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.

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.

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.

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.

Global vaccine action plan lessons learned I: Recommendations for the next decade.

The Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 (GVAP) was developed to realize the ambitions of the Decade of Vaccines - that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine-preventable diseases. It included a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation/accountability framework to assess progress towards global targets with recommendations for corrective actions. While many of the GVAP targets are very unlikely to be met by the end of 2020, substantial progress has nevertheless been made, establishing a strong foundation for a successor global immunization strategy, the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization has made a series of recommendations to ensure that the lessons learned from GVAP inform the development and implementation of IA2030.

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.

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.

Estimating the proportion of vaccine-induced hospitalized dengue cases among Dengvaxia vaccinees in the Philippines.

Background: Dengvaxia was used in the Philippines to vaccinate 9-10-year-old school children, living in areas highly endemic for dengue. After about 830,000 had received at least 1 of 3 recommended doses, risks of enhanced disease in dengue-naïve vaccinees were reported. Methods: We used Phase 3 trial data to derive the proportions of cases of hospitalised and severe dengue that might have been prevented by the Philippines vaccination programme and, among those cases that may occur in vaccinees, what proportions are likely to arise in those who were seropositive or seronegative for dengue at the time of first vaccination and what proportion in the latter group may be enhanced disease attributable to the vaccine. Results: Assuming about 15% of vaccinees were dengue naïve at vaccination and the effects of the vaccine are independent of the number of doses received, we estimate that, in the 5 years following vaccination, the number of cases of severe disease in the vaccinated population will be reduced by about 70%. Among vaccinees who do develop severe disease, about half the cases will be due to vaccine breakthrough in seropositive vaccinees, and about a quarter will be excess cases in seronegative vaccinees that will have occurred as a consequence of vaccination. Conclusions: Overall, the Philippine dengue vaccination programme will likely prevent a substantial number of severe dengue cases and, among those that do occur, the majority are likely to be breakthrough disease in seropositive vaccinees and a minority attributable to the excess risk of enhanced disease in seronegative vaccinees.

Differences between coverage of yellow fever vaccine and the first dose of measles-containing vaccine: A desk review of global data sources.

INTRODUCTION: The strategy to Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) is a global initiative that includes all countries with risk of yellow fever (YF) virus transmission. Of these, 40 countries (27 in Africa and 13 in the Americas) are considered high-risk and targeted for interventions to increase coverage of YF vaccine. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that YF vaccine be given concurrently with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) in YF-endemic settings, estimated coverage for MCV1 and YF vaccine have varied widely. The objective of this study was to review global data sources to assess discrepancies in YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage and identify plausible reasons for these discrepancies. METHODS: We conducted a desk review of data from 34 countries (22 in Africa, 12 in Latin America), from 2006 to 2016, with national introduction of YF vaccine and listed as high-risk by the EYE strategy. Data reviewed included procured and administered doses, immunization schedules, routine coverage estimates and reported vaccine stock-outs. In the 30 countries included in the comparitive analysis, differences greater than 3 percentage points between YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage were considered meaningful. RESULTS: In America, there were meaningful differences (7-45%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 6 (67%) of the 9 countries. In Africa, there were meaningful differences (4-27%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 9 (43%) of the 21 countries. Nine countries (26%) reported MVC1 stock-outs while sixteen countries (47%) reported YF vaccine stock-outs for three or more years during 2006-2016. CONCLUSION: In countries reporting significant differences in coverage of the two vaccines, differences may be driven by different target populations and vaccine availability. However,these were not sufficient to completely explain observed differences. Further follow-up is needed to identify possible reasons for differences in coverage rates in several countries where these could not fully be explained.

Maternal immunization in Malawi: A mixed methods study of community perceptions, programmatic considerations, and recommendations for future planning.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective vaccines are given to pregnant women to protect their infants and/or themselves against certain infectious agents; however, apart from tetanus vaccination, maternal immunization in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains low. Tetanus toxoid vaccine is integrated into antenatal care services in Malawi with high coverage and provides an opportunity to identify factors that facilitate successful immunization delivery to pregnant women in LMICs. METHODS: PATH and the University of Malawi's Centre for Social Research conducted a mixed-methods study in 2015 to document community perceptions of maternal immunization, using tetanus vaccine as an example, and to identify factors perceived to be important to successfully introducing other maternal vaccines, such as influenza vaccine, in Malawi. We conducted 18 focus group discussions with pregnant and recently pregnant women and their family members and 76 semi-structured interviews with pregnant and recently pregnant women, community leaders, health workers, public health program managers, non-governmental partners, and policy makers. RESULTS: We identified factors perceived to support the introduction of new maternal vaccines, including strong maternal vaccine acceptance in the community, an existing strategy for maternal tetanus vaccine delivery, and positive health workers' views about the introduction of additional maternal vaccines. Potential challenges to adoption and acceptance included identifying and tracking the target population and monitoring adverse events, and the need to ensure operational capacity of the health system to support the introduction and wide-scale use of an additional vaccine. For influenza vaccine specifically, additional challenges included limited awareness of influenza disease and its low prioritization among health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons from the successful delivery of maternal tetanus immunization in Malawi may be informative for similar countries considering new vaccines for pregnant women or striving to optimize the delivery of those currently provided.