Apart from efficacy and immunogenicity, safety plays a critical role in the considerations of any vaccine. Available evidence does not warrant

against introduction of rotavirus vaccine in the national program from this perspective. Lack of public debate [53] on India’s poor immunization performance [75] is an issue under the macro-social environment that has been highlighted. Discussion http://www.selleckchem.com/products/rgfp966.html on utility of rotavirus vaccines in India has remained mostly restricted to public health professionals and clinicians. Although, we could locate studies on pediatricians’ perceptions and practices about rotavirus vaccine, qualitative studies on mother’s perceptions were lacking. Such investigations should be promoted through committed resources and the findings incorporated in vaccine see more policy discussion. The current NTAGI of India

[76] does not have public representation in it. This gap also needs to be bridged at the earliest. Whether rotavirus serotype-specific neutralizing antibodies (immunity) play an important role in protection against rotavirus-associated diarrhea is still under discussion. The goal that has been pursued to develop rotavirus vaccines is to duplicate the degree of protection against disease that follows natural infection [67]. Although, some have opined that serotype specific immunity [77] is of central importance, recent evidence from clinical trials and post-licensure studies indicate protection against a wide range of circulating rotavirus strains, even those not included in the vaccine [78], [79], [80] and [81]. However, monitoring ‘strain shift’ in the community should be continued in India during post-vaccination period so that the range of protection

offered by rotavirus vaccines through the national program can be tracked [20]. Finally, it needs to be appreciated that health in India is a state subject. Heterogeneity exists among Indian states in terms of immunization program performance, and it is estimated that the poorly performing states with low immunization coverage will draw less benefit from introduction of rotavirus vaccines [61]. A pragmatic decision making paradigm is, thus, required in such an environment of heterogeneity. The either states which are currently in a position to reap the benefit of rotavirus vaccine should not be restrained from doing so. Meanwhile, poorly performing states should step up their vaccination program. The latter goal should however not be the basis of delaying introduction of rotavirus vaccine in the national immunization program, and may even be considered unethical. Availability of a low-cost indigenous vaccine further strengthens this issue as it would lead to reduced financial burden to the exchequer [82]. Synthesis of evidence within an ethical and rights-based perspective thus led us to conclude that introduction of rotavirus vaccine is justified.