4.5 Article

The human rotavirus vaccine Rotarix™ in infants An integrated analysis of safety and reactogenicity

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 19-24

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/hv.26476

关键词

rotavirus gastroenteritis; human rotavirus vaccine; Rotarix (TM); vaccine safety; intussusceptions; reactogenicity

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines
  2. PATH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An integrated analysis of safety and reactogenicity data was undertaken for 28 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind Phase II and III trials (DBRCTs) of the oral live-attenuated human rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix (TM) (GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines). Healthy infants aged 6-20 wk received 2 or 3 doses of vaccine (n = 56562) or placebo (n = 45512) at 4- to 8-wk intervals. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were recorded for 8 d after each dose of vaccine or placebo. Unsolicited AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths were evaluated over 31-d post-vaccination follow-up periods. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relative risk (RR) across studies excluding 1.0 signified potential imbalances between the 2 groups. The incidence of each solicited AE of any or Grade 3 severity was similar between groups. The incidence of all unsolicited AEs of any (RR = 0.99 [95% CI: 0.94-1.04]; P = 0.72) or Grade 3 severity (RR = 0.91 [95% CI: 0.77-1.08]; P = 0.31) was similar between groups. A significantly higher proportion of SAEs were reported in the placebo group compared with the vaccine group (RR = 0.9 [95% CI: 0.82-0.98]; P = 0.01). The incidence of death was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.13% in the vaccine group and 0.11% in the placebo group; RR = 1.14 [95% CI: 0.78-1.68]; P = 0.54). Very few cases of intussusception were reported (11 and 7 in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively; RR = 1.39 [95% CI: 0.49-4.27]; P = 0.66). In conclusion, results of this analysis of DBRCTs show that the human rotavirus vaccine Rotarix (TM) has a reactogenicity and safety profile similar to placebo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据