-
JAMA Pediatrics Jul 2021Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of Rotavirus Vaccines With Reduction in Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Children Younger Than 5 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies.
IMPORTANCE
Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced worldwide, and the clinical association of different rotavirus vaccines with reduction in rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) after introduction are noteworthy.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of different rotavirus vaccines by synthesizing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
Relevant studies published in 4 databases: Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until July 1, 2020, using search terms including "rotavirus" and "vaccin*."
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies involving more than 100 children younger than 5 years that reported the effectiveness, safety, or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
A random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), risk differences, and 95% CIs. Adjusted indirect treatment comparison was performed to assess the differences in the protection of Rotarix and RotaTeq.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization. Safety-associated outcomes involved serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis of 20 RCTs and 38 case-control studies revealed that Rotarix (RV1) significantly reduced RVGE (RR, 0.316 [95% CI, 0.224-0.345]) and RVGE hospitalization risk (OR, 0.347 [95% CI, 0.279-0.432]) among children fully vaccinated; RotaTeq (RV5) had similar outcomes (RVGE: RR, 0.350 [95% CI, 0.275-0.445]; RVGE hospitalization risk: OR, 0.272 [95% CI, 0.197-0.376]). Rotavirus vaccines also demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. Additionally, no significant differences in the protection of RV1 and RV5 against rotavirus disease were noted in adjusted indirect comparisons. Moderate associations were found between reduced RVGE risk and Rotavac (RR, 0.664 [95% CI, 0.548-0.804]), Rotasiil (RR, 0.705 [95% CI, 0.605-0.821]), and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (RR, 0.407 [95% CI, 0.332-0.499]). All rotavirus vaccines demonstrated no risk of serious adverse events. A positive correlation was also found between immunogenicity and vaccine protection (eg, association of RVGE with RV1: coefficient, -1.599; adjusted R2, 99.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The high protection and low risk of serious adverse events for rotavirus vaccines in children who were fully vaccinated emphasized the importance of worldwide introduction of rotavirus vaccination. Similar protection provided by Rotarix and RotaTeq relieves the pressure of vaccines selection for health care authorities.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 33970192
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0347 -
Vaccine Aug 2023This systematic review presents cost-effectiveness studies of rotavirus vaccination in high-income settings based on dynamic transmission modelling to inform policy... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review presents cost-effectiveness studies of rotavirus vaccination in high-income settings based on dynamic transmission modelling to inform policy decisions about implementing rotavirus vaccination programmes.
METHODS
We searched CEA Registry, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment Database, Scopus, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for studies published since 2002. Full economic evaluation studies based on dynamic transmission models, focusing on high-income countries, live oral rotavirus vaccine and children ≤ 5 years of age were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were appraised for quality and risk of bias using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list and the Philips checklist. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020208406).
RESULTS
A total of four economic evaluations were identified. Study settings included England and Wales, France, Norway, and the United States. All studies compared either pentavalent or monovalent rotavirus vaccines to no intervention. All studies were cost-utility analyses that reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Included studies consistently concluded that rotavirus vaccination is cost-effective compared with no vaccination relative to the respective country's willingness to pay threshold when herd protection benefits are incorporated in the modelling framework.
CONCLUSIONS
Rotavirus vaccination was found to be cost-effective in all identified studies that used dynamic transmission models in high-income settings where child mortality rates due to rotavirus gastroenteritis are close to zero. Previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations considered mostly static models and had less conclusive findings than the current study. This review suggests that modelling choices influence cost-effectiveness results for rotavirus vaccination. Specifically, the review suggests that dynamic transmission models are more likely to account for the full impact of rotavirus vaccination than static models in cost-effectiveness analyses.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Rotavirus; State Medicine; Vaccination; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 37479614
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.06.064 -
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal Dec 2021Rotavirus causes 215,000 deaths from severe childhood diarrhea annually. Concerns exist that a monovalent vaccine (RV1) and a pentavalent vaccine (RV5) may be less... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rotavirus causes 215,000 deaths from severe childhood diarrhea annually. Concerns exist that a monovalent vaccine (RV1) and a pentavalent vaccine (RV5) may be less effective against rotavirus strains not contained in the vaccines. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of RV1 and RV5 against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis caused by vaccine (homotypic) and nonvaccine (partially and fully heterotypic) strains.
METHODS
After conducting a systematic review, we meta-analyzed 31 case-control studies (N = 27,293) conducted between 2006 and 2020 using a random-effects regression model.
RESULTS
In high-income countries, RV1 VE was 10% lower against partially heterotypic (P = 0.04) and fully heterotypic (P = 0.10) compared with homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 90% [95% confidence intervals (CI): 82-94]; partially heterotypic VE: 79% [95% CI: 71-85]; fully heterotypic VE: 80% [95% CI: 65-88]). In middle-income countries, RV1 VE was 14-16% lower against partially heterotypic (P = 0.06) and fully heterotypic (P = 0.04) compared with homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 81% [95% CI: 69-88]; partially heterotypic VE: 67% [95% CI: 54-76]; fully heterotypic VE: 65% [95% CI: 51-75]). Strain-specific RV5 VE differences were less pronounced, and primarily derived from high-income countries. Limited data were available from low-income countries.
CONCLUSIONS
Vaccine effectiveness of RV1 and RV5 was somewhat lower against nonvaccine than vaccine strains. Ongoing surveillance is important to continue long-term monitoring for strain replacement, particularly in low-income settings where data are limited.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Child; Diarrhea; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccine Efficacy; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 34870393
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003286 -
Vaccine Apr 2015Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccines in 2006, rotavirus was the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among European children <5 years of age. We conducted... (Review)
Review
Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccines in 2006, rotavirus was the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among European children <5 years of age. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to examine the effectiveness and impact of rotavirus vaccines in Europe following the first eight years of routine use. Four publication databases were searched, yielding 276 unique citations from February 1st, 2006 to July 31st, 2014. Twenty four studies on effectiveness (n=9) and impact (n=15) met the inclusion criteria. Across Europe, vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus-related healthcare utilisation ranged from 68% to 98%, consistent with efficacy data from clinical trials. Reductions in rotavirus hospitalisations ranged from 65% to 84%, consistent with findings from post-marketing studies from the US and Latin America. We confirm the significant public health benefit of rotavirus vaccination in Europe and provide further evidence to support implementation of universal rotavirus vaccination in all European countries.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Europe; Gastroenteritis; Hospitalization; Humans; Latin America; Male; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Time Factors; United States; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 25795258
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.016 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2017Rotavirus vaccine schedules may impact vaccine response among children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to review the literature evaluating... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rotavirus vaccine schedules may impact vaccine response among children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to review the literature evaluating the effects of monovalent (RV1) or pentavalent rotavirus vaccines schedules on vaccine response.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible trials conducted in LMICs comparing ≥2 vaccine schedules and reporting immunologic response or efficacy. We calculated seroconversion proportion differences and geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
We abstracted data from 8 eligible trials of RV1. The point estimates for seroconversion proportions difference ranged from -0.25 to -0.09 for the 6/10-week schedule compared with 10/14. The range for the 6/10/14- compared with 10/14-week schedule was -0.02 to 0.10. Patterns were similar for GMC ratios and efficacy estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
The commonly used 6/10-week RV1 schedule in LMICs may not be optimal. Further research on the effect of rotavirus schedules using clinical endpoints is essential.
PubMed: 28567431
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofx066 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Nov 2018Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus vaccine , as measured by laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection after referral to hospital and/or emergency departments in children aged <5 years with gastroenteritis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed studies conducted in real-life settings published between 2006 and 2016 and a meta-analysis to calculate the overall VE, which was further discriminated through stratified analyses.
RESULTS
The overall VE estimate was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 75%); stratified analyses revealed a non-negligible impact of factors such as study design and socioeconomic status. Depending on the control group, VE ranged from 63% (95% CI, 52% to 72%) to 81% (95% CI, 69% to 88%) for unmatched and matched rotavirus test-negative controls. VE varied with socioeconomic status: 81% (95% CI, 74% to 86%) in high-income countries, 54% (95% CI, 39% to 65%) in upper-middle-income countries, and 63% (95% CI, 50% to 72%) in lower-middle-income countries. Age, rotavirus strain, and disease severity were also shown to impact VE, but to a lesser extent.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis of real-world studies showed that is effective in helping to prevent hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits due to rotavirus infection.
PubMed: 30539038
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofy292 -
PloS One 2020Over 34 countries in Africa have introduced rotavirus vaccine to their national immunization programs: monovalent (Rotarix®, RV1) and pentavalent (RotaTeq®, RV5) after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Over 34 countries in Africa have introduced rotavirus vaccine to their national immunization programs: monovalent (Rotarix®, RV1) and pentavalent (RotaTeq®, RV5) after South Africa introduced it in 2009. Since then several studies assessing the impact of the vaccine have been conducted. The principal aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of rotavirus vaccine in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS
A Literature search was performed using Mendeley, PubMed, ScienceDirect, grey literature and Web of Science databases of published studies from January 1, 2017, as years of recent publications on rotavirus vaccine impact in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis was conducted for rotavirus infection in children under 5 years using proportions of pre and post-vaccine introduction in these populations. Random-effect estimates were considered since the samples were from universal populations.
RESULTS
Out of the 935 articles identified, 17 studies met the inclusion for systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled proportion for pre-vaccination period was 42%, 95% (CI: 38-46%), and reduced to 21%, 95% (CI: 17-25%) during post-vaccination period. Rotavirus diarrhea significantly reduced in children < 12 months as compared to children 12-24 months old. Seasonal peaks of rotavirus diarrhea were between June-September. However, data is limited to one year of post-vaccine introduction, and bias may present due to early vaccine impact.
CONCLUSION
We observed that the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine was partly responsible for the significant reduction in the burden of rotavirus-associated diarrhea in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, there is a need to encourage the remaining countries to introduce the vaccine to their routine national immunization programs.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Diarrhea; Humans; Immunization Programs; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32339187
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232113 -
Infectious Diseases of Poverty Dec 2023Non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines have played an important role in controlling vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in China. However, these vaccines are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines have played an important role in controlling vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in China. However, these vaccines are paid out of pocket and there is room to increase their coverage. We focused on four selected non-NIP vaccines in this study, namely Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), and rotavirus vaccine. We aimed to conduct a scoping review of their vaccination rates and the major barriers faced by health systems, providers, and caregivers to increase coverage.
METHODS
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched five English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and WHO IRIS) and four Chinese databases using the search strategy developed by the study team. Two independent reviewers screened, selected studies, and examined their quality. We summarized the non-NIP vaccine coverage data by vaccine and applied the 5A framework (Access, Affordability, Acceptance, Awareness, Activation) to chart and analyze barriers to increasing coverage.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles were included in the analysis (nine pertaining to vaccine coverage, and another 19 reporting challenges of increasing uptake). Among the four selected vaccines, coverage for the Hib vaccine was the highest (54.9-55.9% for 1 dose or more from two meta-analyses) in 2016, while the coverage of the other three vaccines was lower than 30%. Eight of the nine included articles mentioned the regional disparity of coverage, which was lower in under-developing regions. For example, the three-dose Hib vaccination rate in eastern provinces was 38.1%, whereas the rate in central and western provinces was 34.3% and 26.2%, respectively in 2017. Within the 5A framework, acceptance, awareness, and affordability stood out as the most prominent themes. Among the 12 identified sub-themes, high prices, low vaccine awareness, concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy were the most cited barriers to increasing the uptake.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an urgent need to increase coverage of non-NIP vaccines and reduce disparities in access to these vaccines across regions. Concerted efforts from the government, the public, and society are required to tackle the barriers and challenges identified in this study, both on the demand and supply side, to ensure everybody has equal access to life-saving vaccines in China. Particularly, the government should take a prudent approach to gradually incorporate non-NIP vaccines into the NIP step by step, and make a prioritizing strategy based on key factors such as disease burden, financial resources, and market readiness, with special attention to high-risk populations and underdeveloped regions.
Topics: Humans; Vaccines; Vaccination; Immunization Programs; China; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 38062480
DOI: 10.1186/s40249-023-01150-8 -
Vaccine Jan 2021Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include considerations for vaccine acceptability when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that influence acceptability. To inform and validate the matrix, we systematically reviewed evidence for factors that influence vaccine acceptability, and for interventions aimed at improving acceptability.
METHODS
On 10-11 October 2018 we searched four bibliographic databases, the Theses Canada Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. From each study, we extracted information about the participants, intervention or exposure, comparator, and relevant outcomes. Due to heterogeneity in the reported factors and acceptability indicators we synthesized the findings narratively. We appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. For each vaccine-preventable disease we populated a matrix of factors for which there was evidence of an influence on acceptability.
RESULTS
One hundred studies (>1 million participants) contributed data relevant to the public, 16 (6191 participants) to healthcare providers, and three (84 participants) to policymakers. There were 43 intervention studies (~2 million participants). Across vaccines, we identified low certainty evidence for 70 factors relevant to the general population, 56 to high-risk groups, and 30 to healthcare providers. The perceived safety and importance of the vaccine, vaccination history, and receiving a recommendation from a healthcare provider were common influential factors. We found low certainty evidence that reminders for childhood vaccines and policies or delivery models for rotavirus vaccines could improve uptake and coverage. Evidence for other interventions was of very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
The NACI vaccine acceptability matrix is useful for categorizing acceptability factors for the general public. Reminder systems may improve the uptake of childhood vaccines. Policies that make the rotavirus vaccine universally available and easily accessible may improve coverage.
FUNDING
This systematic review was completed under contract to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Contract #4600001536.
Topics: Canada; Child; Humans; Immunization; Reminder Systems; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 33257103
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.038 -
Viruses Feb 2022Cellular immunity against rotavirus in children is incompletely understood. This review describes the current understanding of T-cell immunity to rotavirus in children.... (Review)
Review
Cellular immunity against rotavirus in children is incompletely understood. This review describes the current understanding of T-cell immunity to rotavirus in children. A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Global Health databases using a combination of "t-cell", "rotavirus" and "child" keywords to extract data from relevant articles published from January 1973 to March 2020. Only seventeen articles were identified. Rotavirus-specific T-cell immunity in children develops and broadens reactivity with increasing age. Whilst occurring in close association with antibody responses, T-cell responses are more transient but can occur in absence of detectable antibody responses. Rotavirus-induced T-cell immunity is largely of the gut homing phenotype and predominantly involves Th1 and cytotoxic subsets that may be influenced by IL-10 Tregs. However, rotavirus-specific T-cell responses in children are generally of low frequencies in peripheral blood and are limited in comparison to other infecting pathogens and in adults. The available research reviewed here characterizes the T-cell immune response in children. There is a need for further research investigating the protective associations of rotavirus-specific T-cell responses against infection or vaccination and the standardization of rotavirus-specific T-cells assays in children.
Topics: Humans; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; T-Lymphocytes; Vaccination
PubMed: 35336866
DOI: 10.3390/v14030459