript.virus morbidity and mortality is highest.Specifically, these studies could examine the Key issuesimpact that delaying age at first vaccination, • Two live, orally administered rotavirus vaccines are currently available for use.offering neonatal vaccination, increasing • The WHO recommends the inclusion of rotavirus vaccines in the national immunizationthe number of doses, altering breastfeed- programs of all countries.ing practices, and using zinc or probiotic • Clinical trials and postlicensure monitoring in high- and middle-income countries havesupplementation will have on vaccine per- found rotavirus vaccines to be highly effective against rotavirus gastroenteritis andformance. In addition, new data will enable demonstrate substantial public health impact.us to further understand the impact of the • Studies of rotavirus vaccines in low-income countries have shown moderate efficacy,introduction of rotavirus vaccine on key but even a moderately effective vaccine will have substantial public health benefit inepidemiological issues including vaccine these high-burden settings.performance against severe disease during • Further study of rotavirus vaccines in low-income countries is needed to determine theroutine use, vaccine impact on rotavirus potential impact of immunization against rotavirus in these settings and identify waysdisease epidemiology, including changes to improve impact. showing that the monovalent rotavirus • Presents recommendation of the WHO to References vaccine is efficacious against severe include rotavirus vaccine in the national Papers of special note have been highlighted as: rotavirus disease. immunization programs of all countries.• of interest 5 Vesikari T, Matson DO, Dennehy P et al. 9 Meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of1 Parashar UD, Gibson CJ, Bresse JS, Safety and efficacy of a pentavalent Experts on immunization, October 2009 – Glass RI. Rotavirus and severe childhood human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus conclusions and recommendations. Wkly diarrhea. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12(2), 304–306 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 354(1), 23–33 Epidemiol. Rec. 84(50), 517–532 (2009). (2006). (2006). 10 Estes MK, Cohen J. Rotavirus gene structure2 Parashar UD, Burton A, Lanata C et al. • Presents results from large Phase III and function. Microbiol. Rev. 53(4), 410–449 Global mortality associated with rotavirus (1989). clinical trials in developed countries disease among children in 2004. J. Infect. showing that the pentavalent rotavirus 11 Estes MK, Kapikian AZ. Rotaviruses. Dis. 200(Suppl. 1), S9–S15 (2009). vaccine is efficacious against severe In: Field’s Virology (5th Edition). Knipe3 Glass RI, Bresee JS, Turcios R, Fischer TK, rotavirus disease. DM, Howley PM (Eds). Lippincott, Parashar UD, Steele AD. Rotavirus Williams and Williams, PA, USA, 6 Conclusions and recommendations from vaccines: targeting the developing world. 1917–1958 (2007). the Immunization Strategic Advisory J. Infect. Dis. 192(Suppl. 1), S160–S166 Group. Wkly Epidemiol. Rec. 81(1), 2–11 12 Gentsch JR, Parashar UD, Glass RI. Impact (2005). (2006). of rotavirus vaccination: the importance of4 Ruiz-Palacios GM, Perez-Schael I, monitoring strains. Future Microbiol. 4, 7 Meeting of the immunization Strategic Velazquez FR et al. Safety and efficacy of an 1231–1234 (2009). Advisory Group of Experts, April 2009 – attenuated vaccine against severe rotavirus conclusions and recommendations. Wkly 13 Ball JM, Tian P, Zeng CQ, Morris AP, gastroenteritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 354(1), Epidemiol. Rec. 84(23), 220–236 (2009). Estes MK. Age-dependent diarrhea 11–22 (2006). 8 Rotavirus vaccines: an update. Wkly induced by a rotaviral nonstructural• Presents results from large Phase III glycoprotein. Science 272(5258), 101–104 Epidemiol. Rec. 84(51–52), 533–540 clinical trials in developed countries (1996). (2009).www.expert-reviews.com 403
  10. 10. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al.14 Rodriguez WJ, Kim HW, Brandt CD et al. 26 Simhon A, Mata L, Vives M et al. Low 38 De Mol P, Zissis G, Butzler JP, Longitudinal study of rotavirus infection endemicity and low pathogenicity of Mutwewingabo A, Andre FE. Failure of and gastroenteritis in families served by a rotaviruses among rural children in Costa live, attenuated oral rotavirus vaccine. pediatric medical practice: clinical and Rica. J. Infect. Dis. 152(6), 1134–1142 Lancet 2(8498), 108 (1986). epidemiologic observations. Pediatr. Infect. (1985). 39 Lanata CF, Black RE, del Aguila R et al. Dis. J. 6(2), 170–176 (1987). 27 Zaki AM, DuPont HL, el Alamy MA et al. Protection of Peruvian children against15 Glass RI, Kilgore PE, Holman RC et al. The detection of enteropathogens in acute rotavirus diarrhea of specific serotypes by The epidemiology of rotavirus diarrhea in diarrhea in a family cohort population in one, two, or three doses of the RIT 4237 the United States: surveillance and rural Egypt. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35(5), attenuated bovine rotavirus vaccine. estimates of disease burden. J. Infect. Dis. 1013–1022 (1986). J. Infect. Dis. 159(3), 452–459 (1989). 174(Suppl. 1), S5–S11 (1996). 28 Bishop RF, Barnes GL, Cipriani E, 40 Georges-Courbot MC, Monges J,16 Gurwith M, Wenman W, Hinde D, Lund JS. Clinical immunity after neonatal Siopathis MR et al. Evaluation of the Feltham S, Greenberg H. A prospective rotavirus infection. A prospective efficacy of a low-passage bovine rotavirus study of rotavirus infection in infants and longitudinal study in young children. (strain WC3) vaccine in children in Central young children. J. Infect. Dis. 144(3), N. Engl. J. Med. 309(2), 72–76 (1983). Africa. Res. Virol. 142(5), 405–411 (1991). 218–224 (1981). 29 Snodgrass DR, Wells PW. Rotavirus 41 Flores J, Perez-Schael I, Gonzalez M et al.17 Carlson JA, Middleton PJ, Szymanski MT, infection in lambs: studies on passive Protection against severe rotavirus Huber J, Petric M. Fatal rotavirus protection. Arch. Virol. 52(3), 201–205 diarrhoea by rhesus rotavirus vaccine in gastroenteritis: an analysis of 21 cases. (1976). Venezuelan infants. Lancet 1(8538), Am. J. Dis. Child. 132(5), 477–479 (1978). 30 Midthun K, Kapikian AZ. Rotavirus 882–884 (1987).18 Blutt SE, Matson DO, Crawford SE et al. vaccines: an overview. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 42 Perez-Schael I, Garcia D, Gonzalez M et al. Rotavirus antigenemia in children is 9(3), 423–434 (1996). Prospective study of diarrheal diseases in associated with viremia. PLoS Med. 4(4), 31 Vesikari T, Isolauri E, D’Hondt E, Venezuelan children to evaluate the efficacy e121 (2007). Delem A, Andre FE, Zissis G. Protection of rhesus rotavirus vaccine. J. Med. Virol.19 Blutt SE, Kirkwood CD, Parreno V et al. of infants against rotavirus diarrhoea by 30(3), 219–229 (1990). Rotavirus antigenaemia and viraemia: a RIT 4237 attenuated bovine rotavirus 43 Pérez-Schael I, Guntiñas MJ, Pérez M et al. common event? Lancet 362(9394), strain vaccine. Lancet 1(8384), 977–981 Efficacy of the rhesus rotavirus-based 1445–1449 (2003). (1984). quadrivalent vaccine in infants and young20 Chiappini E, Azzari C, Moriondo M, 32 Vesikari T, Isolauri E, Delem A et al. children in Venezuela. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, Galli L, de Martino M. Viraemia is a Clinical efficacy of the RIT 4237 live 1181–1187 (1997). common finding in immunocompetent attenuated bovine rotavirus vaccine in 44 Joensuu J, Koskenniemi E, Pang XL, children with rotavirus infection. J. Med. infants vaccinated before a rotavirus Vesikari T. Randomised placebo-controlled Virol. 76(2), 265–267 (2005). epidemic. J. Pediatr. 107(2), 189–194 trial of rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus21 Chitambar SD, Tatte VS, Dhongde R, (1985). vaccine for prevention of severe rotavirus Kalrao V. High frequency of rotavirus 33 Ruuska T, Vesikari T, Delem A, Andre FE, gastroenteritis. Lancet 350(9086), viremia in children with acute Beards GM, Flewett TH. Evaluation of 1205–1209 (1997). gastroenteritis: discordance of strains RIT 4237 bovine rotavirus vaccine in 45 Bernstein DI, Glass RI, Rodgers G, detected in stool and sera. J. Med. Virol. newborn infants: correlation of vaccine Davidson BL, Sack DA. Evaluation of 80(12), 2169–2176 (2008). efficacy to season of birth in relation to rhesus rotavirus monovalent and tetravalent22 Ray P, Fenaux M, Sharma S et al. rotavirus epidemic period. Scand J. Infect. reassortant vaccines in US children. US Quantitative evaluation of rotaviral Dis. 22(3), 269–278 (1990). Rotavirus Vaccine Efficacy Group. JAMA antigenemia in children with acute 34 Vesikari T. Clinical trials of live oral 273(15), 1191–1196 (1995). rotaviral diarrhea. J. Infect. Dis. 194(5), rotavirus vaccines: the Finnish experience. 46 Rotavirus vaccine for the prevention of 588–593 (2006). Vaccine 11(2), 255–261 (1993). rotavirus gastroenteritis among children.23 Velazquez FR, Matson DO, Calva JJ et al. 35 Vesikari T, Ruuska T, Delem A, Andre FE. Recommendations of the Advisory Rotavirus infections in infants as Neonatal rotavirus vaccination with RIT Committee on Immunization Practices protection against subsequent infections. 4237 bovine rotavirus vaccine: a (ACIP). MMWR Recomm. Rep. 48(RR-2), N. Engl. J. Med. 335(14), 1022–1028 preliminary report. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 1–20 (1999). (1996). 6(2), 164–169 (1987). 47 Withdrawal of rotavirus vaccine24 Black RE, Lopez de Romana G et al. 36 Vesikari T, Ruuska T, Delem A, Andre FE, recommendation. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Incidence and etiology of infantile diarrhea Beards GM, Flewett TH. Efficacy of two Wkly Rep. 48(43), 1007 (1999). and major routes of transmission in doses of RIT 4237 bovine rotavirus 48 Intussusception among recipients of Huascar, Peru. Am. J. Epidemiol. 129(4), vaccine for prevention of rotavirus rotavirus vaccine – United States, 785–799 (1989). diarrhoea. Acta Paediatr. Scand. 80(2), 1998–1999. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly25 Mrukowicz J, Szajewska H, Vesikari T. 173–180 (1991). Rep. 48(27), 577–581 (1999). Options for the prevention of rotavirus 37 Hanlon P, Hanlon L, Marsh V et al. Trial 49 Murphy TV, Gargiullo PM, Massoudi MS disease other than vaccination. J. Pediatr. of an attenuated bovine rotavirus vaccine et al. Intussusception among infants given Gastroenterol. Nutr. 46(Suppl. 2), (RIT 4237) in Gambian infants. Lancet an oral rotavirus vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. S32–S37 (2008). 1(8546), 1342–1345 (1987). 344(8), 564–572 (2001).404 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  11. 11. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Review50 Peter G, Myers MG. Intussusception, 62 Madhi SA, Cunliffe NA, Steele AD et al. hospitalization rates in austrian children. rotavirus, and oral vaccines: summary of a Impact of human rotavirus vaccine on Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. DOI: 10.1097/ workshop. Pediatrics 110(6), e67 (2002). severe gastroenteritis in African infants: a INF.0b013e3181c18434 (2009).51 Simonsen L, Viboud C, Elixhauser A, multicentre clinical trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 72 Gurgel RQ, Cuevas LE, Vieira SC et al. Taylor RJ, Kapikian AZ. More on 362(4), 289–298 (2010). Predominance of rotavirus P[4]G2 in a RotaShield and intussusception: the role of • Presents results from Phase III clinical vaccinated population, Brazil. Emerg. age at the time of vaccination. J. Infect. Dis. trials in two African countries showing Infect. Dis. 13(10), 1571–1573 (2007). 192(Suppl. 1), S36–S43 (2005). that the monovalent rotavirus vaccine is 73 Gurgel RQ, Correia JB, Cuevas LE. Effect52 Rothman KJ, Young-Xu Y, Arellano F. Age efficacious against severe rotavirus of rotavirus vaccination on circulating virus dependence of the relation between disease and prevents substantial strains. Lancet 371(9609), 301–302 reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield) disease burden. (2008). and intussusception. J. Infect. Dis. 193(6), 63 Cortese MM, Parashar UD. Prevention of 74 Nakagomi T, Cuevas LE, Gurgel RG et al. 898; author reply 898–899 (2006). rotavirus gastroenteritis among infants and Apparent extinction of non-G2 rotavirus53 Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine children: recommendations of the Advisory strains from circulation in Recife, Brazil, Safety, 1–2 December 2005. Wkly Committee on Immunization Practices after the introduction of rotavirus vaccine. Epidemiol. Rec. 81(2), 15–19 (2006). (ACIP). MMWR Recomm. Rep. 58(RR-2), Arch. Virol. 153(3), 591–593 (2008).54 International Medica Foundation. 1–25 (2009). 75 Gurgel RQ, Bohland AN, Vieira SA et al. Milestone in Phase II Clinical Trial for 64 Boom JA, Tate JE, Sahni LC et al. Incidence of rotavirus and all-cause Rotavirus Vaccine Reached. International Effectiveness of Pentavalent rotavirus vaccine diarrhea in northeast brazil following the Medica Foundation, MN, USA (2009). in a large, urban US population. Pediatrics introduction of a national vaccination55 Heaton PM, Goveia MG, Miller JM, Offit 125(2), e199–e207 (2010). program. Gastroenterology 137, 1970–1975 P, Clark HF. Development of a pentavalent 65 Tate JE, Panozzo CA, Payne DC et al. (2009). rotavirus vaccine against prevalent serotypes Decline and change in seasonality of US 76 Patel MM, de Oliveira LH, Bispo AM, of rotavirus gastroenteritis. J. Infect. Dis. rotavirus activity after the introduction of Gentsch J, Parashar UD. Rotavirus P[4]G2 192(Suppl. 1), S17–S21 (2005). rotavirus vaccine. Pediatrics 124(2), in a vaccinated population, Brazil. Emerg.56 Bernstein DI, Smith VE, Sherwood JR 465–471 (2009). Infect. Dis. 14(5), 863–865 (2008). et al. Safety and immunogenicity of live, 66 Reduction in rotavirus after vaccine 77 Correia JB, Patel MM, Nakagomi O et al. attenuated human rotavirus vaccine 89–12. introduction – United States, 2000–2009. Effectiveness of monovalent rotavirus Vaccine 16(4), 381–387 (1998). MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 58(41), vaccine (rotarix) against severe diarrhoea57 De Vos B, Vesikari T, Linhares AC et al. 1146–1149 (2009). caused by serotypically-unrelated G2P[4] A rotavirus vaccine for prophylaxis of 67 Cortese MM, Tate JE, Simonsen L, strains in Brazil. J. Infect. Dis. 201(3), infants against rotavirus gastroenteritis. Edelman L, Parashar UD. Reduction in 363–369 (2010). Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 23(10 Suppl.), gastroenteritis in children and correlation 78 Richardson V, Hernandez-Pichardo J, S179–S182 (2004). with early rotavirus vaccine uptake from a Quintanar-Solares M et al. Reduction in58 Vesikari T, Karvonen A, Prymula R et al. national medical claims database. Pediatr. childhood diarrhea deaths after rotavirus Efficacy of human rotavirus vaccine against Infect. Dis. J. (2010) (In Press). vaccine introduction in Mexico. N. Engl. rotavirus gastroenteritis during the first 68 Lambert SB, Faux CE, Hall L et al. Early J. Med. 362(4), 299–305 (2010). 2 years of life in European infants: evidence for direct and indirect effects of 79 Patel M, Pedreira C, De Oliveira LH et al. randomised, double-blind controlled study. the infant rotavirus vaccine program in Association between pentavalent rotavirus Lancet 370(9601), 1757–1763 (2007). Queensland. Med. J. Aust. 191(3), 157–160 vaccine and severe rotavirus diarrhea59 Linhares AC, Velazquez FR, (2009). among children in Nicaragua. JAMA Perez-Schael I et al. Efficacy and safety of 69 Snelling TL, Schultz R, Graham J et al. 301(21), 2243–2251 (2009). an oral live attenuated human rotavirus Rotavirus and the indigenous children of 80 Orozco M, Vasquez J, Pedreira C et al. vaccine against rotavirus gastroenteritis the Australian outback: monovalent Uptake of rotavirus vaccine and national during the first 2 years of life in Latin vaccine effective in a high-burden setting. trends of acute gastroenteritis among American infants: a randomised, double- Clin. Infect. Dis. 49(3), 428–431 (2009). children in Nicaragua. J. Infect. Dis. blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study. 70 Snelling TL, Andrews RM, Kirkwood CD, 200(Suppl. 1), S125–S130 (2009). Lancet 371(9619), 1181–1189 (2008). Carapetis JR. Evaluation of the 81 Belongia EA, Irving SA, Shui IM et al.60 Keating GM. Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 monovalent human rotavirus vaccine Real-time surveillance to assess risk of (Rotarix). Paediatr. Drugs 8(6), 389–395; RIX4414 following a G2P[4] outbreak. intussusception and other adverse events discussion 396–387 (2006). Presented at: 26th meeting of the 49th after pentavalent, bovine-derived rotavirus61 De Vos B, Han HH, Bouckenooghe A et al. Annual Interscience Conference on vaccine. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 29(1), 1–5 Live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (2010). RIX4414, provides clinical protection in (ICAAC). San Francisco, CA, USA, 12–15 82 Haber P, Patel M, Izurieta HS et al. infants against rotavirus strains with and September 2009. Postlicensure monitoring of intussusception without shared G and P genotypes: 71 Paulke-Korinek M, Rendi-Wagner P, after RotaTeq vaccination in the United integrated analysis of randomized Kundi M, Kronik R, Kollaritsch H. States, February 1, 2006, to September 25, controlled trials. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. Universal mass vaccination against 2007. Pediatrics 121(6), 1206–1212 28(4), 261–266 (2009). rotavirus gastroenteritis: impact on (2008).www.expert-reviews.com 405
  12. 12. Review Tate, Patel, Steele et al.83 Patel MM, Haber P, Baggs J, Zuber P, 95 Linhares AC, Gabbay YB, Mascarenhas JD 106 Matthijnssens J, Bilcke J, Ciarlet M et al. Bines JE, Parashar UD. Intussusception et al. Immunogenicity, safety and efficacy Rotavirus disease and vaccination: impact and rotavirus vaccination: a review of the of tetravalent rhesus-human, reassortant of genotype diversity. Future Microbiol. available evidence. Expert Rev. Vaccines rotavirus vaccine in Belem, Brazil. Bull. 4(10), 1303–1316 (2009). 8(11), 1555–1564 (2009). World Health Organ. 74(5), 491–500 107 Kirkwood C, Boniface C, Barnes G, Bishop84 Patel NC, Hertel PM, Estes MK et al. (1996). R. Rotavirus genotype distribution in Vaccine-acquired rotavirus in infants with 96 Patel M, Shane AL, Parashar UD, Jiang B, Australian children – what has happened severe combined immunodeficiency. Gentsch JR, Glass RI. Oral rotavirus during the first 18 months after introduction N. Engl. J. Med. 362(4), 314–319 (2010). vaccines: how well will they work where of RotaTeq™ and Rotarix™. Presented at:85 RotaTeq® (Package Insert). Merck & Co., they are needed most? J. Infect. Dis. Vaccines for Enteric Diseases Meeting. Inc., NJ, USA (2009) 200(Suppl. 1), S39–S48 (2009). Malaga, Spain, 9–11 September 2009.86 Zaman K, Sack DA, Yunus M et al. 97 Glass RI, Parashar UD, Bresee JS et al. 108 Gurgel RQ, Correia JB, Cuevas LE. Effect Successful co-administration of a human Rotavirus vaccines: current prospects and of rotavirus vaccination on circulating virus rotavirus and oral poliovirus vaccines in future challenges. Lancet 368(9532), strains [comment]. Lancet 371(9609), Bangladeshi infants in a 2-dose schedule at 323–332 (2006). 301–302 (2008). 12 and 16 weeks of age. Vaccine 27(9), 98 Rennels MB. Influence of breast-feeding 109 Leite JP, Carvalho-Costa FA, Linhares AC. 1333–1339 (2009). and oral poliovirus vaccine on the Group A rotavirus genotypes and the87 Ciarlet M, Sani-Grosso R, Yuan G et al. immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus ongoing Brazilian experience: a review. Concomitant use of the oral pentavalent vaccines. J. Infect. Dis. 174(Suppl. 1), Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 103(8), 745–753 human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine S107–S111 (1996). (2008). and oral poliovirus vaccine. Pediatr. Infect. 99 Moon KB. Differential rotavirus antibody 110 Nakagomi T, Cuevas LE, Gurgel RG Dis. J. 27(10), 874–880 (2008). profiles in breast milk specimens from et al. Apparent extinction of non-G288 Patel MM, Clark AD, Glass RI et al. mothers with infants in developed and rotavirus strains from circulation in Broadening the age restriction for initiating developing countries. Presented at: Recife, Brazil, after the introduction of rotavirus vaccination in regions with high American Society for Virology Conference. rotavirus vaccine. Arch. Virol. 153(3), rotavirus mortality: benefits of mortality Vancouver, BC, Canada, 11–15 July 2009. 591–593 (2008). reduction versus risk of fatal 100 Steele AD, De Vos B, Tumbo J et al. 111 Patel MM, de Oliveira LH, Bispo AM et al. intussusception. Vaccine 27(22), Co-administration study in South African Rotavirus P[4]G2 in a vaccinated 2916–2922 (2009). infants of a live-attenuated oral human population, Brazil [comment]. Emerg.89 Clark A, Sanderson C. Timing of children’s rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414) and poliovirus Infect. Dis. 14(5), 863–865 (2008). vaccinations in 45 low-income and vaccines. Vaccine DOI:10.1016/j. 112 Hull J, Teel E, Kerin T et al. Report of the middle-income countries: an analysis of vaccine.2008.08.034 (2008) (Epub ahead U.S. rotavirus strain surveillance survey data. Lancet 373(9674), 1543–1549 of print). (1996–2008). Presented at: American (2009). 101 Santos N, Hoshino Y. Global distribution Society for Microbiology Meeting. BC,90 John TJ. Antibody response of infants in of rotavirus serotypes/genotypes and its Canada, 17–21 July 2009. tropics to five doses of oral polio vaccine. implication for the development and 113 Payne DC, Szilagyi PG, Staat MA et al. Br. Med. J. 1(6013), 812 (1976). implementation of an effective rotavirus Secular variation in United States rotavirus vaccine. Rev. Med. Virol. 15(1), 29–56 disease rates and serotypes: implications for91 John TJ, Jayabal P. Oral polio vaccination (2005). assessing the rotavirus vaccination program. of children in the tropics. I. The poor seroconversion rates and the absence of 102 Sanchez-Padilla E, Grais RF, Guerin PJ, Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 28(11), 948–953 viral interference. Am. J. Epidemiol. 96(4), Steele AD, Burny ME, Luquero FJ. (2009). 263–269 (1972). Burden of disease and circulating serotypes 114 Bhandari N, Sharma P, Taneja S et al. of rotavirus infection in sub-Saharan A dose-escalation safety and92 Patriarca PA, Wright PF, John TJ. Factors Africa: systematic review and meta- immunogenicity study of live attenuated oral affecting the immunogenicity of oral analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 9(9), 567–576 rotavirus vaccine 116E in infants: a poliovirus vaccine in developing countries: (2009). randomized, double-blind, placebo- review. Rev. Infect. Dis. 13(5), 926–939 (1991). 103 Steele AD, Ivanoff B. Rotavirus strains controlled trial. J. Infect. Dis. 200(3), circulating in Africa during 1996–1999: 421–429 (2009).93 Suharyono, Simanjuntak C, Witham N emergence of G9 strains and P[6] strains. 115 Bhandari N, Sharma P, Glass RI et al. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of Vaccine 21(5–6), 361–367 (2003). Safety and immunogenicity of two live single-dose live oral cholera vaccine CVD 103-HgR in 5–9-year-old Indonesian 104 Vesikari T, Karvonen A, Puustinen L et al. attenuated human rotavirus vaccine children. Lancet 340(8821), 689–694 Efficacy of RIX4414 live attenuated human candidates, 116E and I321, in infants: (1992). rotavirus vaccine in Finnish infants. results of a randomised controlled trial. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 23(10), 937–943 Vaccine 24(31–32), 5817–5823 (2006).94 Gotuzzo E, Butron B, Seas C et al. Safety, (2004). 116 Barnes GL, Lund JS, Adams L et al. immunogenicity, and excretion pattern of single-dose live oral cholera vaccine CVD 105 Patel MM, Parashar UD. Assessing the Phase 1 trial of a candidate rotavirus 103-HgR in Peruvian adults of high and effectiveness and public health impact of vaccine (RV3) derived from a human low socioeconomic levels. Infect. Immun. rotavirus vaccines after introduction in neonate. J. Paediatr. Child Health 33(4), 61(9), 3994–3997 (1993). immunization programs. J. Infect. Dis. 300–304 (1997). 200(Suppl. 1), S291–S299 (2009).406 Expert Rev. Vaccines 9(4), (2010)
  13. 13. Global impact of rotavirus vaccines Review117 Barnes GL, Lund JS, Mitchell SV et al. 125 Jiang B, Estes MK, Barone C et al. • Jon R Gentsch, PhD Early Phase II trial of human rotavirus Heterotypic protection from rotavirus National Center for Immunization and vaccine candidate RV3. Vaccine 20(23–24), infection in mice vaccinated with virus-like Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta, 2950–2956 (2002). particles. Vaccine 17(7–8), 1005–1013 GA, USA118 Ruiz LP Jr. Rotavirus vaccines. N. Engl. J. (1999). • Daniel C Payne, PhD, MSPH Med. 354(16), 1747–1751; author reply 126 Herrmann JE, Chen SC, Fynan EF et al. National Center for Immunization and 1747–1751 (2006). Protection against rotavirus infections by Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta,119 Kapikian AZ, Simonsen L, Vesikari T et al. DNA vaccination. J. Infect. Dis. GA, USA A hexavalent human rotavirus-bovine 174(Suppl. 1), S93–S97 (1996). • Margaret M Cortese, MD rotavirus (UK) reassortant vaccine designed 127 Coffin SE, Klinek M, Offit PA. Induction National Center for Immunization and for use in developing countries and of virus-specific antibody production by Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta, delivered in a schedule with the potential to lamina propria lymphocytes following GA, USA eliminate the risk of intussusception. intramuscular inoculation with rotavirus. • Osamu Nakagomi, MD, PhD J. Infect. Dis. 192(Suppl. 1), S22–S29 J. Infect. Dis. 172(3), 874–878 (1995). Department of Molecular Microbiology (2005). 128 Conner ME, Crawford SE, Barone C, and Immunology, Graduate School of120 Bhan MK, Lew JF, Sazawal S, Das BK, Estes MK. Rotavirus vaccine administered Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Gentsch JR, Glass RI. Protection conferred parenterally induces protective immunity. Nagasaki, Japan by neonatal rotavirus infection against J. Virol. 67(11), 6633–6641 (1993). • Nigel A Cunliffe, MBChB, PhD subsequent rotavirus diarrhea. J. Infect. Dis. 129 Jiang B, Gentsch JR, Glass RI. Inactivated Department of Medical Microbiology and 168(2), 282–287 (1993). rotavirus vaccines: a priority for accelerated Genitourinary, Medicine, University of121 Vethanayagam RR, Ananda Babu M, vaccine development. Vaccine 26(52), Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Nagalaxmi KS et al. Possible role of 6754–6758 (2008). • Baoming Jiang, PhD neonatal infection with the asymptomatic 130 Parashar UD, Hummelman EG, Bresee JS, National Center for Immunization and reassortant rotavirus (RV) strain I321 in Miller MA, Glass RI. Global illness and Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta, the decrease in hospital admissions for RV deaths caused by rotavirus disease in GA, USA diarrhea, Bangalore, India, 1988–1999. children. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9(5), 565–572 • Kathleen M Neuzil, MD, MPH J. Infect. Dis. 189(12), 2282–2289 (2003). Rotavirus Vaccine Program, PATH, (2004). Seattle, WA, USA122 Mohan KV, Kulkarni S, Glass RI, Affiliations • Lucia H de Oliveira Zhisheng B, Atreya CD. A human vaccine • Jacqueline E Tate, PhD Immunization Unit, Family and strain of lamb rotavirus (Chinese) NSP4 National Center for Immunization and Community Health, Pan American Health gene: complete nucleotide sequence and Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, 1600 Organization, 525 23rd Street NW, phylogenetic analyses. Virus Genes 26(2), Clifton Rd. NE, MS-A47, Atlanta, Washington, DC 20037, USA 185–192 (2003). GA 30333, USA • Roger I Glass, MD, PhD123 Fu C, Wang M, Liang J, He T, Wang D, Tel.: +1 404 639 4559 Fogarty International Center, NIH, Xu J. Effectiveness of Lanzhou lamb Fax: +1 404 639 8665 Bethesda, MD, USA rotavirus vaccine against rotavirus jqt8@cdc.gov gastroenteritis requiring hospitalization: • Umesh D Parashar, MBBS, MPH a matched case-control study. Vaccine • Manish M Patel, MD, MSc National Center for Immunization and 25(52), 8756–8761 (2007). National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta, Respiratory Diseases, US CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA124 Ciarlet M, Crawford SE, Barone C et al. GA, USA Subunit rotavirus vaccine administered parenterally to rabbits induces active • A Duncan Steele, PhD protective immunity. J. Virol. 72(11), Rotavirus Vaccine Program, PATH, 9233–9246 (1998). Seattle, WA, USAwww.expert-reviews.com 407

×