Value profile for respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the predominant cause of acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) in young children worldwide, yet no licensed RSV vaccine exists to help prevent the millions of illnesses and hospitalizations and tens of thousands of young lives taken each year. Monoclonal antibody (mAb) prophylaxis exists for prevention of RSV in a small subset of very high-risk infants and young children, but the only currently licensed product is impractical, requiring multiple doses and expensive for the low-income settings where the RSV disease burden is greatest. A robust candidate pipeline exists to one day prevent RSV disease in infant and pediatric populations, and it focuses on two promising passive immunization approaches appropriate for low-income contexts: maternal RSV vaccines and long-acting infant mAbs. Licensure of one or more candidates is feasible over the next one to three years and, depending on final product characteristics, current economic models suggest both approaches are likely to be cost-effective. Strong coordination between maternal and child health programs and the Expanded Program on Immunization will be needed for effective, efficient, and equitable delivery of either intervention. This 'Vaccine Value Profile' (VVP) for RSV is intended to provide a high-level, holistic assessment of the information and data that are currently available to inform the potential public health, economic and societal value of pipeline vaccines and vaccine-like products. This VVP was developed by a working group of subject matter experts from academia, non-profit organizations, public private partnerships and multi-lateral organizations, and in collaboration with stakeholders from the WHO headquarters. All contributors have extensive expertise on various elements of the RSV VVP and collectively aimed to identify current research and knowledge gaps. The VVP was developed using only existing and publicly available information.

Acceptability of serosurveys in southern Zambia: data collector and caregiver perspectives.

Background: Factors associated with whether individuals choose to participate in serosurveys are not well understood. Understanding perceptions from multiple perspectives, including the perspectives of both data collectors and participants, through a holistic model such as the socio-ecological model contextualizes individual, interpersonal, and structural level influences on survey research participation. We used a multiple methods approach to characterize reasons for serosurvey participation in communities in Southern Province, Zambia where a serosurvey was conducted in 2016. Methods: The first phase conducted focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with 24 data collectors who participated in a measles-rubella serosurvey in 2016. The second phase surveyed 34 caregivers at health facilities to identify barriers and facilitators to serosurvey participation. Emergent themes were then classified into a socio-ecological model using individual, interpersonal, and structural level constructs. Results: Common themes emerged from data collectors as well as caregivers surveyed. At the individual level, providing incentives was a facilitator, and some religious beliefs were described as a barrier to serosurvey participation. At the interpersonal level, family dynamics and community peer influences could help or hinder serosurvey participation. Community health workers were consistently named as facilitators of participation. At the structural level, concerns about specimen collection, who was selected for serosurveys, and not receiving test results arose as potential barriers. The most frequently reported facilitator was provision of information about the purpose of the serosurvey (85% of respondents). The most frequently reported barrier was lack of clarity regarding use of their blood specimen (53% of respondents). For specimen collection type, caregivers consistently preferred finger prick blood collection over both venous blood draw and oral swabs. Conclusion: Serosurvey participation was deemed acceptable to most study participants. The socio-ecological model revealed barriers and facilitators for participation to guide strategies to improve participation which can be applied to ongoing serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2. Serosurveys should continue to develop engagement plans to provide information about blood collection ahead of the serosurvey and communicate the objectives of such studies through trusted sources such as community health workers and traditional leaders.