Immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses of yellow fever vaccines: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Stocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18-59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (-4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (-2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (-3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage. FUNDING: The study was funded by Médecins Sans Frontières Foundation, Wellcome Trust (grant no. 092654), and the UK Department for International Development. Vaccines were donated in kind.

Revised Global Typhoid Vaccination Policy.

Typhoid fever is a continuing public health problem in many low- and middle-income countries; however, routine vaccination as a recommended control strategy has not been implemented in the past in most countries. Greater understanding of the typhoid fever burden, the increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and licensure of a new generation of typhoid conjugate vaccines (TCVs) were instrumental in paving the way for the World Health Organization (WHO) to issue a revised global policy on typhoid vaccines in March 2018. The new policy follows evidence-based recommendations by the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization for routine and catch-up vaccination with TCVs and highlights considerations for universal, risk-based, or phased vaccination strategies in different settings. Further, the first WHO-prequalified TCV and Gavi funding for eligible countries make vaccination a realistic control strategy for many affected countries, especially if combined with improved water and sanitation services, strengthened surveillance systems, and appropriate antimicrobial treatment.

Determining the Best Immunization Strategy for Protecting African Children Against Invasive Salmonella Disease.

Background: The World Health Organization recently prequalified a typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV), recommending its use in persons ≥6 months to 45 years residing in typhoid fever (TF)-endemic areas. We now need to consider how TCVs can have the greatest impact in the most vulnerable populations. Methods: The Typhoid Fever Surveillance in Africa Program (TSAP) was a blood culture-based surveillance of febrile patients from defined populations presenting at healthcare facilities in 10 African countries. TF and invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella (iNTS) disease incidences were estimated for 0-10 year-olds in one-year age increments. Results: Salmonella Typhi and iNTS were the most frequently isolated pathogens; 135 and 94 cases were identified, respectively. Analysis from three countries was excluded (incomplete person-years of observation (PYO) data). Thirty-seven of 123 TF cases (30.1%) and 71/90 iNTS disease cases (78.9%) occurred in children aged <5 years. No TF and 8/90 iNTS infections (8.9%) were observed in infants aged <9 months. The TF incidences (/100 000 PYO) for children aged <1 year and 1 to <2 years were 5 and 39, respectively; the highest incidence was 304 per 100 000 PYO in 4 to <5 year-olds. The iNTS disease incidence in the defined age groups ranged between 81 and 233 per 100 000 PYO, highest in 1 to <2 year-olds. TF and iNTS disease incidences were higher in West Africa. Conclusions: High burden of TF detected in young children strengthens the need for TCV introduction. Given the concurrent iNTS disease burden, development of a trivalent vaccine against S. Typhi, S. Typhimurium, and S. Enteritidis may be timely in this region.

Zika vaccines and therapeutics: landscape analysis and challenges ahead.

BACKGROUND: Various Zika virus (ZIKV) vaccine candidates are currently in development. Nevertheless, unique challenges in clinical development and regulatory pathways may hinder the licensure of high-quality, safe, and effective ZIKV vaccines. DISCUSSION: Implementing phase 3 efficacy trials will be difficult given the challenges of the spatio-temporal heterogeneity of ZIKV transmission, the unpredictability of ZIKV epidemics, the broad spectrum of clinical manifestations making a single definite endpoint difficult, a lack of sensitive and specific diagnostic assays, and the need for inclusion of vulnerable target populations. In addition to a vaccine, drugs for primary prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, or treatment should also be developed to prevent or mitigate the severity of congenital Zika syndrome. CONCLUSION: Establishing the feasibility of immune correlates and/or surrogates are a priority. Given the challenges in conducting phase 3 trials at a time of waning incidence, human challenge trials should be considered to evaluate efficacy. Continued financial support and engagement of industry partners will be essential to the successful development, licensure, and accessibility of Zika vaccines or therapeutics.

What Have We Learned From the Typhoid Fever Surveillance in Africa Program?

The Typhoid Fever Surveillance in Africa Program (TSAP) was established in 2009 to fill the data void concerning invasive Salmonella disease in sub-Saharan Africa, and to specifically estimate the burden of bloodstream infections caused by the key pathogen, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. TSAP has achieved this ambitious target, finding high incidences of typhoid fever in both rural and urban populations in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The results of TSAP will undoubtedly dictate the direction of future typhoid fever research in Africa, and at last provides a key piece of the disease burden jigsaw puzzle. With the dawn of new Vi conjugate vaccines against Salmonella Typhi, the next priority for the typhoid community must be providing the required data on these vaccines so they can be licensed and provided to those in high-risk groups and locations across sub-Saharan Africa.

A Practical Guide to Full Value of Vaccine Assessments.

Articulating the wide range of health, social and economic benefits that vaccines offer may help to overcome obstacles in the vaccine development pipeline. A framework to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine-the Full Value of Vaccine Assessment (FVVA)-has been developed by the WHO. The FVVA framework offers a holistic assessment of the value of vaccines, providing a synthesis of evidence to inform the public health need of a vaccine, describing the supply and demand aspects, its market and its impact from a health, financial and economic perspective. This paper provides a practical guide to how FVVAs are developed and used to support investment in vaccines, ultimately leading to sustained implementation in countries. The FVVA includes a range of elements that can be broadly categorised as synthesis, vaccine development narrative and defining vaccine impact and value. Depending on the features of the disease/vaccine in question, different elements may be emphasised; however, a standardised set of elements is recommended for each FVVA. The FVVA should be developed by an expert group who represent a range of stakeholders, perspectives and geographies and ensure a fair, coherent and evidence-based assessment of vaccine value.

Immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses of 17D-213 yellow fever vaccine in children (YEFE): a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority substudy of a phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current supply shortages constrain yellow fever vaccination activities, particularly outbreak response. Although fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in a randomised controlled trial in adults, they have not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial in young children (9-59 months old). We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses compared with standard doses of the WHO-prequalified 17D-213 vaccine in young children. METHODS: This substudy of the YEFE phase 4 study was conducted at the Epicentre Mbarara Research Centre (Mbarara, Uganda). Eligible children were aged 9-59 months without contraindications for vaccination, without history of previous yellow fever vaccination or infection and not requiring yellow fever vaccination for travelling. Participants were randomly assigned, using block randomisation, 1:1 to standard or fractional (one-fifth) dose of yellow fever vaccine. Investigators, participants, and laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation. Participants were followed for immunogenicity and safety at 10 days, 28 days, and 1 year after vaccination. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in seroconversion (-10 percentage point margin) 28 days after vaccination measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) in the per-protocol population. Safety and seroconversion at 10 days and 12-16 months after vaccination (given COVID-19 resctrictions) were secondary outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495. FINDINGS: Between Feb 20, 2019, and Sept 9, 2019, 433 children were assessed, and 420 were randomly assigned to fractional dose (n=210) and to standard dose (n=210) 17D-213 vaccination. 28 days after vaccination, 202 (97%, 95% CI 95-99) of 207 participants in the fractional dose group and 191 (100%, 98-100) of 191 in the standard dose group seroconverted. The absolute difference in seroconversion between the study groups in the per-protocol population was -2 percentage points (95% CI -5 to 1). 154 (73%) of 210 participants in the fractional dose group and 168 (80%) of 210 in the standard dose group reported at least one adverse event 28 days after vaccination. At 10 days follow-up, seroconversion was lower in the fractional dose group than in the standard dose group. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections (n=221 [53%]), diarrhoea (n=68 [16%]), rhinorrhoea (n=49 [12%]), and conjunctivitis (n=28 [7%]). No difference was observed in incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fractional doses of the 17D-213 vaccine were non-inferior to standard doses in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination in children aged 9-59 months when assessed with PRNT50, but we found fewer children seroconverted at 10 days. The results support consideration of the use of fractional dose of yellow fever vaccines in WHO recommendations for outbreak response in the event of a yellow fever vaccine shortage to include children. FUNDING: Médecins Sans Frontières Foundation.

Results from evaluations of models and cost-effectiveness tools to support introduction decisions for new vaccines need critical appraisal.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the cost-effectiveness (CE) of introducing new vaccines be considered before such a programme is implemented. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it is often challenging to perform and interpret the results of model-based economic appraisals of vaccines that benefit from locally relevant data. As a result, WHO embarked on a series of consultations to assess economic analytical tools to support vaccine introduction decisions for pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines. The objectives of these assessments are to provide decision makers with a menu of existing CE tools for vaccines and their characteristics rather than to endorse the use of a single tool. The outcome will provide policy makers in LMICs with information about the feasibility of applying these models to inform their own decision making. We argue that if models and CE analyses are used to inform decisions, they ought to be critically appraised beforehand, including a transparent evaluation of their structure, assumptions and data sources (in isolation or in comparison to similar tools), so that decision makers can use them while being fully aware of their robustness and limitations.

Cost effectiveness of pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: a comparative assessment of decision-making tools.

BACKGROUND: Several decision support tools have been developed to aid policymaking regarding the adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) into national pediatric immunization programs. The lack of critical appraisal of these tools makes it difficult for decision makers to understand and choose between them. With the aim to guide policymakers on their optimal use, we compared publicly available decision-making tools in relation to their methods, influential parameters and results. METHODS: The World Health Organization (WHO) requested access to several publicly available cost-effectiveness (CE) tools for PCV from both public and private provenance. All tools were critically assessed according to the WHO's guide for economic evaluations of immunization programs. Key attributes and characteristics were compared and a series of sensitivity analyses was performed to determine the main drivers of the results. The results were compared based on a standardized set of input parameters and assumptions. RESULTS: Three cost-effectiveness modeling tools were provided, including two cohort-based (Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) ProVac Initiative TriVac, and PneumoADIP) and one population-based model (GlaxoSmithKline's SUPREMES). They all compared the introduction of PCV into national pediatric immunization program with no PCV use. The models were different in terms of model attributes, structure, and data requirement, but captured a similar range of diseases. Herd effects were estimated using different approaches in each model. The main driving parameters were vaccine efficacy against pneumococcal pneumonia, vaccine price, vaccine coverage, serotype coverage and disease burden. With a standardized set of input parameters developed for cohort modeling, TriVac and PneumoADIP produced similar incremental costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine cost (dose price and number of doses), vaccine efficacy and epidemiology of critical endpoint (for example, incidence of pneumonia, distribution of serotypes causing pneumonia) were influential parameters in the models we compared. Understanding the differences and similarities of such CE tools through regular comparisons could render decision-making processes in different countries more efficient, as well as providing guiding information for further clinical and epidemiological research. A tool comparison exercise using standardized data sets can help model developers to be more transparent about their model structure and assumptions and provide analysts and decision makers with a more in-depth view behind the disease dynamics. Adherence to the WHO guide of economic evaluations of immunization programs may also facilitate this process. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/9/55.

Estimated global incidence of Japanese encephalitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To update the estimated global incidence of Japanese encephalitis (JE) using recent data for the purpose of guiding prevention and control efforts. METHODS: Thirty-two areas endemic for JE in 24 Asian and Western Pacific countries were sorted into 10 incidence groups on the basis of published data and expert opinion. Population-based surveillance studies using laboratory-confirmed cases were sought for each incidence group by a computerized search of the scientific literature. When no eligible studies existed for a particular incidence group, incidence data were extrapolated from related groups. FINDINGS: A total of 12 eligible studies representing 7 of 10 incidence groups in 24 JE-endemic countries were identified. Approximately 67,900 JE cases typically occur annually (overall incidence: 1.8 per 100,000), of which only about 10% are reported to the World Health Organization. Approximately 33,900 (50%) of these cases occur in China (excluding Taiwan) and approximately 51,000 (75%) occur in children aged 0-14 years (incidence: 5.4 per 100,000). Approximately 55,000 (81%) cases occur in areas with well established or developing JE vaccination programmes, while approximately 12,900 (19%) occur in areas with minimal or no JE vaccination programmes. CONCLUSION: Recent data allowed us to refine the estimate of the global incidence of JE, which remains substantial despite improvements in vaccination coverage. More and better incidence studies in selected countries, particularly China and India, are needed to further refine these estimates.

Evidence-informed vaccination decision-making in countries: Progress, challenges and opportunities.

Countries face an increasingly complex vaccination landscape. As well as ever-changing infectious disease epidemiology, the number and diversity of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccine products, and vaccine technologies continue to increase. To ensure that vaccination decision-making is transparent, country-owned and informed by sound scientific evidence, many countries have established national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) to provide independent expert advice. The past decade has seen substantial growth in NITAG numbers and functionality, and there is now a need to consolidate this progress, by further capacity building, to ensure that NITAGs are responsive to the changing face of immunization over the next decade.

Defining research to improve health systems.

Robert Terry and colleagues present working definitions of operational research, implementation research, and health systems research within the context of research to strengthen health systems.

Review of data and knowledge gaps regarding yellow fever vaccine-induced immunity and duration of protection.

Yellow fever (YF) virus is a mosquito-borne flavivirus found in Sub-Saharan Africa and tropical South America. The virus causes YF, a viral hemorrhagic fever, which can be prevented by a live-attenuated vaccine, strain 17D. Despite the vaccine being very successful at decreasing disease risk, YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations. Notwithstanding the above, there are few well-characterized reports of vaccine failures, which one would expect to observe potentially more with the re-emergence of a severe disease. Overall, there is a need to improve YF disease surveillance, increase primary vaccination coverage rates in at-risk populations, and expand our understanding of the mechanism of protection of YF vaccine.

Closer and closer? Maternal immunization: current promise, future horizons.

This state-of-the art manuscript highlights our current understanding of maternal immunization-the practice of vaccinating pregnant women to confer protection on them as well as on their young infants, and thereby reduce vaccine-preventable morbidity and mortality. Advances in our understanding of the immunologic processes that undergird a normal pregnancy, studies from vaccines currently available and recommended for pregnant women, and vaccines for administration in special situations are beginning to build the case for safe scale-up of maternal immunization. In addition to well-known diseases, new diseases are emerging which pose threats. Several new vaccines are currently under development and increasingly include pregnant women. In this manuscript, targeted at clinicians, vaccinologists, scientists, public health practitioners, and policymakers, we also outline key considerations around maternal immunization introduction and delivery, discuss noninfectious horizons for maternal immunization, and provide a framework for the clinician faced with immunizing a pregnant woman.

Preparing to introduce new maternal immunizations in low- and lower-middle-income countries: A report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation convening "Allies in Maternal and Newborn Care"; May 3-4, 2018.

New strategies will be critical to reduce infant mortality and severe morbidity - there are still 5.2 million newborn deaths and stillbirths each year. The decline in newborn mortality has not kept pace with the reduction in under-five deaths and is slowest in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Maternal immunization is a promising intervention to protect infants when they are most vulnerable - in utero and their first few months of life, before they can receive their own vaccines. Successfully introducing new vaccines for pregnant women in LMICs will require collaboration between two fields - (1) immunization and (2) maternal, newborn and child health - that use different service delivery approaches, operate under different policy and funding paradigms, and are not always integrated. In May 2018, stakeholders from these distinct communities convened to identify challenges and opportunities associated with delivering new maternal immunizations. Participants agreed that antenatal care is a logical platform. However, in many resource-constrained settings, antenatal care providers are already overburdened, and most women do not receive the recommended number of antenatal visits. Implementing maternal immunization could help increase antenatal care attendance by offering an additional safe and effective intervention that women value. Substantial effort is needed to demonstrate the benefits of maternal immunization to decision-makers and providers, and to ensure that countries and health systems are ready for introduction. To that end, participants identified the following priorities: assure coherence of policies for introducing new vaccines for pregnant women and strengthen maternal health interventions; generate demand for existing, recommended, and new maternal vaccines; conduct socio-behavioral, health systems and implementation research to shape optimal vaccine delivery strategies; and strengthen antenatal and perinatal care quality. To achieve these aims, collaboration across fields will be essential. Given that new maternal vaccines are advancing in clinical development, time is of the essence.