Association Between Maternal Breastmilk Microbiota Composition and Rotavirus Vaccine Response in African, Asian, and European Infants: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Maternal breastmilk is a source of pre- and pro-biotics that impact neonatal gut microbiota colonization. Because oral rotavirus vaccines (ORVs) are administered at a time when infants are often breastfed, breastmilk microbiota composition may have a direct or indirect influence on vaccine take and immunogenicity. METHODS: Using standardized methods across sites, we compared breastmilk microbiota composition in relation to geographic location and ORV response in cohorts prospectively followed from birth to 18 weeks of age in India (n = 307), Malawi (n = 119), and the United Kingdom ([UK] n = 60). RESULTS: Breastmilk microbiota diversity was higher in India and Malawi than the UK across 3 longitudinal samples spanning weeks of life 1 to 13. Dominant taxa such as Streptococcus and Staphylococcus were consistent across cohorts; however, significant geographic differences were observed in the prevalence and abundance of common and rare genera throughout follow up. No consistent associations were identified between breastmilk microbiota composition and ORV outcomes including seroconversion, vaccine shedding after dose 1, and postvaccination rotavirus-specific immunoglobulin A level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that breastmilk microbiota composition may not be a key factor in shaping trends in ORV response within or between countries.

Predicting Norovirus in England Using Existing and Emerging Syndromic Data: Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Norovirus is associated with approximately 18% of the global burden of gastroenteritis and affects all age groups. There is currently no licensed vaccine or available antiviral treatment. However, well-designed early warning systems and forecasting can guide nonpharmaceutical approaches to norovirus infection prevention and control. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the predictive power of existing syndromic surveillance data and emerging data sources, such as internet searches and Wikipedia page views, to predict norovirus activity across a range of age groups across England. METHODS: We used existing syndromic surveillance and emerging syndromic data to predict laboratory data indicating norovirus activity. Two methods are used to evaluate the predictive potential of syndromic variables. First, the Granger causality framework was used to assess whether individual variables precede changes in norovirus laboratory reports in a given region or an age group. Then, we used random forest modeling to estimate the importance of each variable in the context of others with two methods: (1) change in the mean square error and (2) node purity. Finally, these results were combined into a visualization indicating the most influential predictors for norovirus laboratory reports in a specific age group and region. RESULTS: Our results suggest that syndromic surveillance data include valuable predictors for norovirus laboratory reports in England. However, Wikipedia page views are less likely to provide prediction improvements on top of Google Trends and Existing Syndromic Data. Predictors displayed varying relevance across age groups and regions. For example, the random forest modeling based on selected existing and emerging syndromic variables explained 60% variance in the ≥65 years age group, 42% in the East of England, but only 13% in the South West region. Emerging data sets highlighted relative search volumes, including "flu symptoms," "norovirus in pregnancy," and norovirus activity in specific years, such as "norovirus 2016." Symptoms of vomiting and gastroenteritis in multiple age groups were identified as important predictors within existing data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Existing and emerging data sources can help predict norovirus activity in England in some age groups and geographic regions, particularly, predictors concerning vomiting, gastroenteritis, and norovirus in the vulnerable populations and historical terms such as stomach flu. However, syndromic predictors were less relevant in some age groups and regions likely due to contrasting public health practices between regions and health information-seeking behavior between age groups. Additionally, predictors relevant to one norovirus season may not contribute to other seasons. Data biases, such as low spatial granularity in Google Trends and especially in Wikipedia data, also play a role in the results. Moreover, internet searches can provide insight into mental models, that is, an individual's conceptual understanding of norovirus infection and transmission, which could be used in public health communication strategies.

Immunogenicity of a Third Scheduled Dose of Rotarix in Australian Indigenous Infants: A Phase IV, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline) oral rotavirus vaccine is licensed as 2 doses in the first 6 months of life. In settings with high child mortality rates, clinical protection conferred by 2 doses of Rotarix is reduced. We assessed vaccine immune response when an additional dose of Rotarix was given to Australian Aboriginal children 6 to <12 months old. METHODS: ORVAC is a 2-stage, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Australian Aboriginal children 6 to <12 months old who had received 1 or 2 prior doses of Rotarix rotavirus vaccine were randomized 1:1 to receive an additional dose of Rotarix or matched placebo. The primary immunological end point was seroresponse defined as an anti-rotavirus immunoglobulin A level ≥20 AU/mL, 28-56 days after the additional dose of Rotarix or placebo. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and August 2020, a total of 253 infants were enrolled. Of these, 178 infants (70%) had analyzable serological results after follow-up; 89 were randomized to receive Rotarix, and 89 to receive placebo. The proportion with seroresponse was 85% after Rotarix compared with 72% after placebo. There were no occurrences of intussusception or any serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An additional dose of Rotarix administered to Australian Aboriginal infants 6 to <12 months old increased the proportion with a vaccine seroresponse. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02941107.

Rotavirus Genotypes in Hospitalized Children With Acute Gastroenteritis Before and After Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction in Blantyre, Malawi, 1997-2019.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix [RV1]) has reduced diarrhea-associated hospitalizations and deaths in Malawi. We examined the trends in circulating rotavirus genotypes in Malawi over a 22-year period to assess the impact of RV1 introduction on strain distribution. METHODS: Data on rotavirus-positive stool specimens among children aged <5 years hospitalized with diarrhea in Blantyre, Malawi before (July 1997-October 2012, n = 1765) and after (November 2012-October 2019, n = 934) RV1 introduction were analyzed. Rotavirus G and P genotypes were assigned using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: A rich rotavirus strain diversity circulated throughout the 22-year period; Shannon (H') and Simpson diversity (D') indices did not differ between the pre- and postvaccine periods (H' P < .149; D' P < .287). Overall, G1 (n = 268/924 [28.7%]), G2 (n = 308/924 [33.0%]), G3 (n = 72/924 [7.7%]), and G12 (n = 109/924 [11.8%]) were the most prevalent genotypes identified following RV1 introduction. The prevalence of G1P[8] and G2P[4] genotypes declined each successive year following RV1 introduction, and were not detected after 2018. Genotype G3 reemerged and became the predominant genotype from 2017 onward. No evidence of genotype selection was observed 7 years post-RV1 introduction. CONCLUSIONS: Rotavirus strain diversity and genotype variation in Malawi are likely driven by natural mechanisms rather than vaccine pressure.

Plasma Rotavirus-specific IgA and Risk of Rotavirus Vaccine Failure in Infants in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine efficacy is reduced in low-income populations, but efforts to improve vaccine performance are limited by lack of clear correlates of protection. Although plasma rotavirus (RV)-specific immunoglobulin A (IgA) appears strongly associated with protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis in high-income countries, weaker association has been observed in low-income countries. We tested the hypothesis that lower RV-specific IgA is associated with rotavirus vaccine failure in Malawian infants. METHODS: In a case-control study, we recruited infants presenting with severe rotavirus gastroenteritis following monovalent oral rotavirus vaccination (RV1 vaccine failures). Conditional logistic regression was used to determine the odds of rotavirus seronegativity (RV-specific IgA < 20 U/mL) in these cases compared 1:1 with age-matched, vaccinated, asymptomatic community controls. Plasma RV-specific IgA was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for all participants at recruitment, and for cases at 10 days after symptom onset. Rotavirus infection and genotype were determined by antigen testing and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, respectively. RESULTS: In 116 age-matched pairs, infants with RV1 vaccine failure were more likely to be RV-specific IgA seronegative than controls: odds ratio, 3.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-5.9), P=.001. In 60 infants with convalescent serology, 42/45 (93%; 95% CI. 81-98) infants seronegative at baseline became seropositive. Median rise in RV-specific IgA concentration following acute infection was 112.8 (interquartile range, 19.1-380.6)-fold. CONCLUSIONS: In this vaccinated population with high residual burden of rotavirus disease, RV1 vaccine failure was associated with lower RV-specific IgA, providing further evidence of RV-specific IgA as a marker of protection. Robust convalescent RV-specific IgA response in vaccine failures suggests differences in wild-type and vaccine-induced immunity, which informs future vaccine development.

Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK approximately a quarter of the population experience infectious intestinal disease (IID) each year. However, only 2% present to primary care, preventing a true determination of community burden and pathogen aetiology. The aim of this pilot study was to gauge public acceptability of a technology-mediated platform for reporting episodes of IID and for providing stool samples. METHODS: This study employed a cross-sectional online survey design, targeting individuals 16 + years old within Liverpool City Region, UK. Information sought included demographics, comfortability of reporting illness and IID symptoms, willingness to provide stool, and favoured stool-provision method. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between demographic variables and providing a stool sample. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced. RESULTS: A total of 174 eligible participants completed the survey, with 69% female. The sample was skewed towards younger populations, with 2.9% aged 65 + years. Nearly a third (29%) had a household income of less than £30,000 per annum and 70% had attained a degree or higher. The majority identified as White British (81%) and 11% identified as ethnicities typically grouped Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Three quarters of participants were either 'Comfortable' or 'Very Comfortable' with reporting illness (75%) and with answering symptom-related questions (79%); 78% reported that they would provide a stool sample. Upon univariable analysis, increasing age - being 55 + (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.15-117.48), and lower income (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6.60), was associated with willingness to provide a stool sample. Additionally, respondents identifying as BAME ethnicities and men may be less inclined to provide a stool sample. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study assessed the acceptability of technology-mediated platforms for reporting IID and provision of stool samples in the community. Respondents were biased towards younger, technologically inclined, more affluent and educated populations. Acceptability for reporting illness and providing a stool sample through technology-mediated platforms was high. While older populations were under-represented, they were more likely to agree to provide a stool sample. Qualitative research is required to better reach older and more deprived populations, and to understand potential age, gender and ethnic differences in compliance with stool sampling.

Detection of Serum Cross-Reactive Antibodies and Memory Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Prepandemic and Post-COVID-19 Convalescent Samples.

BACKGROUND: A notable feature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is that children are less susceptible to severe disease. Children are known to experience more infections with endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) compared to adults. Little is known whether HCoV infections lead to cross-reactive anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. METHODS: We investigated the presence of cross-reactive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies to spike 1 (S1), S1-receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD), and nucleocapsid protein (NP) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and neutralizing activity by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus neutralization assay, in prepandemic sera collected from children (n = 50) and adults (n = 45), and compared with serum samples from convalescent COVID-19 patients (n = 16). RESULTS: A significant proportion of children (up to 40%) had detectable cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S1, S1-RBD, and NP antigens, and the anti-S1 and anti-S1-RBD antibody levels correlated with anti-HCoV-HKU1 and anti-HCoV-OC43 S1 antibody titers in prepandemic samples (P < .001). There were marked increases of anti-HCoV-HKU1 and - OC43 S1 (but not anti-NL63 and -229E S1-RBD) antibody titers in serum samples from convalescent COVID-19 patients (P < .001), indicating an activation of cross-reactive immunological memory to ß-coronavirus spike. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated cross-reactive anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in prepandemic serum samples from children and young adults. Promoting this cross-reactive immunity and memory response derived from common HCoV may be an effective strategy against SARS-COV-2 and future novel coronaviruses.

Evaluation of Intussusception after Monovalent Rotavirus Vaccination in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Postlicensure evaluations have identified an association between rotavirus vaccination and intussusception in several high- and middle-income countries. We assessed the association between monovalent human rotavirus vaccine and intussusception in lower-income sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: Using active surveillance, we enrolled patients from seven countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) who had intussusception that met international (Brighton Collaboration level 1) criteria. Rotavirus vaccination status was confirmed by review of the vaccine card or clinic records. The risk of intussusception within 1 to 7 days and 8 to 21 days after vaccination among infants 28 to 245 days of age was assessed by means of the self-controlled case-series method. RESULTS: Data on 717 infants who had intussusception and confirmed vaccination status were analyzed. One case occurred in the 1 to 7 days after dose 1, and 6 cases occurred in the 8 to 21 days after dose 1. Five cases and 16 cases occurred in the 1 to 7 days and 8 to 21 days, respectively, after dose 2. The risk of intussusception in the 1 to 7 days after dose 1 was not higher than the background risk of intussusception (relative incidence [i.e., the incidence during the risk window vs. all other times], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], <0.001 to 1.16); findings were similar for the 1 to 7 days after dose 2 (relative incidence, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.87). In addition, the risk of intussusception in the 8 to 21 days or 1 to 21 days after either dose was not found to be higher than the background risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of intussusception after administration of monovalent human rotavirus vaccine was not higher than the background risk of intussusception in seven lower-income sub-Saharan African countries. (Funded by the GAVI Alliance through the CDC Foundation.).

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding in the community: a prospective household cohort study (COVID-LIV) in the UK.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. RESULTS: A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4-43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea-related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea-related deaths worldwide. Rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), RotaTeq (Merck), and, more recently, Rotasiil (Serum Institute of India Ltd.), and Rotavac (Bharat Biotech Ltd.). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS: On 30 November 2020, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies, and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children that compared rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO with either placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analyses by under-five country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 228,233 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed Rotarix, 15 trials RotaTeq (88,934 participants), five trials Rotasiil (11,753 participants), and four trials Rotavac (8432 participants). Rotarix Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 93% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (14,976 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 52% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (3874 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (31,671 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 36% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (26,479 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 58% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (15,882 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 90% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (18,145 participants, 6 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 51% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (6269 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).   In medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (28,834 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 26% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (23,317 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (13,768 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (2764 participants, 1 trial; high-certainty evidence). RotaTeq Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 97% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6775 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 96% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  In medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).  In high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6744 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).  We did not identify RotaTeq studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low- or medium-mortality countries. Rotasiil Rotasiil has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality. Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 48% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Rotavac Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.  Infants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence); no Rotavac studies have reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea at two-years follow-up. Safety No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) was detected with Rotarix (103,714 participants, 31 trials; high-certainty evidence), RotaTeq (82,502 participants, 14 trials; moderate to high-certainty evidence), Rotasiil (11,646 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), or Rotavac (8210 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Deaths were infrequent and the analysis had insufficient evidence to show an effect on all-cause mortality. Intussusception was rare.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, but more episodes are prevented in high-mortality settings as the baseline risk is higher. In high-mortality countries some results suggest lower efficacy in the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events, including intussusception, from any of the prequalified rotavirus vaccines.

Duration and Density of Fecal Rotavirus Shedding in Vaccinated Malawian Children With Rotavirus Gastroenteritis.

Quantifying rotavirus shedding among vaccinated individuals will aid understanding of vaccine indirect effects. Serial stool samples were collected from 196 children who presented with rotavirus gastroenteritis to health facilities in Blantyre, Malawi, and were tested for rotavirus using a VP6 semi-quantitative, real-time polymerase chain reaction. The median duration of fecal shedding was 28 days (95% CI, 19-28). The median copy numbers for peak shedding were 1.99 × 107 (interquartile range, 3.39 × 106 to 6.37 × 107). The fecal viral load was positively associated with disease severity and negatively associated with serum anti-rotavirus immunoglobin A. High and persistent rotavirus shedding among vaccinated children with breakthrough disease may contribute to ongoing transmission in this setting.

Heterogeneous susceptibility to rotavirus infection and gastroenteritis in two birth cohort studies: Parameter estimation and epidemiological implications.

Cohort studies, randomized trials, and post-licensure studies have reported reduced natural and vaccine-derived protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in low- and middle-income countries. While susceptibility of children to rotavirus is known to vary within and between settings, implications for estimation of immune protection are not well understood. We sought to re-estimate naturally-acquired protection against rotavirus infection and RVGE, and to understand how differences in susceptibility among children impacted estimates. We re-analyzed data from studies conducted in Mexico City, Mexico and Vellore, India. Cumulatively, 573 rotavirus-unvaccinated children experienced 1418 rotavirus infections and 371 episodes of RVGE over 17,636 child-months. We developed a model that characterized susceptibility to rotavirus infection and RVGE among children, accounting for aspects of the natural history of rotavirus and differences in transmission rates between settings. We tested whether model-generated susceptibility measurements were associated with demographic and anthropometric factors, and with the severity of RVGE symptoms. We identified greater variation in susceptibility to rotavirus infection and RVGE in Vellore than in Mexico City. In both cohorts, susceptibility to rotavirus infection and RVGE were associated with male sex, lower birth weight, lower maternal education, and having fewer siblings; within Vellore, susceptibility was also associated with lower socioeconomic status. Children who were more susceptible to rotavirus also experienced higher rates of rotavirus-negative diarrhea, and higher risk of moderate-to-severe symptoms when experiencing RVGE. Simulations suggested that discrepant estimates of naturally-acquired immunity against RVGE can be attributed, in part, to between-setting differences in susceptibility of children, but result primarily from the interaction of transmission rates with age-dependent risk for infections to cause RVGE. We found that more children in Vellore than in Mexico City belong to a high-risk group for rotavirus infection and RVGE, and demonstrate that unmeasured individual- and age-dependent susceptibility may influence estimates of naturally-acquired immune protection against RVGE.

Infrequent Transmission of Monovalent Human Rotavirus Vaccine Virus to Household Contacts of Vaccinated Infants in Malawi.

Horizontal transmission of rotavirus vaccine virus may contribute to indirect effects of rotavirus vaccine, but data are lacking from low-income countries. Serial stool samples were obtained from Malawian infants who received 2 doses of monovalent human rotavirus vaccine (RV1) (days 4, 6, 8, and 10 after vaccination) and from their household contacts (8-10 days after vaccine). RV1 vaccine virus in stool was detected using semiquantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. RV1 fecal shedding was detected in 41 of 60 vaccinated infants (68%) and in 2 of 147 household contacts (1.4%). Horizontal transmission of vaccine virus within households is unlikely to make a major contribution to RV1 indirect effects in Malawi.

Etiology of Diarrhea Among Hospitalized Children in Blantyre, Malawi, Following Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction: A Case-Control Study.

Despite rotavirus vaccination, diarrhea remains a leading cause of child mortality. We collected stool specimens from 684 children <5 years of age hospitalized with diarrhea (cases) and 527 asymptomatic community controls for 4 years after rotavirus vaccine introduction in Malawi. Specimens were tested for 29 pathogens, using polymerase chain reaction analysis. Three or more pathogens were detected in 71% of cases and 48% of controls. Pathogens significantly associated with diarrhea included rotavirus (in 34.7% of cases and 1.5% of controls), enteric adenovirus (in 29.1% and 2.7%, respectively), Cryptosporidium (in 27.8% and 8.2%, respectively), heat-stable enterotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (in 21.2% and 8.5%, respectively), typical enteropathogenic E. coli (in 18.0% and 8.3%, respectively), and Shigella/enteroinvasive E. coli (in 15.8% and 5.7%, respectively). Additional interventions are required to prevent diarrhea due to rotavirus and other common causal pathogens.

Nonsecretor Histo-blood Group Antigen Phenotype Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Clinical Rotavirus Vaccine Failure in Malawian Infants.

BACKGROUND: Histo-blood group antigen (HBGA) Lewis/secretor phenotypes predict genotype-specific susceptibility to rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE). We tested the hypothesis that nonsecretor/Lewis-negative phenotype leads to reduced vaccine take and lower clinical protection following vaccination with G1P[8] rotavirus vaccine (RV1) in Malawian infants. METHODS: A cohort study recruited infants receiving RV1 at age 6 and 10 weeks. HBGA phenotype was determined by salivary enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RV1 vaccine virus shedding was detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in stool collected on alternate days for 10 days post-immunization. Plasma rotavirus-specific immunoglobulin A was determined by ELISA pre- and post-immunization. In a case-control study, HBGA phenotype distribution was compared between RV1-vaccinated infants with RVGE and 1:1 age-matched community controls. Rotavirus genotype was determined by RT-PCR. RESULTS: In 202 cohort participants, neither overall vaccine virus fecal shedding nor seroconversion differed by HBGA phenotype. In 238 case-control infants, nonsecretor phenotype was less common in infants with clinical vaccine failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.75). Nonsecretor phenotype was less common in infants with P[8] RVGE (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.50) and P[4] RVGE (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.75). Lewis-negative phenotype was more common in infants with P[6] RVGE (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.2). CONCLUSIONS: Nonsecretor phenotype was associated with reduced risk of rotavirus vaccine failure. There was no significant association between HBGA phenotype and vaccine take. These data refute the hypothesis that high prevalence of nonsecretor/Lewis-negative phenotypes contributes to lower rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in Malawi.

Vaccine Effectiveness against DS-1-Like Rotavirus Strains in Infants with Acute Gastroenteritis, Malawi, 2013-2015.

Atypical DS-1-like G1P[8] rotaviruses emerged in 2013 in Malawi after rotavirus vaccine introduction. Vaccine effectiveness among infants hospitalized with acute DS-1-like G1P[8] rotavirus gastroenteritis was 85.6% (95% CI 34.4%-96.8%). These findings suggest that vaccine provides protection against these strains despite their emergence coinciding with vaccine introduction.

Emergence of Double- and Triple-Gene Reassortant G1P[8] Rotaviruses Possessing a DS-1-Like Backbone after Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction in Malawi.

To combat the high burden of rotavirus gastroenteritis, multiple African countries have introduced rotavirus vaccines into their childhood immunization programs. Malawi incorporated a G1P[8] rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix) into its immunization schedule in 2012. Utilizing a surveillance platform of hospitalized rotavirus gastroenteritis cases, we examined the phylodynamics of G1P[8] rotavirus strains that circulated in Malawi before (1998 to 2012) and after (2013 to 2014) vaccine introduction. Analysis of whole genomes obtained through next-generation sequencing revealed that all randomly selected prevaccine G1P[8] strains sequenced (n = 32) possessed a Wa-like genetic constellation, whereas postvaccine G1P[8] strains (n = 18) had a DS-1-like constellation. Phylodynamic analyses indicated that postvaccine G1P[8] strains emerged through reassortment events between human Wa- and DS-1-like rotaviruses that circulated in Malawi from the 1990s and hence were classified as atypical DS-1-like reassortants. The time to the most recent common ancestor for G1P[8] strains was from 1981 to 1994; their evolutionary rates ranged from 9.7 × 10-4 to 4.1 × 10-3 nucleotide substitutions/site/year. Three distinct G1P[8] lineages chronologically replaced each other between 1998 and 2014. Genetic drift was the likely driver for lineage turnover in 2005, whereas replacement in 2013 was due to reassortment. Amino acid substitution within the outer glycoprotein VP7 of G1P[8] strains had no impact on the structural conformation of the antigenic regions, suggesting that it is unlikely that they would affect recognition by vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. While the emergence of DS-1-like G1P[8] rotavirus reassortants in Malawi was therefore likely due to natural genotype variation, vaccine effectiveness against such strains needs careful evaluation.IMPORTANCE The error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and the segmented RNA genome predispose rotaviruses to genetic mutation and genome reassortment, respectively. These evolutionary mechanisms generate novel strains and have the potential to lead to the emergence of vaccine escape mutants. While multiple African countries have introduced a rotavirus vaccine, there are few data describing the evolution of rotaviruses that circulated before and after vaccine introduction. We report the emergence of atypical DS-1-like G1P[8] strains during the postvaccine era in Malawi. Three distinct G1P[8] lineages circulated chronologically from 1998 to 2014; mutation and reassortment drove lineage turnover in 2005 and 2013, respectively. Amino acid substitutions within the outer capsid VP7 glycoprotein did not affect the structural conformation of mapped antigenic sites, suggesting a limited effect on the recognition of G1-specific vaccine-derived antibodies. The genes that constitute the remaining genetic backbone may play important roles in immune evasion, and vaccine effectiveness against such atypical strains needs careful evaluation.

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 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').

CONTEXTE: Le rotavirus entraîne plus de décès liés à la diarrhée chez les enfants de moins de cinq ans que tout autre agent unique dans les pays où la mortalité infantile est élevée. C'est également une cause fréquente d'hospitalisations liées à la diarrhée dans les pays où la mortalité infantile est faible. Les vaccins antirotavirus préqualifiés par l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) comprennent un vaccin monovalent (RV1 ; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), un vaccin pentavalent (RV5 ; RotaTeq, Merck) et plus récemment un autre vaccin monovalent (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech). OBJECTIFS: Évaluer les vaccins antirotavirus préqualifiés par l'OMS (RV1, RV5 et Rotavac) pour leur efficacité et leur innocuité chez les enfants. STRATÉGIE DE RECHERCHE DOCUMENTAIRE: Le 4 avril 2018, nous avons effectué une recherche dans MEDLINE (via PubMed), le registre spécialisé du groupe de travail Cochrane sur les maladies infectieuses (the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group), CENTRAL (publié dans la Bibliothèque Cochrane), Embase, LILACS, et BIOSIS. Nous avons également effectué des recherches dans le système d'enregistrement international des essais cliniques (ICTRP) de l'OMS, ClinicalTrials.gov, les rapports d'essais cliniques trouvés sur les sites Web des fabricants, les références des études incluses et les revues systématiques pertinentes. CRITÈRES DE SÉLECTION: Nous avons sélectionné des essais cliniques contrôlés randomisés (ECR) chez des enfants comparant des vaccins antirotavirus préqualifiés pour utilisation par l'OMS à un placebo ou à aucune intervention. RECUEIL ET ANALYSE DES DONNÉES: Deux auteurs de la revue ont évalué de façon indépendante l'éligibilité à l'essai et évalué les risques de biais. Un auteur de la revue a extrait les données et un deuxième auteur les a vérifiées par recoupement. Nous avons combiné des données dichotomiques en utilisant le risque relatif (RR) et l'intervalle de confiance à 95 % (IC). Nous avons stratifié l'analyse par taux de mortalité par pays et utilisé GRADE pour évaluer la valeur probante des données. RÉSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Cinquante­cinq essais ont satisfait aux critères d'inclusion et enrôlé 216 480 participants au total. Trente­six essais cliniques (119 114 participants) ont évalué le RV1, 15 essais cliniques (88 934 participants) le RV5 et quatre essais cliniques (8432 participants) le Rotavac. RV1 Enfants vaccinés et suivis au cours de leur première année de vie Dans les pays à faible mortalité, le RV1 prévient 84 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,16, IC à 95 % : 0,09 à 0,26 ; 43 779 participants, 7 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante) et probablement 41 % des cas de diarrhée sévère toutes causes confondues (RR 0,59, IC à 95 % : 0,47 à 0,74 ; 28 051 participants, 3 essais ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Dans les pays à forte mortalité, le RV1 prévient 63 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,37, IC à 95 % : 0,23 à 0,60 ; 6114 participants, 3 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante) et 27 % des cas graves de diarrhée toutes causes confondues (RR 0,73, IC à 95 % : 0,56 à 0,95 ; 5639 participants, 2 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante). Enfants vaccinés et suivis pendant deux ans Dans les pays à faible mortalité, le RV1 prévient 82 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,18, IC à 95 % : 0,14 à 0,23 ; 36 002 participants, 9 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante) et probablement 37 % des épisodes graves de diarrhée toutes causes confondues (rapport des taux 0,63, IC à 95 % : 0,56 à 0,71 ; 39 091 participants, 2 essais ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Dans les pays à forte mortalité, le RV1 prévient probablement 35 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,65, IC à 95 % : 0,51 à 0,83 ; 13 768 participants, 2 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante) et 17 % des cas graves de diarrhée toutes causes confondues (RR 0,83, IC à 95 % : 0,72 à 0,96 ; 2764 participants, 1 essai ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Aucune augmentation du risque d'événements indésirables graves (EIG) n'a été décelée (RR 0,88 IC à 95 % 0,83 à 0,93 ; données de bonne valeur probante). On a signalé 30 cas d'invagination (intussusception) intestinale chez 53 032 enfants après la vaccination RV1 et 28 cas chez 44 214 enfants après l'administration d'un placebo ou l'absence d'intervention (RR 0,70, IC à 95 % : 0,46 à 1,05 ; données de faible valeur probante). RV5 Enfants vaccinés et suivis au cours de leur première année de vie Dans les pays à faible mortalité, le RV5 prévient probablement 92 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,08, IC à 95 % : 0,03 à 0,22 ; 4 132 participants, 5 essais ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Nous n'avons pas identifié d'études sur les diarrhées graves toutes causes confondues dans les pays à faible mortalité. Dans les pays à forte mortalité, le RV5 prévient 57 % des cas de diarrhée à rotavirus grave (RR 0,43, IC à 95 % : 0,29 à 0,62 ; 5916 participants, 2 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante), mais il n'y a probablement que peu voire pas de différence entre vaccin et placebo pour la diarrhée grave toutes causes confondues (RR 0,80, IC à 95 % : 0,58 à 1,11 ; 1 essai, 4085 participants ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Enfants vaccinés et suivis pendant deux ans Dans les pays à faible mortalité, le RV5 prévient 82 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,18, IC à 95 % : 0,08 à 0,39 ; 7318 participants, 4 essais ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Nous n'avons pas identifié d'études sur les diarrhées graves toutes causes confondues dans les pays à faible mortalité. Dans les pays à forte mortalité, le RV5 prévient 41 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,59, IC à 95 % : 0,43 à 0,82 ; 5 885 participants, 2 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante) et 15 % des cas graves de diarrhée toutes causes confondues (RR 0,85, IC à 95 % : 0,75 à 0,98 ; 5977 participants, 2 essais ; données de bonne valeur probante). Aucune augmentation du risque d'évènements indésirables graves (EIG) n'a été décelée (RR 0,93 IC à 95 % 0,86 à 1,01 ; données de valeur probante moyenne à bonne). Il y a eu 16 cas d'invagination chez 43 629 enfants après la vaccination RV5 et 20 cas chez 41 866 enfants après le placebo (RR 0,77, IC à 95 % : 0,41 à 1,45 ; données de faible valeur probante). Rotavac Enfants vaccinés et suivis au cours de leur première année de vie Le Rotavac n'a fait l'objet d'aucun ECR dans les pays à faible mortalité infantile. En Inde, pays à forte mortalité, le Rotavac prévient probablement 57 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus (RR 0,43, IC à 95 % : 0,30 à 0,60 ; 6799 participants, données de valeur probante moyenne) ; l'essai n'a pas fait état de diarrhée grave toutes causes confondues à un an de suivi. Enfants vaccinés et suivis pendant deux ans Le Rotavac prévient probablement 54 % des cas graves de diarrhée à rotavirus en Inde (RR 0,46, IC à 95 % : 0,35 à 0,60 ; 6541 participants, 1 essai ; données de valeur probante moyenne) et 16 % des cas graves de diarrhée toutes causes confondues (RR 0,84, IC à 95 % : 0,71 à 0,98 ; 6799 participants, 1 essai ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Aucune augmentation du risque d'évènements indésirables graves (EIG) n'a été décelée (RR 0,93 95 % IC 0,85 à 1,02 ; données de valeur probante moyenne). Il y a eu huit cas d'invagination intestinale chez 5 764 enfants après la vaccination par Rotavac et trois cas chez 2 818 enfants après le placebo (RR 1,33, IC à 95 % : 0,35 à 5,02 ; données de très faible valeur probante). Il n'y avait pas suffisamment de données probante indiquant un effet sur la mortalité attribuable à un vaccin antirotavirus (198 381 participants, 44 essais ; données de valeur probante faible à très faible), car les essais n'étaient pas assez puissants pour détecter un effet à ce paramètre. CONCLUSIONS DES AUTEURS: Les vaccins RV1, RV5 et Rotavac préviennent les épisodes de diarrhée à rotavirus. Bien que l'estimation de l'effet relatif soit plus faible dans les pays à forte mortalité que dans les pays à faible mortalité, le nombre d'épisodes évités est plus élevé dans ces pays car le risque de base est beaucoup plus élevé. Nous n'avons trouvé aucun risque accru d'événements indésirables graves.

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.

Rotavirus vaccine impact and socioeconomic deprivation: an interrupted time-series analysis of gastrointestinal disease outcomes across primary and secondary care in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus causes severe gastroenteritis in infants and young children worldwide. The UK introduced the monovalent rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix®) in July 2013. Vaccination is free of charge to parents, with two doses delivered at 8 and 12 weeks of age. We evaluated vaccine impact across a health system in relation to socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: We used interrupted time-series analyses to assess changes in monthly health-care attendances in Merseyside, UK, for all ages, from July 2013 to June 2016, compared to predicted counterfactual attendances without vaccination spanning 3-11 years pre-vaccine. Outcome measures included laboratory-confirmed rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) hospitalisations, acute gastroenteritis (AGE) hospitalisations, emergency department (ED) attendances for gastrointestinal conditions and consultations for infectious gastroenteritis at community walk-in centres (WIC) and general practices (GP). All analyses were stratified by age. Hospitalisations were additionally stratified by vaccine uptake and small-area-level socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: The uptake of the first and second doses of rotavirus vaccine was 91.4% (29,108/31,836) and 86.7% (27,594/31,836), respectively. Among children aged < 5 years, the incidence of gastrointestinal disease decreased across all outcomes post-vaccine introduction: 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70-87%; p < 0.001) for RVGE hospitalisation, 44% (95% CI 35-53%; p < 0.001) for AGE hospitalisations, 23% (95% CI 11-33%; p < 0.001) for ED, 32% (95% CI 7-50%; p = 0.02) for WIC and 13% (95% CI -3-26%; p = 0.10) for GP. The impact was greatest during the rotavirus season and for vaccine-eligible age groups. In adults aged 65+ years, AGE hospitalisations fell by 25% (95% CI 19-30%; p < 0.001). The pre-vaccine risk of AGE hospitalisation was highest in the most socioeconomically deprived communities (adjusted incident rate ratio 1.57; 95% CI 1.51-1.64; p < 0.001), as was the risk for non-vaccination (adjusted risk ratio 1.54; 95% CI 1.34-1.75; p < 0.001). The rate of AGE hospitalisations averted per 1,000 first doses of vaccine was higher among infants in the most deprived communities compared to the least deprived in 2014/15 (28; 95% CI 25-31 vs. 15; 95% CI 12-17) and in 2015/16 (26; 95% CI 23-30 vs. 13; 95% CI 11-16). CONCLUSIONS: Following the introduction of rotavirus vaccination, incidence of gastrointestinal disease reduced across the health-care system. Vaccine impact was greatest among the most deprived populations, despite lower vaccine uptake. Prioritising vaccine uptake in socioeconomically deprived communities should give the greatest health benefit in terms of population disease burden.