4.7 Article

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Two Doses of a Tetravalent Rotavirus Vaccine RRV-TV in Ghana With the First Dose Administered During the Neonatal Period

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 208, Issue 3, Pages 423-431

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jit174

Keywords

rotavirus; rotavirus infections; rotavirus vaccines; Ghana; randomized controlled trial; diarrhea; infantile; gastroenteritis; humans; infant; vaccines; attenuated

Funding

  1. Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University Of Ghana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Oral rhesus/rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus tetravalent vaccine (RRV-TV) was licensed in 1998 but withdrawn in 1999 due to a rare association with intussusception, which occurred disproportionately in infants receiving their first dose at >= 90 days of age. This study examined RRV-TV for the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RV-GE) in Ghana, West Africa, with infants receiving the first dose during the neonatal period and the second before 60 days of age. Methods. In a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Navrongo, Ghana, we recruited neonates to receive 2 doses of RRV-TV or placebo and followed them to age 12 months. Results. In the intention-to-treat population of 998 infants, we measured a vaccine efficacy of 63.1% against RV-GE of any severity associated with any of the 4 serotypes represented in the vaccine and 60.7% against RV-GE associated with any rotavirus serotype. Conclusions. RRV-TV in a 2-dose schedule with the first dose during the neonatal period is efficacious in preventing RV-GE in rural Ghana. Neonatal dosing results in early protection and may be the optimum schedule to avoid or significantly reduce intussusception, now reported to be associated in international settings with the 2 most widely marketed, licensed, live virus, oral rotavirus vaccines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available