Rotavirus vaccination: a concise review

University of Tampere, Vaccine Research Centre, Tampere, Finland.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection (Impact Factor: 5.2). 07/2012; 18 Suppl 5:57-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03981.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 (Suppl. 5): 57-63 ABSTRACT: Live attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines were tested for proof-of-concept in the early 1980s, the first vaccine (RotaShield(®) , Wyeth) was introduced in 1998 but was subsequently withdrawn because of association with intussusception, and the two currently licensed vaccine (Rotarix(®) , GlaxoSmithKline, and RotaTeq(®) , Merck) were introduced in 2006. Before licensure both vaccines were extensively tested for safety (for intussusception) and efficacy in trials comprising in over 60 000 infants each. Rotarix is a single-strain human rotavirus vaccine (RV1) and RotaTeq is a combination of five bovine-human reassortant rotaviruses (RV5). Although the composition of the two vaccines is different, their field effectiveness and, largely, mechanism of action are similar. Both prevent effectively severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) but are less efficacious against mild RVGE or rotavirus infection. Field effectiveness of these vaccines in Europe and the USA against severe RVGE has been above 90% and in Latin America around 80%. Trials in Africa have yielded efficacy rates between 50 and 80%. Rotavirus vaccination has been introduced into the national immunization programmes of about 20 countries in Latin America, with Brazil and Mexico as leading countries, as well as in the USA, Australia and South Africa. Introduction into other African countries will start in 2012. In Europe, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland and five federal states of Germany have introduced universal rotavirus vaccination. The reasons for the slow progress in Europe include low mortality from RVGE, unfavourable cost-benefit calculations in some countries, and concerns that still exist over intussusception.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cryptosporidium is an enteric parasite that is considered the second greatest cause of diarrhoea and death in children after rotavirus. Currently, 27 species are recognized as valid and of these, Cryptosporidium hominis and Cryptosporidium parvum are responsible for the majority of infections in humans. Molecular and biological studies indicate that Cryptosporidium is more closely related to gregarine parasites rather than to coccidians. The identification of gregarine-like gamont stages and the ability of Cryptosporidium to complete its life cycle in the absence of host cells further confirm its relationship with gregarines. This opens new avenues into the investigation of pathogenesis, epidemiology, treatment and control of Cryptosporidium. Effective drug treatments and vaccines are not yet available due, in part, to the technical challenges of working on Cryptosporidium in the laboratory. Whole genome sequencing and metabolomics have expanded our understanding of the biochemical requirements of this organism and have identified new drug targets. To effectively combat this important pathogen, increased funding is essential. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    International Journal for Parasitology 03/2015; 304. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpara.2015.01.009 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • BMJ Clinical Research 01/2015; 350(jan06 2):h14. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h14 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Globally, diarrhoea is the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality, responsible for the annual loss of about 10% of the total global childhood disease burden. In Tanzania, Rotavirus infection is the major cause of severe diarrhoea and diarrhoeal mortality in children under five years. Immunisation can reduce the burden, and Tanzania added rotavirus vaccine to its national immunisation programme in January 2013. This study explores the cost effectiveness of introducing rotavirus vaccine within the Tanzania Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). Methods We quantified all health system implementation costs, including programme costs, to calculate the cost effectiveness of adding rotavirus immunisation to EPI and the existing provision of diarrhoea treatment (oral rehydration salts and intravenous fluids) to children. We used ingredients and step down costing methods. Cost and coverage data were collected in 2012 at one urban and one rural district hospital and a health centre in Tanzania. We used Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) as the outcome measure and estimated incremental costs and health outcomes using a Markov transition model with weekly cycles up to a five-year time horizon. Results The average unit cost per vaccine dose at 93% coverage is US$ 8.4, with marked difference between the urban facility US$ 5.2; and the rural facility US$ 9.8. RV1 vaccine added to current diarrhoea treatment is highly cost effective compared to diarrhoea treatment given alone, with incremental cost effectiveness ratio of US$ 112 per DALY averted, varying from US$ 80–218 in sensitivity analysis. The intervention approaches a 100% probability of being cost effective at a much lower level of willingness-to-pay than the US$609 per capita Tanzania gross domestic product (GDP). Conclusions The combination of rotavirus immunisation with diarrhoea treatment is likely to be cost effective when willingness to pay for health is higher than USD 112 per DALY. Universal coverage of the vaccine will accelerate progress towards achievement of the child health Millennium Development Goals.
    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 04/2015; 13(1). DOI:10.1186/s12962-015-0033-0 · 0.87 Impact Factor


1 Download