Effectiveness of the Monovalent G1P[8] Human Rotavirus Vaccine Against Hospitalization for Severe G2P[4] Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Belém, Brazil

Justino, Maria Cleonice Aguiar; Linhares, Alexandre da Costa; Lanzieri, Tatiana M.; Miranda, Yllen; Mascarenhas, Joana D’Arc Pereira; Abreu, Erika; Guerra, Sylvia de Fátima dos Santos; Oliveira, Alessilva do Socorro Lima de; Silva, Veronilce B. da; Sánchez, Nervo; Meyer, Nadia; Shafi, Fakrudeen; Ortega-Barrı́a, Eduardo; Soriano‐Gabarró, Montse; Colindres, Rómulo E.

doi:10.1097/inf.0b013e3182055cc2

Cited by 106 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,6,37 The G1P [8]-derived vaccine is effective against genotypes heterotypic to the vaccine type, including the G2P [4] genotype that some have suggested is favored after vaccination. [40][41][42][43] Waning immunity to G2P [4] in the second year of life has been suggested as a means by which the genotype may persist at higher levels in vaccinated populations. 3 Despite any theoretical influence by vaccine, our data suggest that regional circulation patterns remain highly influential on detected genotypes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burden of Norovirus and Rotavirus in Children After Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction, Cochabamba, Bolivia

McAtee¹,

Webman²,

Gilman³

et al. 2016

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in the field may set the stage for a changing landscape of diarrheal illness affecting children worldwide. Norovirus and rotavirus are the two major viral enteropathogens of childhood. This study describes the prevalence of norovirus and rotavirus 2 years after widespread rotavirus vaccination in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Stool samples from hospitalized children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and outpatients aged 5-24 months without AGE were recruited from an urban hospital serving Bolivia's third largest city. Both viruses were genotyped, and norovirus GII.4 was further sequenced. Norovirus was found much more frequently than rotavirus. Norovirus was detected in 69/201 (34.3%) of specimens from children with AGE and 13/71 (18.3%) of those without diarrhea. Rotavirus was detected in 38/201 (18.9%) of diarrheal specimens and 3/71 (4.2%) of non-diarrheal specimens. Norovirus GII was identified in 97.8% of norovirus-positive samples; GII.4 was the most common genotype (71.4% of typed specimens). Rotavirus G3P [8] was the most prevalent rotavirus genotype (44.0% of typed specimens) and G2P [4] was second most prevalent (16.0% of typed specimens). This community is likely part of a trend toward norovirus predominance over rotavirus in children after widespread vaccination against rotavirus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burden of Norovirus and Rotavirus in Children After Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction, Cochabamba, Bolivia

McAtee¹,

Webman²,

Gilman³

et al. 2016

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A predominance in G2P(4) RVA strains was observed in Nicaragua and Brazil after the introduction of RV5 and RV1, respectively (Gurgel et al 2007, Patel et al 2009, Correia et al 2010, Justino et al 2011. Because this strain differs from the RV1 vaccine strain by G-type, P-type and genogroup and also from the RV5 vaccine strain which contains the G2 reassortant, but not the P(4) reassortant, monitoring of G2P (4) is of particular interest after the introduction of vaccine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In Nicaragua, the vaccine efficacy for averting RVA gastroenteritis hospitalization was 46% for the full schedule of RV5 and 52% for the partial vaccine schedule (Patel et al 2009). In the three middle income countries, the vaccine efficacy for averting RVA gastroenteritis hospitalization was 76-94% for the full schedule of RV1 (Gurgel et al 2007, Correia et al 2010, de Palma et al 2010, Justino et al 2011, Yen et al 2011b) and 51-84% for the partial vaccine schedule (de Palma et al 2010, Yen et al 2011b. In Nicaragua and Brazil, the most prevalent RVA genogroup identified among cases was G2P(4) (Gurgel et al 2007, Patel et al 2009, Correia et al 2010, Justino et al 2011, in El Salvador the most prevalent RVA genogroup identified among cases was G1P(8) (de Palma et al 2010) and in Mexico the most prevalent RVA genogroup identified among cases was G9P(4) (Yen et al 2011b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction in morbidity and mortality from childhood diarrhoeal disease after species A rotavirus vaccine introduction in Latin America : a review

Desai

Oliveira

Parashar

et al. 2011

Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries in Latin America were among the first to implement routine vaccination against species A rotavirus (RVA). We evaluate data from Latin America on reductions in gastroenteritis and RVA disease burden following the introduction of RVA vaccine. Published literature was reviewed to identify case-control studies of vaccine effectiveness and population-based studies examining longitudinal trends of diarrhoeal disease reduction after RVA vaccine introduction in Latin American countries. RVA vaccine effectiveness and impact on gastroenteritis mortality and hospitalization rates and RVA hospitalization rates are described. Among middle-income Latin American countries with published data (Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador and Panama), RVA vaccine contributed to a gastroenteritis-associated mortality reduction of 22-41%, a gastroenteritis-associated hospitalization reduction of 17-51% and a RVA hospitalization reduction of 59-81% among children younger than five years of age. In Brazil and El Salvador, case-control studies demonstrated that a full RVA vaccination schedule was 76-85% effective against RVA hospitalization; a lower effectiveness of 46% was seen in Nicaragua, the only low-income country with available data. A growing body of literature offers convincing evidence of "real world" vaccine program successes in Latin American settings, which may be expanded as more countries in the region include RVA vaccine in their immunization programs

show abstract

“…How well RV1 protects against G2P [4] in lower-income settings is still an important issue that requires further monitoring, given that some postintroduction evaluations suggest protection may be only modest in infancy or may not persist. [23][24][25] In our evaluation, we found no evidence of waning of protection from RV1…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Effectiveness of Monovalent and Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine

2013

PEDIATRICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Monovalent rotavirus vaccine was introduced for infants in the United States in 2008. Previous US evaluations have not specifically assessed the performance of this vaccine under routine use. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:Using the same methodology and covering the same time period, high effectiveness (∼90%) was demonstrated for the monovalent and the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine series against rotavirus disease resulting in emergency department/inpatient care, in children up to 2 years of age. abstract OBJECTIVE: Previous US evaluations have not assessed monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1, a G1P[8] human rotavirus strain) effectiveness, because of its later introduction (2008). Using case-control methodology, we measured the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the 2-dose RV1 and 3-dose pentavalent vaccine (RV5) series against rotavirus disease resulting in hospital emergency department or inpatient care. METHODS:Children were eligible for enrollment if they presented to 1 of 5 hospitals (3 in Georgia, 2 in Connecticut) with diarrhea of #10 days' duration during January through June 2010 or 2011, and were born after RV1 introduction. Stools were collected; immunization records were obtained from providers and state electronic immunization information system (IIS). Case-subjects (children testing rotavirus antigenpositive) were compared with 2 control groups: children testing rotavirus negative and children selected from IIS. RESULTS:Overall, 165 rotavirus-case subjects and 428 rotavirus-negative controls were enrolled. Using the rotavirus-negative controls, RV1 VE was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80 to 95) and RV5 VE was 92% (CI 75 to 97) among children aged $8 months. The RV1 VE against G2P[4] disease was high (94%, CI 78 to 98), as was that against G1P [8] disease (89%, CI 70 to 96). RV1 effectiveness was sustained among children aged 12 through 23 months (VE 91%; CI 75 to 96). VE point estimates using IIS controls were similar to those using rotavirusnegative controls.CONCLUSIONS: RV1 and RV5 were both highly effective against severe rotavirus disease. RV1 conferred sustained protection during the first 2 years of life and demonstrated high effectiveness against G2P[4] (heterotypic) disease. Pediatrics 2013;132:e25-e33 AUTHORS:

show abstract

Effectiveness of the Monovalent G1P[8] Human Rotavirus Vaccine Against Hospitalization for Severe G2P[4] Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Belém, Brazil

Cited by 106 publications

References 33 publications

Burden of Norovirus and Rotavirus in Children After Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Burden of Norovirus and Rotavirus in Children After Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Reduction in morbidity and mortality from childhood diarrhoeal disease after species A rotavirus vaccine introduction in Latin America : a review

Effectiveness of Monovalent and Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About