This is further complicated by the fact that, due to concerns of intussusception, infants older than 32 weeks of age should not receive further doses of rotavirus vaccines as advised by WHO [3]. Therefore, infants will likely experience longer periods of time between doses or will only be eligible to receive 1 or 2 doses of Libraries vaccine and will be at risk for rotavirus for longer periods of time than was encountered by participants in this trial. This aspect is likely to challenge the performance of PRV and is best explored in observational studies after vaccine introduction which are likely to provide critical information regarding the potential Hydroxychloroquine order public

health impact of this vaccine. Effectiveness trials in other countries have demonstrated decreased Alectinib chemical structure performance than that observed in well controlled efficacy trials and this “real world” application of rotavirus vaccines is likely

to be a critical piece of information as decision makers in Africa move forward [30] and [31]. Our data demonstrate that rotavirus continues to be a public health problem in the second year of life and the performance of 1 or 2 doses of vaccine in that setting is also likely to yield important results. The major limitation of this post hoc analysis is that the study was not powered for these supplemental analyses, including by country or by year of life. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of introducing rotavirus vaccines in Africa are substantial and far-reaching. In the continent where the highest rates of rotavirus mortality per capita are found, the introduction of these vaccines into either the routine childhood immunization schedule would have a profound public health impact. African countries have responded to their need for these vaccines and almost 20 countries in the region have applied for GAVI support to subsidize vaccine procurement. Now, we should look towards studying the effectiveness of this vaccine when it is introduced into routine EPI immunization schedules, and

assess how to improve its performance in the field. This research study was funded by PATH’s Rotavirus Vaccine Programme under a grant from the GAVI Alliance, and was co-sponsored by Merck. The study was designed by scientists from Merck & Co., Inc., with substantial input from PATH staff and site investigators. PATH staff independently monitored study execution at sites and participated in pharmacovigilance and data analyses. We also acknowledge the sincere effort of all our study staffs and the support of the community members throughout the study area without which this study would never have been materialized. Conflict of Interest Statement: SOS received Merck funding as a member of the Advisory Board for Pediatric Vaccines and Vaccine New Products; MC was an employee of Merck when the clinical trial was conducted and owned equity in the company.