ZikaPLAN: Zika Preparedness Latin American Network.

The ongoing Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands has underlined the need for a coordinated research network across the whole region that can respond rapidly to address the current knowledge gaps in Zika and enhance research preparedness beyond Zika. The European Union under its Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme awarded three research consortia to respond to this need. Here we present the ZikaPLAN (Zika Preparedness Latin American Network) consortium. ZikaPLAN combines the strengths of 25 partners in Latin America, North America, Africa, Asia, and various centers in Europe. We will conduct clinical studies to estimate the risk and further define the full spectrum and risk factors of congenital Zika virus syndrome (including neurodevelopmental milestones in the first 3 years of life), delineate neurological complications associated with ZIKV due to direct neuroinvasion and immune-mediated responses in older children and adults, and strengthen surveillance for birth defects and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Laboratory-based research to unravel neurotropism and investigate the role of sexual transmission, determinants of severe disease, and viral fitness will underpin the clinical studies. Social messaging and engagement with affected communities, as well as development of wearable repellent technologies against Aedes mosquitoes will enhance the impact. Burden of disease studies, data-driven vector control, and vaccine modeling as well as risk assessments on geographic spread of ZIKV will form the foundation for evidence-informed policies. While addressing the research gaps around ZIKV, we will engage in capacity building in laboratory and clinical research, collaborate with existing and new networks to share knowledge, and work with international organizations to tackle regulatory and other bottlenecks and refine research priorities. In this way, we can leverage the ZIKV response toward building a long-term emerging infectious diseases response capacity in the region to address future challenges.

Seroconversion of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination in kidney transplant patients and the influence of different risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Influenza may present a high morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplanted patients (SOTP). Annual influenza virus vaccine is recommended for SOTP. However, low levels of seroconversion in SOTP have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immunogenicity of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) - A(H1N1)pdm09--vaccine in kidney transplant patients and to analyze which features might affect seroconversion. METHODS: This study was conducted from March to August 2010 at the Renal Transplantation Unit of University of São Paulo, Brazil. A total of 85 renal transplant patients attending the outpatient unit received one 15-µg intramuscular dose of A(H1N1) pdm09 influenza vaccine (reassortant vaccine virus A/California/7/2009 [NYMC X-179A]). Blood samples were collected immediately before and 21 days after the vaccine was given. Antibody response was measured by the standard hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay. The primary immunogenicity endpoint for this study was seroconversion in previously seronegative patients (HI titers <1:40), and the secondary endpoint was the identification of features that could affect seroconversion in this population. RESULTS: Five (5.9%) patients presented HI titers prevaccination ≥ 1:40 and were excluded from further analysis. Seroconversion in previously negative patients occurred in 27 (34%) of 80 patients. Prevaccination HI titers geometrical mean was 5.8 and postvaccination 19.6 (ratio 3.4). Significant seroconversion rate factors were female gender, non-Caucasian ethnicity, and post-transplant time before vaccination. No impact was seen on seroconversion for age, donor type, tacrolimus and cyclosporine blood levels, renal function, or blood lymphocyte counts. Mycophenolate (MPA) showed a lower rate of seroconversion when compared with azathioprine. Tacrolimus and cyclosporine had similar seroconversion rates. Sirolimus use was associated with the highest rate of seroconversion, although these patient numbers were low. Immunosuppresssion containing MPA was considerably less effective in seroconversion than drug combinations with no MPA. Patients receiving sirolimus had more chance of seroconversion. HI titers geometric means pre/post vaccine were as follows: MPA (n = 56): 5.8/12.8; tacrolimus (n = 50): 5.9/16.2; cyclosporine (n = 18): 5.4/24.2; azathioprine (n = 19): 6.2/51.6; and sirolimus (n = 6): 8/80. By univariate analysis, being female and non-White were variables associated with 3.3 times more chance of seroconversion than being male and White. In the multivariate analysis, the variables remaining in the model showed similar hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccine demonstrated low rates of seroconversion, particularly in patients on MPA, but with potentially higher response rates in patients on sirolimus.

Effective seroconversion and safety following the pandemic influenza vaccination (anti-H1N1) in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the vaccine response in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as an extension of previous observation of immunogenicity and safety of a non-adjuvanted influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine in a large population of juvenile rheumatic diseases. Moreover, to assess the possible influence of demographic data, disease subtypes, disease activity, and treatment on immunogenicity and the potential deleterious effect of the vaccine in the disease itself, particularly in the number of arthritis and inflammatory markers. METHODS: A total of 95 patients with JIA and 91 healthy controls were evaluated before and 21 days after vaccination, and serology for anti-H1N1 was performed by haemagglutination inhibition assay (HIA). Patient and physician visual analogue scales (VAS), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), number of active joints, acute phase reactants, and treatments were evaluated before and after vaccination. Adverse events were also reported. RESULTS: JIA patients and controls were comparable regarding mean current age (14.9 ± 3.2 vs. 14.6 ± 3.7 years, p = 0.182). After vaccination, the seroconversion rate was significantly lower in JIA patients compared to controls (83.2% vs. 95.6%, p = 0.008), particularly in the polyarticular subtype (80% vs. 95.6%, p = 0.0098). Of note, JIA subtypes, number of active joints, acute phase reactants, CHAQ, patient and physician VAS, and use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/immunosuppressive drugs were similar between seroconverted and non-seroconverted patients (p > 0.05). Regarding vaccine safety, no deterioration was observed in the number of active joints and acute phase reactants during the study period. CONCLUSION: Influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccination in JIA induces a lower but effective protective antibody response probably independent of disease parameters and treatment with an adequate disease safety profile.

Cost of production of live attenuated dengue vaccines: a case study of the Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine to prevent dengue disease is urgently needed. Fortunately, a few tetravalent candidate vaccines are in the later stages of development and show promise. But, if the cost of these candidates is too high, their beneficial potential will not be realized. The price of a vaccine is one of the most important factors affecting its ultimate application in developing countries. In recent years, new vaccines such as those for human papilloma virus and pneumococcal disease (conjugate vaccine) have been introduced with prices in developed countries exceeding $50 per dose. These prices are above the level affordable by developing countries. In contrast, other vaccines such as those against Japanese encephalitis (SA14-14-2 strain vaccine) and meningitis type A have prices in developing countries below one dollar per dose, and it is expected that their introduction and use will proceed more rapidly. Because dengue disease is caused by four related viruses, vaccines must be able to protect against all four. Although there are several live attenuated dengue vaccine candidates under clinical evaluation, there remains uncertainty about the cost of production of these tetravalent vaccines, and this uncertainty is an impediment to rapid progress in planning for the introduction and distribution of dengue vaccines once they are licensed. METHOD: We have undertaken a detailed economic analysis, using standard industrial methodologies and applying generally accepted accounting practices, of the cost of production of a live attenuated vaccine, originally developed at the US National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), to be produced at the Instituto Butantan in Sao Paulo, Brazil. We determined direct costs of materials, direct costs of personnel and labor, indirect costs, and depreciation. These were analyzed assuming a steady-state production of 60 million doses per year. RESULTS: Although this study does not seek to compute the price of the final licensed vaccine, the cost of production estimate produced here leads to the conclusion that the vaccine can be made available at a price that most ministries of health in developing countries could afford. This conclusion provides strong encouragement for supporting the development of the vaccine so that, if it proves to be safe and effective, licensure can be achieved soon and the burden of dengue disease can be reduced.