Policy making for vaccine use as a driver of vaccine innovation and development in the developed world.

In the past 200years, vaccines have had unmistakable impacts on public health including declines in morbidity and mortality, most markedly in economically-developed countries. Highly engineered vaccines including vaccines for conditions other than infectious diseases are expected to dominate future vaccine development. We examine immunization vaccine policy as a driver of vaccine innovation and development. The pathways to recommendation for use of licensed vaccines in the US, UK, Canada and Australia have been similar, including: expert review of disease epidemiology, disease burden and severity; vaccine immunogenicity, efficacy and safety; programmatic feasibility; public demand; and increasingly cost-effectiveness. Other attributes particularly important in development of future vaccines are likely to include: duration of immunity for improved vaccines such as pertussis; a greater emphasis on optimizing community protection rather than direct protection only; programmatic implementation, feasibility, improvements (as in the case of development of a universal influenza vaccine); public concerns/confidence/fears related to outbreak pathogens like Ebola and Zika virus; and major societal burden for combating hard to treat diseases like HIV and antimicrobial resistant pathogens. Driving innovation and production of future vaccines faces enormous economic hurdles as available approaches, technologies and regulatory pathways become more complex. As such, cost-mitigating strategies and focused, aligned efforts (by governments, private organizations, and private-public partnerships) will likely be needed to continue to spur major advances in vaccine technologies and development.

CDC Grand Rounds: Modeling and Public Health Decision-Making.

Mathematical models incorporate various data sources and advanced computational techniques to portray real-world disease transmission and translate the basic science of infectious diseases into decision-support tools for public health. Unlike standard epidemiologic methods that rely on complete data, modeling is needed when there are gaps in data. By combining diverse data sources, models can fill gaps when critical decisions must be made using incomplete or limited information. They can be used to assess the effect and feasibility of different scenarios and provide insight into the emergence, spread, and control of disease. During the past decade, models have been used to predict the likelihood and magnitude of infectious disease outbreaks, inform emergency response activities in real time (1), and develop plans and preparedness strategies for future events, the latter of which proved invaluable during outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and pandemic influenza (2-6). Ideally, modeling is a multistep process that involves communication between modelers and decision-makers, allowing them to gain a mutual understanding of the problem to be addressed, the type of estimates that can be reliably generated, and the limitations of the data. As models become more detailed and relevant to real-time threats, the importance of modeling in public health decision-making continues to grow.

The NIAID Radiation Countermeasures Program business model.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Radiation/Nuclear Medical Countermeasures Development Program has developed an integrated approach to providing the resources and expertise required for the research, discovery, and development of radiation/nuclear medical countermeasures (MCMs). These resources and services lower the opportunity costs and reduce the barriers to entry for companies interested in working in this area and accelerate translational progress by providing goal-oriented stewardship of promising projects. In many ways, the radiation countermeasures program functions as a "virtual pharmaceutical firm," coordinating the early and mid-stage development of a wide array of radiation/nuclear MCMs. This commentary describes the radiation countermeasures program and discusses a novel business model that has facilitated product development partnerships between the federal government and academic investigators and biopharmaceutical companies.

Radiation combined injury: overview of NIAID research.

The term "radiation combined injury" (RCI) is used to describe conditions where radiation injury is coupled with other insults such as burns, wounds, infection, or blunt trauma. A retrospective account of injuries sustained following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima estimates that RCI comprised approximately 65% of all injuries observed. Much of the research that has been performed on RCI was carried out during the Cold War and our understanding of the clinical problem RCI presents does not reflect the latest advances in medicine or science. Because concerns have increased that terrorists might employ radiological or nuclear weapons, and because of the likelihood that victims of such terrorism would experience RCI, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health sponsored a meeting in 2007 to explore the state of the research in this area, identify programmatic gaps, and establish priorities for future research. As a follow-up to that meeting, in 2008 NIAID sponsored an initiative on RCI, leading to the award of several exploratory/developmental grants, the goals of which are to better understand biological synergy involved in RCI-induced damage, develop improved animal models for various type of RCI, and advance identification and testing of potential countermeasures to treat injuries that would be expected following a radiological or nuclear event. This program has already yielded new insight into the nature of combined injuries and has identified a number of novel and existing compounds that may be effective treatments for this condition.

Medical countermeasures against nuclear threats: radionuclide decorporation agents.

Exposure to radionuclides disseminated by a radiological dispersion device or deposited as fallout after a nuclear power plant accident or detonation of an improvised nuclear device could result in internal contamination of a significant number of individuals. Internalized radionuclides may cause both acute and chronic radiation injury and increase an individual's risk of developing cancer. This damage and risk can be mitigated by the use of decorporation agents that reduce internal contamination. Unfortunately, most effective agents decorporate only a limited range of radionuclides, and some are formulated in ways that would make administration in mass casualty situations challenging. There is a need for new radionuclide decorporation agents, reformulations of existing agents, and/or expansion of the labeled indications for existing treatments. Researchers developing novel or improved decorporation agents should also understand the regulatory pathway for these products. This workshop, the first in nearly half a century to focus exclusively on radionuclide decorporation, brought together researchers and scientific administrators from academia, government and industry as well as senior regulatory affairs officers and U.S. Food and Drug Administration personnel. Meeting participants reviewed recent progress in the development of decorporation agents and contemplated the future of the field.

Medical countermeasures for radiation combined injury: radiation with burn, blast, trauma and/or sepsis. report of an NIAID Workshop, March 26-27, 2007.

Non-clinical human radiation exposure events such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings or the Chernobyl accident are often coupled with other forms of injury, such as wounds, burns, blunt trauma, and infection. Radiation combined injury would also be expected after a radiological or nuclear attack. Few animal models of radiation combined injury exist, and mechanisms underlying the high mortality associated with complex radiation injuries are poorly understood. Medical countermeasures are currently available for management of the non-radiation components of radiation combined injury, but it is not known whether treatments for other insults will be effective when the injury is combined with radiation exposure. Further research is needed to elucidate mechanisms behind the synergistic lethality of radiation combined injury and to identify targets for medical countermeasures. To address these issues, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases convened a workshop to make recommendations on the development of animal models of radiation combined injury, possible mechanisms of radiation combined injury, and future directions for countermeasure research, including target identification and end points to evaluate treatment efficacy.

Radiologic and nuclear events: contingency planning for hematologists/oncologists.

Untoward events involving radioactive material, either accidental or intentional, are potentially devastating. Hematologists and oncologists are uniquely suited to help manage radiation victims, as myelosuppression is a frequent complication of radiation exposure. In the aftermath of a large event, such as a nuclear detonation, there may be a national call for surge capacity that involves hematologists/oncologists across the country in the disaster response. In preparation, the National Marrow Donor Program and American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation have established the Radiation Injury Treatment Network (RITN), a voluntary consortium of transplant centers, donor centers, and umbilical cord blood banks. RITN is partnered with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response in the United States Department of Health and Human Services to develop treatment guidelines, educate healthcare professionals, coordinate situation response, and provide comprehensive evaluation and care for radiation injury victims. We outline the current plans for event response and describe scenarios, including catastrophic events that would require extensive support from hematologists/oncologists across the country. In addition, we highlight important reference resources and discuss current efforts to develop medical countermeasures against radiation toxicity. Practitioners and institutions across the country are encouraged to become involved and participate in the planning.

Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) intended to reduce infectious contacts between persons form an integral part of plans to mitigate the impact of the next influenza pandemic. Although the potential benefits of NPIs are supported by mathematical models, the historical evidence for the impact of such interventions in past pandemics has not been systematically examined. We obtained data on the timing of 19 classes of NPI in 17 U.S. cities during the 1918 pandemic and tested the hypothesis that early implementation of multiple interventions was associated with reduced disease transmission. Consistent with this hypothesis, cities in which multiple interventions were implemented at an early phase of the epidemic had peak death rates approximately 50% lower than those that did not and had less-steep epidemic curves. Cities in which multiple interventions were implemented at an early phase of the epidemic also showed a trend toward lower cumulative excess mortality, but the difference was smaller (approximately 20%) and less statistically significant than that for peak death rates. This finding was not unexpected, given that few cities maintained NPIs longer than 6 weeks in 1918. Early implementation of certain interventions, including closure of schools, churches, and theaters, was associated with lower peak death rates, but no single intervention showed an association with improved aggregate outcomes for the 1918 phase of the pandemic. These findings support the hypothesis that rapid implementation of multiple NPIs can significantly reduce influenza transmission, but that viral spread will be renewed upon relaxation of such measures.

Medical treatment of radiological casualties: current concepts.

The threat of radiologic or nuclear terrorism is increasing, yet many physicians are unfamiliar with basic treatment principles for radiologic casualties. Patients may present for care after a covert radiation exposure, requiring an elevated level of suspicion by the physician. Traditional medical and surgical triage criteria should always take precedence over radiation exposure management or decontamination. External contamination from a radioactive cloud is easily evaluated using a simple Geiger-Muller counter and decontamination accomplished by prompt removal of clothing and traditional showering. Management of surgical conditions in the presence of persistent radioactive contamination should be dealt with in a conventional manner with health physics guidance. To be most effective in the medical management of a terrorist event involving high-level radiation, physicians should understand basic manifestations of the acute radiation syndrome, the available medical countermeasures, and the psychosocial implications of radiation incidents. Health policy considerations include stockpiling strategies, effective use of risk communications, and decisionmaking for shelter-in-place versus evacuation after a radiologic incident.

Low seroprevalence of IgG antibodies to Ebola virus in an epidemic zone: Ogooué-Ivindo region, Northeastern Gabon, 1997.

A population-based serosurvey was performed to determine the seroprevalence of antibodies to Ebola virus (EBO) in a region that has experienced multiple epidemics of EBO hemorrhagic fever. Of 2533 residents in 8 villages, serum samples from 979 (38.6%) were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM antibodies to Ebola-Zaire (EBO-Z) virus. Fourteen samples (1.4%) were found positive for IgG antibodies, and 4 of these (.4%) were samples from survivors of an epidemic of EBO hemorrhagic fever. Seroprevalence based on the remaining 10 IgG-seropositive individuals with no history of exposure to EBO was 1.0% (exact binomial 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-1.9%). No serum samples were found positive for IgM antibodies to EBO-Z virus. The low seroprevalence suggests that, outside of recognized outbreaks, human exposure to EBO in this epidemic zone is rare.