These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of rhesus rotavirus monovalent and tetravalent reassortant vaccines in US children. US Rotavirus Vaccine Efficacy Group.
    Author: Bernstein DI, Glass RI, Rodgers G, Davidson BL, Sack DA.
    Journal: JAMA; 1995 Apr 19; 273(15):1191-6. PubMed ID: 7707626.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and relative efficacy of two reassortant rhesus rotavirus vaccines over two rotavirus seasons. DESIGN: A prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-three centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1006 healthy infants between 4 and 26 weeks of age were enrolled, and 898 received three doses of vaccine or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reactogenicity was determined by comparing the incidence of fever, diarrhea, and/or vomiting for 5 days after each dose of vaccine. Rotavirus IgA and neutralizing antibody to rhesus rotavirus and four rotavirus serotypes were measured in a subset of subjects. Relative efficacy was determined by comparing the incidence of rotavirus gastroenteritis after three doses of vaccine or placebo over two rotavirus seasons. RESULTS: Adverse reactions were mild and limited to a small but significant increase in the incidence of fever after the first dose of tetravalent but not monovalent vaccine. The relative efficacy against rotavirus disease over the 2 years of observation was 40% (98.3% confidence interval, 7% to 62%) for the monovalent and 57% (98.3% confidence interval, 29% to 74%) for the tetravalent vaccine. In post hoc analyses, the relative efficacy against very severe rotavirus gastroenteritis was 73% and 82% for monovalent and tetravalent vaccine recipients, respectively. Also, a 67% and 78% reduction in medical visits for rotavirus gastroenteritis was observed. Both vaccines protected against disease caused by serotype 1 rotavirus, but only the tetravalent vaccine reduced the incidence of disease caused by non-serotype 1 rotavirus infection detected in the second season. It is unclear, however, whether this result represents serotype-specific protection or a difference in the duration of protection. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with both vaccines was safe and significantly reduced the incidence of rotavirus gastroenteritis, but only the tetravalent vaccine provided protection against disease caused by non-serotype 1 rotaviruses during the second year of follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]