-
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 -
Wellcome Open Research 2020Randomized controlled trials of licensed oral rotavirus group A (RVA) vaccines, indicated lower efficacy in developing countries compared to developed countries. We...
Randomized controlled trials of licensed oral rotavirus group A (RVA) vaccines, indicated lower efficacy in developing countries compared to developed countries. We investigated the pooled effectiveness of Rotarix in Africa in 2019, a decade since progressive introduction began in 2009. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify studies that investigated the effectiveness of routine RVA vaccination in an African country between 2009 and 2019. A meta-analysis was undertaken to estimate pooled effectiveness of the full-dose versus partial-dose of Rotarix (RV1) vaccine and in different age groups. Pooled odds ratios were estimated using random effects model and the risk of bias assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. By December 2019, 39 (72%) countries in Africa had introduced RVA vaccination, of which 34 were using RV1. Thirteen eligible studies from eight countries were included in meta-analysis for vaccine effectiveness (VE) of RVA by vaccine dosage (full or partial) and age categories. Pooled RV1 VE against RVA associated hospitalizations was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28-57%) for partial dose versus 58% (95% CI 50-65%) for full dose. VE was 61% (95% CI 50-69%), 55% (95% CI 32-71%), 56% (95% CI 43-67%), and 61% (95% CI 42-73%) for children aged <12 months, 12-23 months, <24 months and 12-59 months, respectively. RV1 vaccine use has resulted in a significant reduction in severe diarrhoea in African children and its VE is close to the efficacy findings observed in clinical trials. RV1 VE point estimate was higher for children who received full dose than those who received partial dose, and its protection lasted beyond the first year of life.
PubMed: 33215049
DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16174.2 -
Drug Safety Nov 2020Understanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative...
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) represent useful tools to help decision makers with supporting benefit-risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of a medical product. However, few initiatives have been launched to harmonise qBRm approaches, specifically for vaccines.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this paper was to identify publications about qBRm applied to vaccines through a systematic literature review, and to describe their characteristics.
METHODS
Medline, Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge databases were searched to identify articles in English, published from database inceptions up to December 2019. The search strategy included the combination of three key concepts: 'benefit-risk', 'modelling' and 'vaccines'. Data extracted included the modelling context and the methodological approaches used.
RESULTS
Of 3172 publications screened, 48 original publications were included. Most of the selected studies were published over the past decade and focused on rotavirus (15), dengue (10) and influenza (6) vaccines. The majority (30) of studies reported analyses related to high-income countries. The methodology of the studies differed, particularly in modelling techniques, benefit-risk measures, and sensitivity analyses. The present work also pointed out a high level of variability in the quality of reporting across studies, with particular regard to input parameters and methodological approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an extensive list of qBRm applied to vaccines. Discrepancies across studies were identified during our review. While the number of published qBRm studies is increasing, no reporting guidance for qBRm applied to vaccines is currently available. This may affect decision makers' confidence in the results and their benefit-risk assessment(s); therefore, the development of such reporting guidance is highly needed.
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; Humans; Models, Biological; Risk Assessment; Vaccines
PubMed: 32914292
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-00984-7 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Mar 2021A systematic literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted to describe rotavirus (RV) vaccine coverage for a complete series, timing of receipt of all...
A systematic literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted to describe rotavirus (RV) vaccine coverage for a complete series, timing of receipt of all doses in the series, and predictors of RV vaccination coverage in the US for two licensed RV vaccines (RV1, RV5). Nine publications were included in the review. RV vaccination coverage rates of under 80% suggest RV vaccines are underutilized relative to the Healthy People 2020 target and other childhood vaccines. About 50-90% of children initiating RV vaccination complete the series and coverage for a complete series is lower for black and Hispanic children (vs. whites), uninsured or Medicaid insured (vs. privately insured), and for foreign-born (vs. US-born) children. Series completion is significantly greater in children receiving DTaP, RV1 (vs. RV5), and for those receiving routine care from a pediatrician. There is a need to design and implement better RV immunization strategies for US children.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; United States; Vaccination; Vaccination Coverage; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32845792
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1794440 -
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 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Nov 2020This study is aimed to review the published evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines when co-administered with meningococcal vaccines in...
This study is aimed to review the published evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines when co-administered with meningococcal vaccines in infants. A systematic literature search was performed in four databases containing peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts. In total, twelve articles were included in the review; 11 provided information on safety and five on the immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines following co-administration. No paper was found on efficacy. Additional routine vaccines were administered in all studies. The safety analysis was mainly focused on fever, vomiting, diarrhea, intussusception, and changes in eating habits. Overall, safety profiles and immune responses associated with rotavirus vaccination were comparable between infants co-administered with rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines and infants receiving rotavirus vaccines without meningococcal vaccines. Although data are limited, co-administration of rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines does not appear to interfere with the safety or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines.
Topics: Antibodies, Bacterial; Humans; Infant; Meningococcal Vaccines; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 32298219
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1739485 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Apr 2020Although rotavirus vaccines have proven to prevent the risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in children under 5 years old, they are also associated with an increased... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although rotavirus vaccines have proven to prevent the risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in children under 5 years old, they are also associated with an increased transient risk of intussusception (IS). Several quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) are performed to measure this balance in hospitalizations and deaths prevented versus the ones induced.
METHOD
In this study, our objective was to provide a complete overview of qBRm used for rotavirus vaccination. We systematically searched 3 medical literature databases to identify relevant articles, in English, that were published between 2006 and 2019.
RESULTS
Of the 276 publications screened, 14 studies using qBRm for rotavirus vaccination were retained, based on preselected criteria. Four were performed in low- and middle-income countries. Almost all (13 of 14) displayed the following characteristics: force of infection assumed to be constant over time (static model), indirect effect of rotavirus vaccination (herd effect) not considered, closed model (individuals not allowed to enter and/or exit the model over time), and aggregated level (no tracking of individual's behavior). Most of the models were probabilistic (9 of 14) and reported sensitivity and/or scenario analyses (12 of 14). Input parameter values varied across studies. Selected studies suggest that, depending on the models used, for every IS hospitalization and death induced, vaccination would prevent, respectively, 190-1624 and 71-743 RVGE-related hospitalizations and deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
The benefits of rotavirus vaccination were shown to largely exceed the increased risk of IS, across all studies. Future research aiming to harmonize qBRm for rotavirus vaccination should ensure the comparability of studies and provide additional information for regulatory authorities, physicians, and patients.
PubMed: 32296726
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa087 -
Epidemiology and Infection Mar 2020Gastroenteritis remains a serious health condition among children under 5 years especially in Africa. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Gastroenteritis remains a serious health condition among children under 5 years especially in Africa. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the aetiologic pathogens of gastroenteritis in the region. We did a systematic search for articles with original data on the aetiology of gastroenteritis and acute diarrhoea among children younger than 5 years. Pooled results were extracted and analysed in STATA version 12.0 using random-effects for statistical test for homogeneity following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Collaboration and Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, viruses accounted for 50.2% of the cases followed by bacteria with 31.6% of the cases. Parasites accounted for 12.1% of the case. Rotavirus was the most common cause of acute diarrhoea in all regions resulting in 29.2% of the cases followed by E. coli (15.6%) of diarrhoeal cases and Adenovirus (10.8%). The most prevalent parasite detected was Giardia lamblia (7.3%). Acute diarrhoea remains rampant with Rotavirus still being the major pathogen responsible for the disease in children less than 5 years old despite the introduction of vaccine. It is recommended that the vaccine should be promoted much more widely in the region.
Topics: Adenoviridae; Adenovirus Infections, Human; Africa South of the Sahara; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Escherichia coli; Escherichia coli Infections; Gastroenteritis; Giardia lamblia; Giardiasis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections
PubMed: 32115003
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268820000618 -
Viruses Jan 2020Rotavirus infection is the major cause of acute gastroenteritis among children globally. Sub-Saharan Africa including Ethiopia is disproportionally affected by the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rotavirus infection is the major cause of acute gastroenteritis among children globally. Sub-Saharan Africa including Ethiopia is disproportionally affected by the disease. The aims of this review were to determine the pooled prevalence of rotavirus infection among children under-five and to identify the dominant rotavirus genotypes in Ethiopia. Twelve studies were included to estimate the pooled prevalence of rotavirus acute gastroenteritis and five studies were used to determine predominantly circulating genotypes of rotavirus. The pooled prevalence of rotavirus infection was 23% (95% CI = 22%-24%). G3 (27.1%) and P[8] (49%) were the dominant G and P types, respectively. The G8 G-type uncommon in humans but highly prevalent in cattle was also reported accounting for 1% of all cases. The major G/P combinations were G12P[8] (15.4%), G3P[6] (14.2%), G1P[8] (13.6%) and G3P[8] (12.9%) collectively accounting for 56.1% of rotavirus strains. Similar to other parts of the world, the dominance of G1, G3, P[6] and P[8] genotypes was noted in Ethiopia. The increased prevalence of G12P[8] strains observed in Ethiopia was similar to observations in other geographic regions in the post-vaccine introduction period. Thus, further studies are required on the vaccine effectiveness, genotype distribution and inter-species transmission potential of rotaviruses in Ethiopia.
Topics: Animals; Child, Preschool; Ethiopia; Gastroenteritis; Genetic Variation; Genotype; Humans; Infant; Prevalence; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines
PubMed: 31947826
DOI: 10.3390/v12010062 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.
SEARCH METHODS
On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac. RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence). RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up. Children vaccinated and followed up for two years Rotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events. 21 October 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All published trials found in the last search (4 Apr, 2018) were included and 15 ongoing studies are currently awaiting completion (see 'Characteristics of ongoing studies').
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Diarrhea, Infantile; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated; Young Adult
PubMed: 31684685
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008521.pub5