Article

Update on rotavirus vaccines.

Respiratory and Enteric Virus Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (Impact Factor: 3.14). 12/2005; 24(11):947-52. DOI: 10.1097/01.inf.0000186295.18969.e6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rotavirus was discovered in 1973, and 10 years later the first report of a rotavirus vaccine clinical trial appeared. This update reviews the epidemiology of rotavirus infections, assesses past and current vaccines and presents ideas for implementation of vaccination programs in developed and developing countries.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
83 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: RESUMEN Desde el descubrimiento del virus Norwalk como causa de gastroenteritis, los virus son reconocidos como una importante causa de enfermedad diarreica en humanos en todo el mundo, y ha aumentado de forma consistente el número de agentes virales asociados con esta enfermedad. Rotavirus es la principal causa de diarrea grave en niños menores de 5 años y se estima que hasta uno de cada 58 niños precisará hospitalización por diarrea por rotavirus del grupo A durante los primeros 5 años de vida. Norovirus (antiguo virus Norwalk-like) y Sapovirus (antiguo virus Sapporo-like) pertenecen a la familia Caliciviridae y están emergiendo como causa de gastroenteritis esporádica en la infancia; esta infec-ción se ha encontrado en diversos países en 3.5% a 20% de casos esporádicos. Astrovirus se ha asociado con 4% a 12% de episodios de diarrea en niños y estudios recientes utilizando técnicas de diagnósti-co molecular han descrito que en algunos medios los astrovirus es la segunda causa de diarrea en niños. Finalmente, los datos sobre la incidencia de adenovirus entéricos en la diarrea infantil son varia-dos y en países industrializados oscila entre 1% y 8%. La gravedad de la enfermedad, así como la necesidad de hospitalización, han sido descritas como mayores en la gastroenteritis asociada con rotavirus del grupo A. El objeto de esta revisión es actualizar los conocimientos sobre la taxonomía, morbilidad y epidemiología molecular de estos virus, incluyendo la vacunación frente a rotavirus. Palabras clave: Gastroenteritis infecciosa; Diarrea viral; Vacuna frente a rotavirus. SUMMARY Since the Norwalk virus was identified as a cause of gastroenteritis, viruses are recognized as an important cause of diarrheal disease in humans worldwide and the number of viral agents associated with gastroenteritis has steadily increased. Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children under 5 years of age and it has been estimated that up to one in every 58 children will have been hospitalised because of diarrhea due to group A rotavirus during the first 5 years of life. Norovirus (former Norwalk-like virus) and sapovirus (former Sapporo-like virus) are members of the family Caliciviridae and are emerging as a cause of sporadic gastroenteritis in young children and in several countries this infection has been detected in 3.5-20% of sporadic cases. Astroviruses have been associated with 4% to 12% of diarrheal episodes in children and recent studies using immune and molecular diagnostics have established that in some settings astrovirus is the second most common cause of diarrhea in children. Finally, data on the incidence of enteric adenoviruses in childhood diarrhea are variable and in industrialized countries this incidence varies from 1% to 8%. The severity of disease, together with the need for hospitalisation, has been described greater with gastroenteritis caused by group A rotavirus. This review will focus on the epidemiology of these viruses, their taxonomy, morbidity, molecular epidemiology data and it will include an update on rotavirus vaccines.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Concerns exist about whether monovalent (RV1) and pentavalent (RV5) rotavirus vaccines provide adequate protection against diverse strains and whether vaccine introduction will lead to selective pressure. We aimed to investigate the distribution of rotavirus strains and strain-specific rotavirus vaccine effectiveness after vaccine introduction. Methods We did a systematic review of published work to assess the strain-specific effectiveness of RV1 and RV5 rotavirus vaccines. We classified strains as homotypic, partly heterotypic, and fully heterotypic based on the amount of antigen-matching between strain and vaccine. When studies reported vaccine effectiveness against single antigens (G-type or P-type), we categorised them as either single-antigen vaccine type or single-antigen non-vaccine type. Our primary outcome was strain-specific vaccine effectiveness, comparing effectiveness of homotypic strains with fully or partly heterotypic strains. A secondary outcome was the prevalence of rotavirus strains after vaccine introduction. We estimated pooled odds ratios using random-effect regression models, stratified by country income level and vaccine type, and tested for differences in strain-specific vaccine effectiveness. We assessed strain distribution trends from surveillance reports. Findings In high-income countries, RV1 pooled vaccine effectiveness was 94% (95% CI 80–98) against homotypic strains, 71% (39–86) against partly heterotypic strains, and 87% (76–93) against fully heterotypic strains. In middle-income settings, respective pooled data were 59% (36–73), 72% (58–81), and 47% (28–61). In high-income countries, RV5 vaccine effectiveness was 83% (78–87) against homotypic strains, 82% (70–89) against single-antigen vaccine type strains, 82% (70–89) against partly heterotypic strains, and 75% (47–88) against single-antigen non-vaccine type strains. In middle-income settings, RV5 vaccine effectiveness was 70% (58–78) against single-antigen vaccine type strains, 37% (10–56) against partly heterotypic strains, and 87% (38–97) against single-antigen non-vaccine type strains. No difference was noted in vaccine effectiveness for either RV1 or RV5 in any setting (all p>0·05). Prevalent strains in countries using RV1 were G2P[4] (2198 of 4428, 50%) and G1P[8] (953, 22%), and those in countries using RV5 were G1P[8] (1280 of 3875, 33%) and G2P[4] (1169, 30%). Sustained predominance of a single strain was not recorded. Interpretation RV1 and RV5 exert similar effectiveness against homotypic and heterotypic rotavirus strains. Persistence of specific strains was not recorded, suggesting vaccine-induced selective pressure did not occur. Expansion of rotavirus surveillance efforts to low-income countries and ongoing surveillance are crucial to identify emergence of new strains and to assess strain-specific vaccine effectiveness in various settings. Funding None.
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 09/2014; · 19.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Crianças e adolescentes com doenças reumatológicas apresentam maior prevalência de doenças infecciosas quando comparados com a população em geral, em decorrência de atividade da doença, possível deficiência imunológica secundária à própria doença, ou uso de terapia imunossupressora. A vacinação é uma medida eficaz para a redução da morbidade e mortalidade nesses pacientes. O objetivo deste artigo foi realizar um consenso de eficácia e segurança das vacinas em crianças e adolescentes com doenças reumatológicas infantis baseadas em níveis de evidência científica. Imunização passiva para os pacientes e orientações para as pessoas que convivem com doentes imunodeprimidos também foram incluídas. Os 32 pediatras reumatologistas membros do Departamento de Reumatologia da Sociedade de Pediatria de São Paulo (SPSP) e/ou da Comissão de Reumatologia Pediátrica da Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia elaboraram o consenso, sendo que alguns desses profissionais estão envolvidos em pesquisas e publicações científicas nesta área. A pesquisa dos termos eficácia e/ou segurança das diferentes vacinas em crianças e adolescentes com doenças reumatológicas foi realizada nas bases de Medline e Scielo, de 1966 até março de 2009, incluindo revisões, estudos controlados e relatos de casos. O grau de recomendação e o nível científico de evidências dos estudos foram classificados em quatro níveis para cada vacina. De um modo geral, as vacinas inativadas e de componentes são seguras nos pacientes com doenças reumatológicas, mesmo em uso de terapias imunossupressoras. Entretanto, vacinas com agentes vivos atenuados são, em geral, contraindicadas para os pacientes imunossuprimidos.
    Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 10/2009; 49(5):562-589. · 0.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
6 Downloads
Available from
Sep 10, 2014