Potential of plasmid only based reverse genetics of rotavirus for the development of next-generation vaccines.

Plasmid only based reverse genetics (RG) systems for species A rotaviruses (RVA) are available since 2017 and are beginning to be explored in structure-function and viral replication studies as well as for testing of antivirals. The rescue of human rotavirus genomes into viable particles, the expression of heterologous genes from fusion constructs with rotavirus genes, and the possibility to obtain safely attenuated recombinant rotaviruses are of great promise for the production of next-generation rotavirus vaccine candidates. In the context attention is drawn to issues, which arose during the development of reverse genetics-created recombinant influenza virus vaccine candidates.

Introduction of rotavirus vaccination in Palestine: An evaluation of the costs, impact, and cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX and ROTAVAC.

INTRODUCTION: The Palestinian Ministry of Health (MOH) started a routine rotavirus immunization program with ROTARIX in May 2016, with support for vaccine procurement and introduction provided through a global development organization. In 2018, financial responsibility for rotavirus vaccine procurement was transferred to the Palestinian government, which elected to shift to ROTAVAC vaccine because of its lower price per dose. This study aims to assess the cost, impact, and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination, specifically evaluating the economic implications of the change in vaccine product, accounting for the different characteristics of each rotavirus vaccine used. METHODS: We conducted primary and secondary data collection to assess the introduction, procurement, supply chain, and service delivery costs related to each vaccine. We used the UNIVAC model to project costs and benefits of rotavirus vaccination over a 10-year period comparing the use of ROTARIX versus no vaccination; ROTAVAC versus no vaccination; and ROTAVAC versus ROTARIX. We undertook scenario and probabilistic analyses to capture uncertainty in some of the study parameters. We used a 3% discount rate, and all costs are in 2018 US$. RESULTS: The cost to deliver one dose was lower for ROTAVAC than ROTARIX (US$2.36 versus $2.70), but the total cost per course, excluding vaccine cost, favored ROTARIX ($7.09 versus $5.39). Both vaccines had high probability of being cost-effective interventions in Palestine compared to no vaccine. Because of lower vaccination program costs for ROTAVAC, however, switching from ROTARIX to ROTAVAC was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: National decision-makers should consider systematically assessing multiple criteria beyond vaccine price when comparing the health and economic value of several products in order to fully account for all characteristics including product presentation, number of doses per course, cold chain volume, cost of delivery, and wastage.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac.RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence).RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence).Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up.Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsRotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events.

[Genotype of Rotavirus Vaccine Strain LLR in China is G10P[15]].

Rotavirus is the leading causal agent of severe acute gastroenteritis in children aged <5 years. A specific pharmacologic agent for the treatment of rotavirus-infected children is lacking. In China, only the Luo Tewei oral vaccine (Lanzhou Institute of Biological Products, Shanghai, China), which is produced from Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR), is available. Studies have hypothesized that the genotype of LLR is G10P[12], To identify the genotype of LLR by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, we showed that the VP7 and VP4 genotypes of LLR were G10 and P[15], respectively, based on sequencing, alignment and phylogenetic analyses. In conclusion, we identified the genotype of rotavirus strain LLR to be G10P[15].

[The influence of rotavirus vaccinations on the risk of gastrointestinal infections in children. Methods and preliminary results]. / Wplyw szczepien przeciwko rotawirusom na wystepowanie infekcji jelitowych u dzieci--metodyka oraz wyniki badania pilotazowego.

UNLABELLED: The gastrointestinal infection in infants are the significant health and epidemiological issue. The voluntary rotavirus vaccines was included to Polish vaccination schedule in 2007. AIM OF THE STUDY: Aim of the study was the assessment of rotaviruses vaccines effectiveness in prevention of rotavirus gastrointestinal infections requiring hospitalization and the influence or these vaccinations on the risk of gastrointestinal outpatient infections. The additional aim of the study was determine the incidence of adverse events following immunization caused by rotavirus vaccinations and comparison of both vaccines--Rotarix and RotaTeq with respect to the mentioned objectives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cohort study was designed to achieve the aims of study. The study cohort included infants from Malopolska Voivodeship vaccinated with rotavirus vaccine in 2007-2008 and eligible matched unvaccinated children. The preliminary study was conducted in 2011. RESULTS: The cohort study included 74 vaccinated and 74 unvaccinated infants. The preliminary analysis revealed that infants vaccinated against rotavirus had 40% lower risk to be affected by gastrointestinal infections in comparison to unvaccinated children. Nevertheless the results were not statistically significant owing to the scarce number of infants in pilot study group (95% CI: 0,27-1,30). CONCLUSION: The preliminary results indicates, that the rotavirus vaccines have the positive influence on the decrease risk of gastrointestinal infections in children up to 2 years of years but the evidence is not sufficient yet, to be conclusive. The ongoing survey is given the possibility to gain the bigger cohort under study and to attain the presumed objectives.

Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis.

Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge. We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus. Both children remain healthy 11 months after this event and are without underlying medical conditions.

Rotavirus vaccination and intussusception: can we decrease temporally associated background cases of intussusception by restricting the vaccination schedule?

OBJECTIVE: The first rotavirus vaccine that was licensed in the United States, RotaShield, could have prevented the enormous burden of rotavirus diarrhea in American children but left instead the unfortunate legacy that live oral rotavirus vaccines may be associated with a serious but rare adverse event: intussusception. Although large trials indicate that the next generation of rotavirus vaccines is not associated with this complication, many children likely will develop intussusception by chance alone in the 2-week window after immunization, raising concerns about whether these cases might be "caused" by the vaccine. Our objective for this study was to model and compare the number of temporally associated intussusception events that are expected by chance alone under 2 rotavirus vaccination strategies. METHODS: We used national vaccine coverage rates and age-specific incidence of intussusception by months to model the number of temporally associated cases of intussusception that are expected by chance alone for 2 potential vaccination strategies: a strict schedule, limiting immunization to children within 1 month of the designated age for each dose (ie, 60-89, 120-149, and 180-209 days for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively) versus a free schedule whereby infants are immunized whenever they appear for their routine vaccines up to 1 year of age. RESULTS: The number of intussusception events during the 2-week postvaccination window was 24% lower for the strict versus the free schedule (138 vs 182, respectively). This reduction was attributable largely to the smaller number of infants who were immunized fully under the strict schedule (vaccine coverage for 3 doses, 67% vs 89%). The cumulative risk for intussusception's occurring by chance in the 2-week postvaccination window essentially was the same between schedules (4.59 vs 4.76 per 100000 doses). Most cases occurred after the second or third dose. CONCLUSIONS: Although an age-restricted vaccination schedule substantially reduced the number of intussusception events that were observed in the 2-week postvaccination window when compared with a schedule with fewer restrictions, this decrease was attributable to a lower rate of vaccine coverage rather than a safer schedule of vaccination. The risk for intussusception did not differ significantly between vaccination strategies. Public health policy and education messages for physicians and parents should be developed to anticipate intussusception events that will occur by chance alone but are temporally related to rotavirus vaccination.

Rotavirus vaccines: current prospects and future challenges.

Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhoea in children worldwide and diarrhoeal deaths in children in developing countries. Accelerated development and introduction of rotavirus vaccines into global immunisation programmes has been a high priority for many international agencies, including WHO and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. Vaccines have been developed that could prevent the enormous morbidity and mortality from rotavirus and their effect should be measurable within 2-3 years. Two live oral rotavirus vaccines have been licensed in many countries; one is derived from an attenuated human strain of rotavirus and the other combines five bovine-human reassortant strains. Each vaccine has proven highly effective in preventing severe rotavirus diarrhoea in children and safe from the possible complication of intussusception. In developed countries, these vaccines could substantially reduce the number and associated costs of child hospitalisations and clinical visits for acute diarrhoea. In developing countries, they could reduce deaths from diarrhoea and improve child survival through programmes for childhood immunisations and diarrhoeal disease control. Although many scientific, programmatic, and financial challenges face the global use of rotavirus vaccines, these vaccines-and new candidates in the pipeline-hold promise to make an immediate and measurable effect to improve child health and survival from this common burden affecting all children.