Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of the immunogenicity of monovalent and multivalent rotavirus immunogens.

ABSTRACT: The strategies for developing rotavirus (RV) vaccines have always been controversial. At present, both the monovalent RV vaccine and the multivalent RV vaccine have displayed excellent safety and efficacy against RV infection and shown cross-reactive immunity, which laid the question whether the multivalent RV vaccine could be replaced by the monovalent RV vaccine. In this study, we focused on comparing the immunogenicity (serum neutralization activity and protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs' challenge) of individual standard RV strains (monovalent RV immunogens) and different combinations of them (multivalent RV immunogens). In result, RV immunogens showed general immunogenicity and heterotypic reaction but the multivalent RV immunogens exhibited greater serum neutralization activity and stronger heterotypic reaction than the monovalent RV immunogens (P<0.05). As to the protection, the multivalent RV immunogens also revealed more rapid and stronger protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs' challenge than the monovalent RV immunogens. The results demonstrated that both the monovalent and multivalent RV immunogens exhibited high immunogenicity, but the monovalent RV immunogens could not provide enough neutralization antibodies to protect MA104 cells against the infection with heterotypic RV strains and timely protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs, so the multivalent RV vaccine could not be replaced by the monovalent RV vaccine.

SUBMITTER: Mi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5313208 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative analysis of the immunogenicity of monovalent and multivalent rotavirus immunogens.

Mi Kai K Ou Xia X Guo Lili L Ye Jing J Wu Jinyuan J Yi Shan S Niu Xianglian X Sun Xiaoqin X Li Hongjun H Sun Maosheng M

PloS one 20170216 2

The strategies for developing rotavirus (RV) vaccines have always been controversial. At present, both the monovalent RV vaccine and the multivalent RV vaccine have displayed excellent safety and efficacy against RV infection and shown cross-reactive immunity, which laid the question whether the multivalent RV vaccine could be replaced by the monovalent RV vaccine. In this study, we focused on comparing the immunogenicity (serum neutralization activity and protection against homotypic and hetero ...[more]

PMID: 28207817

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsROTAVAC® (frozen formulation stored at -20 °C) and ROTAVAC 5D® (liquid formulation stable at 2-8 °C) are rotavirus vaccines derived from the 116E human neonatal rotavirus strain, developed and licensed in India. This study evaluated and compared the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines in an infant population in Zambia.MethodsWe conducted a phase 2b, open-label, randomized, controlled trial wherein 450 infants 6 to 8 weeks of age were randomized equally to receive three doses of ROTAVAC or ROTAVAC 5D, or two doses of ROTARIX®. Study vaccines were administered concomitantly with routine immunizations. Blood samples were collected pre-vaccination and 28 days after the last dose. Serum anti-rotavirus IgA antibodies were measured by ELISA, with WC3 and 89-12 rotavirus strains as viral lysates in the assays. The primary analysis was to assess non-inferiority of ROTAVAC 5D to ROTAVAC in terms of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of serum IgA (WC3) antibodies. Seroresponse and seropositivity were also determined. Safety was evaluated as occurrence of immediate, solicited, unsolicited, and serious adverse events after each dose.ResultsThe study evaluated 388 infants in the per-protocol population. All three vaccines were well tolerated and immunogenic. The post-vaccination GMCs were 14.0 U/mL (95% CI: 10.4, 18.8) and 18.1 U/mL (95% CI: 13.7, 24.0) for the ROTAVAC and ROTAVAC 5D groups, respectively, yielding a ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.9), thus meeting the pre-set non-inferiority criteria. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were similar across all study arms. No death or intussusception case was reported during study period.ConclusionsAmong Zambian infants, both ROTAVAC and ROTAVAC 5D were well tolerated and the immunogenicity of ROTAVAC 5D was non-inferior to that of ROTAVAC. These results are consistent with those observed in licensure trials in India and support use of these vaccines across wider geographical areas.

Project description:Rotavirus was the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in infants and young children prior to the introduction of routine vaccination. Since 2006 there have been two licensed vaccines available; with successful clinical trials leading the World Health Organization to recommend rotavirus vaccination for all children worldwide. In order to inform immunisation policy we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to assess population effectiveness against acute gastroenteritis.We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cinhal and Academic Search Premier and grey literature sources for studies published between January 2006 and April 2014. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were observational measuring population effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination against health care attendances for rotavirus gastroenteritis or AGE. To evaluate study quality we use used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies, categorising studies by risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. If two or more studies reported a measure of vaccine effectiveness (VE), we conducted a random effects meta-analysis. We stratified analyses by World Bank country income level and used study quality in sensitivity analyses.We identified 30 studies, 19 were from high-income countries and 11 from middle-income countries. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for laboratory confirmed rotavirus gastroenteritis was highest in high-income countries (89% VE; 95% CI 84-92%) compared to middle-income countries (74% VE; 95% CI 67-80%). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for those receiving the complete vaccine schedule (81% VE; 95% CI 75-86%) compared to partial schedule (62% VE; 95% CI 55-69%). Two studies from high-income countries measured VE against community consultations for AGE with a pooled estimate of 40% (95% CI 13-58%; 2 studies).We found strong evidence to further support the continued use of rotavirus vaccines. Vaccine effectiveness was similar to that reported in clinical trials for both high and middle-income countries. There is limited data from Low income settings at present. There was lower effectiveness against milder disease. Further studies, should continue to report effectiveness against AGE and less-severe rotavirus disease because as evidenced by pre-vaccine introduction studies this is likely to contribute the greatest burden on healthcare resources, particularly in high-income countries.

Dataset Information

Comparative analysis of the immunogenicity of monovalent and multivalent rotavirus immunogens.

Publications

Comparative analysis of the immunogenicity of monovalent and multivalent rotavirus immunogens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets