Analysis of Hospitalized and Severe Dengue Cases Over the 6 years of Follow-up of the Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine (CYD-TDV) Efficacy Trials in Asia and Latin America.

BACKGROUND: CYD-TDV, a live, attenuated, tetravalent dengue vaccine, has been approved for the prevention of symptomatic dengue in previously dengue exposed individuals. This post hoc analysis assessed hospitalized and severe virologically confirmed dengue (VCD) over the complete 6-year follow-up of 3 CYD-TDV efficacy studies (CYD14, CYD15, and CYD23/CYD57). METHODS: The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) for hospitalized or severe VCD by baseline dengue serostatus, focusing on those who were seropositive, and by age at immunization (<9 years/≥9 years). Baseline dengue serostatus was measured or inferred using several methods. Hospitalized VCD cases were characterized in terms of clinical signs and symptoms and wild-type viremia level. Antibody persistence was assessed up to 5 years after the last injection. RESULTS: In those aged ≥9 years and baseline seropositive, CYD-TDV protected against hospitalized and severe VCD over 6 years compared to placebo (HR [95% confidence interval] multiple imputation from month 0 method, .19 [.12-.30] and .15 [.06-.39]; other methods were consistent). Vaccine protection was observed over the different study periods, being highest during the first 2 years. Evidence for a decreased risk of hospitalized and severe VCD was also observed in seropositive participants aged 6-8 years. Clinical signs and symptoms, and quantified dengue viremia from participants with hospitalized VCD were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CYD-TDV demonstrated robust protection against hospitalized and severe VCD over the entire 6-year follow-up in participants who were seropositive and ≥9 years old. Protection was also observed in seropositive 6-8 year-olds. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00842530, NCT01983553, NCT01373281, NCT01374516.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 Protein Vaccine.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Methods: We conducted a global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections 21 days apart of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (5 µg of ancestral (D614) and 5 µg of B.1.351 [beta] variant spike protein) or placebo. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]). Results: Between 19 Oct 2021 and 15 Feb 2022, 12,924 participants received ≥1 study injection. 75% of participants were SARS-CoV-2 non-naïve. 11,416 participants received both study injections (efficacy-evaluable population [vaccine, n=5,736; placebo, n=5,680]). Up to 15 March 2022, 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group) ≥14 days PD2 with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 64.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6; 77.2%). VE was 75.1% (95% CI 56.3; 86.6%) in non-naïve and 30.9% (95% CI -39.3; 66.7%) in naïve participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 cases (Omicron [BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants]: 63; Delta: 4; Omicron and Delta: 1). The vaccine was well-tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions: A bivalent vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic infection with newly emergent Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) in non-naïve adults 18-59 years of age.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 µg of ancestral [D614] and 5 µg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases. INTERPRETATION: The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy of a monovalent (D614) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, multi-country study.

Background: The literature on first generation COVID-19 vaccines show they were less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern including Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants). New vaccines developed against variant strains may provide cross-protection against emerging variants when used as boosters and facilitate vaccination across a range of countries, healthcare settings and populations. However, there are no data on such vaccines when used as a primary series. Methods: A global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults (≥18 years) was conducted in 53 research centres in eight countries (United States, Honduras, Japan, Colombia, Kenya, India, Ghana, Nepal). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections of a monovalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (10 µg of the spike (S) protein from the ancestral D614 strain) or placebo on Day 1 (D01) and Day 22 (D22). The primary efficacy endpoint was prevention of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve on D01 + D22. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated. Findings: Between May 26 and November 7, 2021, 10,114 participants received ≥1 study injection, and 9441 participants received both injections. 2108 (20.8%) participants were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at D01 and D22. The primary endpoint was analysed in a subset of the full analysis set (the modified full analysis set PD2 [mFAS-PD2], excluding participants who did not complete the vaccination schedule or received vaccination despite meeting one of the contraindication criteria, had onset of symptomatic COVID-19 between the first injection and before 14 days after the second injection, or participants who discontinued before 14 days after the second injection [n = 9377; vaccine, n = 4702; placebo, n = 4675]). Data were available for 2051 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 7159 non-naïve participants. At the cut-off date (January 28, 2022), symptomatic COVID-19 was reported in 169 naïve participants (vaccine, n = 81; placebo, n = 88) ≥14 days PD2, with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 15.3% (95% CI, -15.8; 38.2). VE regardless of D01/D22 serostatus was 32.9% (95% CI, 15.3; 47.0) and VE in non-naïve participants was 52.7% (95% CI, 31.2; 67.9). Viral genome sequencing was performed up to the data cut-off point and identified the infecting strain in 99/169 adjudicated cases in the PD2 naïve population (Delta [25], Omicron [72], other variants [3], one participant had infection with both Delta and Omicron variants and has been included in the totals for both Delta and Omicron). The vaccine was well-tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Interpretation: In the context of changing circulating viral variants, it is challenging to induce protection in naïve individuals with a two-dose priming schedule based on the parental D614 strain. However, while the primary endpoint of this trial was not met, the results show that a monovalent D614 vaccine can still be of value in individuals previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was funded in whole or in part by Sanofi and by federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the office of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number HHSO100201600005I, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense under contract number W15QKN-16-9-1002. The views presented here are those of the authors and do not purport to represent those of the Department of the Army, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.

Mumps antibody levels among students before a mumps outbreak: in search of a correlate of immunity.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, a mumps outbreak occurred on a university campus despite ≥ 95% coverage of students with 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Using plasma samples from a blood drive held on campus before identification of mumps cases, we compared vaccine-induced preoutbreak mumps antibody levels between individuals who developed mumps (case patients) and those who did not develop mumps (nonpatients). METHODS: Preoutbreak samples were available from 11 case patients, 22 nonpatients who reported mumps exposure but no mumps symptoms, and 103 nonpatients who reported no known exposure and no symptoms. Antibody titers were measured by plaque reduction neutralization assay using Jeryl Lynn vaccine virus and the outbreak virus Iowa-G/USA-06 and by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). RESULTS: Preoutbreak Jeryl Lynn virus neutralization titers were significantly lower among case patients than unexposed nonpatients (P = .023), and EIA results were significantly lower among case patients than exposed nonpatients (P = .007) and unexposed nonpatients (P = .009). Proportionately more case patients than exposed nonpatients had a preoutbreak anti-Jeryl Lynn titer < 31 (64% vs 27%, respectively; P = .065), an anti-Iowa-G/USA-06 titer < 8 (55% vs 14%; P = .033), and EIA index standard ratio < 1.40 (64% vs 9%; P = .002) and < 1.71 (73% vs 14%, P = .001). DISCUSSION: Case patients generally had lower preoutbreak mumps antibody levels than nonpatients. However, titers overlapped and no cutoff points separated all mumps case patients from all nonpatients.

Accuracy and efficacy of pre-dengue vaccination screening for previous dengue infection with a new dengue rapid diagnostic test: a retrospective analysis of phase 3 efficacy trials.

BACKGROUND: A dengue pre-vaccination test that is convenient, highly specific, and highly sensitive is still needed. The OnSite Dengue IgG rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is a new rapid diagnostic test specifically designed for pre-vaccination screening. We aimed to retrospectively assess the efficacy of a tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV) in participants determined to be dengue seropositive by the OnSite IgG RDT and to evaluate assay performances. METHODS: This was a complementary study using pre-vaccination samples from two CYD-TDV efficacy trials done in five countries in the Asia-Pacific region (NCT01373281) and five countries in Latin America (NCT01374516). Baseline dengue serostatus was determined by the OnSite IgG RDT on samples from the immunogenicity subsets of the two trials. In participants who were test positive, we calculated CYD-TDV vaccine efficacy against symptomatic virologically confirmed dengue (VCD) over 25 months, and against hospitalisation with VCD over 72 months of follow-up after the first vaccination. We used a reference algorithm to determine the reference dengue serostatus for each sample, and sensitivity and specificity of the OnSite IgG RDT were calculated. Analyses were done on the whole population (aged 2-16 years), and on those aged 6 years or older and those aged 9 years or older. FINDINGS: Of 3983 participants in the immunogenicity subsets of the efficacy trials CYD14 and CYD15, 3962 had complete dengue reference test results enabling baseline serostatus classification and 3833 had sufficient serum samples remaining for evaluation with the OnSite IgG RDT. Of the samples tested, 2486 (64·9%) of 3833 were OnSite IgG RDT-positive. In participants aged 2-16 years who were OnSite IgG RDT-positive, vaccine efficacy was 84·1% (95% CI 71·6-91·1) against symptomatic VCD, and 69·2% (38·8-84·5) against hospitalisation with VCD, with similar findings in those aged 6 years or older and those aged 9 years or older. The OnSite IgG RDT showed very high sensitivity (91·1%, 89·9-92·1) and high specificity (92·8%, 91·2-94·2) in participants aged 2-16 years, with significantly higher specificity in those aged 9 years or older (96·6%, 94·9-97·8). INTERPRETATION: The OnSite IgG RDT should provide a valuable tool for screening for previous dengue infection at the point of vaccination. In individuals who were OnSite IgG RDT-positive, the vaccine efficacy of CYD-TDV was high across all three age groups. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Recent resurgence of mumps in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of a second dose of mumps vaccine among U.S. schoolchildren beginning in 1990 was followed by historically low reports of mumps cases. A 2010 elimination goal was established, but in 2006 the largest mumps outbreak in two decades occurred in the United States. METHODS: We examined national data on mumps cases reported during 2006, detailed case data from the most highly affected states, and vaccination-coverage data from three nationwide surveys. RESULTS: A total of 6584 cases of mumps were reported in 2006, with 76% occurring between March and May. There were 85 hospitalizations, but no deaths were reported; 85% of patients lived in eight contiguous midwestern states. The national incidence of mumps was 2.2 per 100,000, with the highest incidence among persons 18 to 24 years of age (an incidence 3.7 times that of all other age groups combined). In a subgroup analysis, 83% of these patients reported current college attendance. Among patients in eight highly affected states with known vaccination status, 63% overall and 84% between the ages of 18 and 24 years had received two doses of mumps vaccine. For the 12 years preceding the outbreak, national coverage of one-dose mumps vaccination among preschoolers was 89% or more nationwide and 86% or more in highly affected states. In 2006, the national two-dose coverage among adolescents was 87%, the highest in U.S. history. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high coverage rate with two doses of mumps-containing vaccine, a large mumps outbreak occurred, characterized by two-dose vaccine failure, particularly among midwestern college-age adults who probably received the second dose as schoolchildren. A more effective mumps vaccine or changes in vaccine policy may be needed to avert future outbreaks and achieve the elimination of mumps.

Seroprevalence of antibody to mumps virus in the US population, 1999-2004.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the largest mumps outbreak in the United States in 20 years occurred. To understand prior mumps seroprevalence and factors associated with the presence of antibody to mumps virus, data from the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were analyzed. METHODS: A mumps virus-specific enzyme immunoassay was used to measure the seroprevalence of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody among NHANES participants aged 6-49 years. Participants were grouped on the basis of 10-year birth cohorts, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using SUDAAN software, and logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors. RESULTS: The overall age-adjusted seroprevalence of IgG antibody to mumps virus during 1999-2004 was 90.0% (95% CI, 88.8%-91.1%). Seroprevalence was higher among US-born non-Hispanic blacks (96.4% [95% CI, 95.5%-97.2%]) and non-US-born Mexican Americans (93.7% [95% CI, 92.0%-95.2%]). Seroprevalence was significantly lower in the 1967-1976 birth cohort (85.7% [95% CI, 83.5%-87.8%]). The variables sex, education, and race/ethnicity/birthplace were independent predictors in at least 1 of the birth cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The overall estimate of 90.0% is at the lower end of the estimated population immunity (90%-92%) needed to achieve herd immunity. Lower seroprevalence among groups suggest that they represent populations at an increased risk. For mumps control, high vaccine coverage and high population immunity must be achieved and maintained.

Immunobridging efficacy of a tetravalent dengue vaccine against dengue and against hospitalized dengue from children/adolescents to adults in highly endemic countries.

BACKGROUND: The recombinant tetravalent live-attenuated dengue vaccine based on the YF 17D vaccine virus backbone (CYD-TDV) demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic, virologically confirmed dengue of any serotype from month 13 to month 25 (VCD-DENV-AnyM13→M25) in the CYD14 (2-14-y-olds) and CYD15 (9-16-y-olds) phase 3 trials. Fifty percent plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) titers are a potential surrogate for immunobridging VE to adults. METHODS: Using PRNT50 calibration datasets, we applied immunobridging approaches using baseline and/or M13 PRNT50 titers to estimate VE against VCD-DENV-AnyM0→M25 and against hospitalized VCD (HVCD)-DENV-AnyM0→M72 in hypothetical 18-45-y-old and 46-50-y-old CYD14 and CYD15 cohorts. RESULTS: Baseline and M13 geometric mean PRNT50 titers were greater in 18-45-y-olds and in 46-50-y-olds vs 9-16-y-olds for most comparisons. Estimated VE (95% CIs against VCD-DENV-AnyM0→M25 ranged from 75.3% to 90.9% (52.5% to 100%) for 18-45-y-olds and 74.8% to 92.0% (53.4% to 100%) for 46-50-y-olds. Estimated VE (95% CIs) against HVCD-DENV-AnyM0→M72 ranged from 58.8% to 78.1% (40.9 to 98.9%) for 18-45-y-olds and 57.2% to 78.4% (40.5 to 97.6%) for 46-50-y-olds. Corresponding predictions among baseline-seropositive individuals yielded comparable or higher VE estimates. CONCLUSIONS: VE M0→M25 against DENV-Any and VE against HVCD-DENV-AnyM0→M72 are both expected to be higher in 18-45 and 46-50-y-olds vs CYD14 and CYD15 9-16-y-olds.

Accuracy and efficacy of pre-dengue vaccination screening for previous dengue infection with five commercially available immunoassays: a retrospective analysis of phase 3 efficacy trials.

BACKGROUND: The tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV) has been shown to provide protection against dengue disease over 5-year follow-up in participants with previous dengue infection, but increased the risk of dengue hospitalisation and severe dengue during long-term follow-up in those without previous dengue infection. WHO recommended pre-vaccination screening to identify those with previous dengue infection (ie, dengue seropositive) who would benefit from vaccination. We re-evaluated CYD-TDV efficacy in those identified as dengue seropositive using five commercially available immunoassays, and assessed immunoassay performance. METHODS: We included participants in the immunogenicity subsets of the phase 3 CYD14 (NCT01373281) and CYD15 (NCT01374516) CYD-TDV efficacy trials, which enrolled children aged 2-16 years in 2011-12 in five countries in the Asia-Pacific region (CYD14) and five Latin American countries (CYD15). Participants assessed had received at least one injection of study drug (CYD-TDV or placebo) and had baseline samples available. We tested baseline samples by IgG-based immunoassays to classify baseline dengue serostatus, using two ELISAs (EUROIMMUN and Panbio) and three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs; TELL ME FAST, SD BIOLINE, and OnSite). Vaccine efficacy in preventing symptomatic, hospitalised, and severe virologically confirmed dengue was determined for participants who tested positive by each immunoassay. The specificity and sensitivity of each immunoassay was determined as percentage negative and positive agreement compared with the reference algorithm, which used dengue plaque reduction neutralisation test with 50% and 90% cutoffs and non-structural protein 1 IgG ELISA results to assign baseline serostatus. FINDINGS: Samples were available for 3967 participants, 2735 (69·0%) of whom were classified as seropositive by the reference algorithm. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic virologically confirmed dengue in immunoassay-positive participants was high across all five immunoassays (EUROIMMUN ELISA 88·2% [95% CI 77·3 to 93·9], Panbio ELISA 87·6% [76·7 to 93·4], TELL ME FAST RDT 88·8% [67·0 to 96·2], SD BIOLINE RDT 82·8% [66·9 to 91·1], and OnSite RDT 89·7% [64·6 to 97·0]), as was vaccine efficacy against hospitalised virologically confirmed dengue (EUROIMMUN-ELISA 72·8% [38·9 to 87·9], Panbio ELISA 77·5% [52·8 to 89·3], TELL ME FAST RDT 92·4% [37·8 to 99·1], SD BIOLINE RDT 87·2% [54·5 to 96·4], and OnSite RDT 73·7% [-5·1 to 93·4]) and severe virologically confirmed dengue (EUROIMMUN ELISA 86·9% [-16·8 to 98·5], Panbio ELISA 91·3% [27·6 to 99·0], TELL ME FAST RDT 100·0% [not estimable to 100·0%], SD BIOLINE RDT 89·4% [9·6 to 98·8], and OnSite RDT 73·4% [-193·7 to 97·6]). The immunoassays exhibited high specificity (≥98·8% for all immunoassays apart from SD BIOLINE RDT) but variable sensitivities, with higher sensitivities observed for the ELISAs (EUROIMMUN 89·2% [87·9 to 90·3] and Panbio 92·5 [91·4 to 93·5]) than the RDTs (TELL ME FAST 52·5% [50·6 to 54·4], SD BIOLINE 71·1% [69·3 to 72·8], and OnSite 47·6% [45·7 to 49·5]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that these immunoassays could be used for pre-vaccination screening for CYD-TDV as tools to assist risk stratification until more sensitive and convenient tests become available. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Zika and Dengue Interactions in the Context of a Large Dengue Vaccine Clinical Trial in Latin America.

A phase III dengue vaccine trial including 9- to 16-year-olds in Latin America (NCT01374516) was ongoing at the time of a Zika outbreak. We explored interactions between dengue and Zika, in the context of dengue vaccination. Symptomatic virologically confirmed Zika (VCZ) was evaluated using acute-phase sera from febrile participants (January 2013-March 2018). Neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) were evaluated pre- and post-Zika outbreak (months 25 and 72) in 2,000 randomly selected participants. Baseline dengue serostatus was determined using the plaque reduction neutralization test or inferred post hoc using nonstructural protein 1 IgG ELISA at M13 (case-cohort analysis). Vaccine efficacy against VCZ and serologically suspected Zika (SSZ) was estimated. Overall, 239/10,157 (2.4%) acute-phase samples were VCZ positive during the study. Dengue vaccine efficacy against VCZ was 27.8% (95% CI: 0.3; 47.7) among baseline dengue-seropositive participants. No vaccine effect was evident against SSZ. Zika antibody GMTs increased from pre- to post-Zika epidemic, with smaller increases observed for participants who were dengue seropositive at baseline than for those who were dengue seronegative: post-/pre-Zika GMT ratios for baseline dengue-seropositive participants were 21.5 (vaccine group) and 30.8 (placebo); and for dengue seronegatives, 88.1 and 89.5, respectively. Dengue antibody GMTs post-Zika were higher in dengue vaccine and placebo recipients with SSZ than those without SSZ in both dengue seropositives and seronegatives. Dengue vaccine did not enhance symptomatic Zika illness in dengue-seropositive individuals, rather it reduced the risk of VCZ. Zika infection boosted preexisting vaccine-induced or naturally occurring dengue-neutralizing antibodies.

Guidance for isolation precautions for mumps in the United States: a review of the scientific basis for policy change.

The 2006 mumps resurgence in the United States raised questions about the appropriate isolation period for people with mumps. To determine the scientific basis for isolation recommendations, we conducted a literature review and considered isolation of virus and virus load in saliva and respiratory secretions as factors that were related to mumps transmission risk. Although mumps virus has been isolated from 7 days before through 8 days after parotitis onset, the highest percentage of positive isolations and the highest virus loads occur closest to parotitis onset and decrease rapidly thereafter. Most transmission likely occurs before and within 5 days of parotitis onset. Transmission can occur during the prodromal phase and with subclinical infections. Updated guidance, released in 2007-2008, changed the mumps isolation period from 9 to 5 days. It is now recommended that mumps patients be isolated and standard and droplet precautions be followed for 5 days after parotitis onset.

Efficacy after 1 and 2 doses of CYD-TDV in dengue endemic areas by dengue serostatus.

A simplified dose regimen of the live, attenuated, tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV) could have the potential to facilitate easier implementation of immunization programs against symptomatic virologically-confirmed dengue (VCD) in dengue seropositive individuals aged ≥ 9 years. This post-hoc analysis of two Phase III studies (CYD14 [NCT01373281] and CYD15 [NCT01374516]) in dengue endemic areas assessed the efficacy of CYD-TDV by dengue serostatus between dose 1 and 2 (at Month [M] 6), between dose 2 and 3 (at M12), and from dose 3 to M25. Baseline dengue serostatus (seropositive or seronegative) was determined based on measured dengue neutralizing antibody titers with the 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) or ascertained by logistic regression-based multiple imputation (MI) to predict PRNT50. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic VCD was assessed by age and baseline dengue serostatus using a case-cohort framework. Dengue neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) were measured with the PRNT50 at 28 days post-dose 2 and 3. Vaccine efficacy estimates in seropositive participants aged ≥ 9 years at post-dose 1, 2, and 3 were 80.5% (95% CI, 66.2, 88.7), 82.0% (95% CI, 70.5, 89.0), and 75.2% (95% CI, 65.9, 81.9), respectively. In seropositive participants aged < 9 years, vaccine efficacy estimates were 48.5% (95% CI, -24.3, 78.6), 68.3% (95% CI, 34.5, 84.7), and 65.3% (95% CI, 40.2, 79.9), respectively. CYD-TDV efficacy was null to modest after any dose in seronegative participants, regardless of age group. Seropositive participants aged ≥ 9 years in the CYD-TDV group had GMTs post-dose 3 that did not exceed those observed post-dose 2. In conclusion, CYD-TDV has high efficacy against VCD from the first dose through to M25, with estimates at post-dose 1 and 2 similar to or higher than those at post-dose 3 in seropositive participants aged ≥ 9 years, consistent with immunogenicity data.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy of a dengue vaccine against symptomatic, virologically-confirmed dengue disease by baseline dengue serostatus.

CYD-TDV is a live, attenuated, tetravalent dengue vaccine licensed in 21 countries. We undertook a post-hoc analysis of the long-term efficacy of CYD-TDV during the surveillance expansion phase (SEP) of two Phase III studies (CYD14 in the Asia-Pacific region; CYD15 in Latin America). The SEP included approximately Year 5 and the entire Year 6 of follow-up after the first study injection. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic virologically-confirmed dengue (VCD) was assessed by participant age (any age, ≥9, <9, 2-5, and 6-8 years at the time of the first injection) and baseline dengue serostatus using a case-cohort framework. Baseline dengue serostatus was estimated by several methods including logistic regression-based multiple imputation (MI) to predict PRNT50 with key predictor being Month 13 (M13) anti-non-structural protein (NS1) titers; superlearner-based imputation by targeted minimum loss based estimation (TMLE); and M13 anti-NS1 titer threshold 9 EU/mL (NS1 M13). There were 436 symptomatic VCD cases (CYD14: n = 360; CYD15: n = 76) during the SEP. Vaccine efficacy in seropositive participants aged ≥9 years was assessed by MI (47.9% [95% CI 19.4; 66.3]), TMLE (53.0% [95% CI 23; 71]), and NS1 M13 (52.4% [95% CI 30.8; 67.3]). Vaccine efficacy estimates were lower in seropositive individuals aged <9 years compared with individuals ≥9 years. Among seropositive individuals aged 2-5 and 6-8 years, vaccine efficacy across the different approaches for assessing serostatus ranged from between -25.7 to 36.9% and 44.4 to 64.7% during the SEP, respectively. In the pooled CYD14/15 data of seronegatives, vaccine efficacy was null to modest. In conclusion, CYD-TDV was shown to maintain efficacy against symptomatic VCD in seropositive participants aged ≥9 years up to six years after the first dose. Persistence of efficacy was also observed in seropositive participants aged 6-8 years.

Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 but remains endemic worldwide. In 2005, a 17-year-old unvaccinated girl who was incubating measles returned from Romania, creating the largest documented outbreak of measles in the United States since 1996. METHODS: We conducted a case-series investigation, molecular typing of viral isolates, surveys of rates of vaccination coverage, interviews regarding attitudes toward vaccination, and cost surveys. RESULTS: Approximately 500 persons attended a gathering with the index patient one day after her return home. Approximately 50 lacked evidence of measles immunity, of whom 16 (32 percent) acquired measles at the gathering. During the six weeks after the gathering, a total of 34 cases of measles were confirmed. Of the patients with confirmed measles, 94 percent were unvaccinated, 88 percent were less than 20 years of age, and 9 percent were hospitalized. Of the 28 patients who were 5 to 19 years of age, 71 percent were home-schooled. Vaccine failure occurred in two persons. The virus strain was genotype D4, which is endemic in Romania. Although containment measures began after 20 persons were already infectious, measles remained confined mostly to children whose parents had refused to have them vaccinated, primarily out of concern for adverse events from the vaccine. Seventy-one percent of patients were from four households. Levels of measles-vaccination coverage in Indiana were 92 percent for preschoolers and 98 percent for sixth graders. Estimated costs of containing the disease were at least 167,685 dollars, including 113,647 dollars at a hospital with an infected employee. CONCLUSIONS: This outbreak was caused by the importation of measles into a population of children whose parents had refused to have them vaccinated because of safety concerns about the vaccine. High vaccination levels in the surrounding community and low rates of vaccine failure averted an epidemic. Maintenance of high rates of vaccination coverage, including improved strategies of communication with persons who refuse vaccination, is necessary to prevent future outbreaks and sustain the elimination of measles in the United States.

Risk factors for mumps at a university with a large mumps outbreak.

OBJECTIVES: Routine measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine use has greatly decreased the incidence of mumps in the U.S. However, a resurgence of mumps occurred in 2006. We investigated the large outbreak at a university and assessed risk factors for disease. METHODS: We described the outbreak and conducted a case-control study. We interviewed case students (identified from student health service and health department records) and control students (selected from a randomly ordered administrative list) and assessed their vaccination status. We compared case students with > or = 2 MMR doses and control students with > or = 2 MMR doses in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The mean age of the 174 case students was 20.9 years; 65% were women. Ninety-seven case students and 147 control students were enrolled in the study. Two-dose MMR coverage was 99% among case and control students with complete records. Only 33% of case students reported exposure to someone with mumps. Case students were more likely than control students to be aged 18 to 19 years (vs. aged 22 years, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09, 14.74), to report exposure to mumps (AOR=2.31, 95% CI 1.13, 4.73), and to have worked/volunteered on campus (AOR=2.91, 95% CI 1.33, 6.33). Also, women in dormitories had increased odds of mumps compared with men in dormitories. CONCLUSION: High two-dose MMR coverage was not sufficient to prevent the outbreak. Further study is needed to better understand the effects of dormitory residency and gender on mumps transmission. Clinicians should be vigilant for mumps in young adults presenting with parotitis regardless of immunization history.

Mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations: are available mumps vaccines effective enough to prevent outbreaks?

Increased reports of mumps in vaccinated populations prompted a review of the performance of mumps vaccines. The effectiveness of prior vaccination with 1 dose of vaccine ranged from 72.8% to 91% for the Jeryl Lynn strain, from 54.4% to 93% for the Urabe strain, and from 0% to 33% for the Rubini strain. Vaccine effectiveness after 2 doses of mumps vaccine was reported in 3 outbreaks and ranged from 91% to 94.6%. There was evidence of waning immunity, which is a likely factor in mumps outbreaks, aggravated by possible antigenic differences between the vaccine strain and outbreak strains. Inadequate vaccine coverage or use of the Rubini vaccine strain accounted for the majority of outbreaks reviewed; however, some outbreaks could not be prevented, despite high vaccination coverage with 2 doses of the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain. Our findings indicate the need for more-effective mumps vaccines and/or for review of current vaccination policies to prevent future outbreaks.

Mumps vaccine performance among university students during a mumps outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The largest reported mumps outbreak at a US college in 19 years occurred in 2006 at a Kansas university with a 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination policy. We assessed vaccine performance and mumps risk factors, including the possibility of waning vaccine protection. METHODS: Case students were compared with a cohort of the university's approximately 19,000 undergraduates. The secondary attack rate for clinical mumps was determined among roommates exposed to case students. Time from receipt of the second dose of MMR vaccine was compared between case students and roommates without mumps. RESULTS: Coverage with > or =2 dose of MMR vaccine was > or =95% among 140 undergraduate case students and 444 cohort students. The secondary attack rate for clinical mumps among roommates who had received 2 doses of vaccine ranged from 2.2% to 7.7%, depending on the case definition. Compared with roommates without mumps, case students were more likely (odds ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-4.82) to have received their second dose of MMR vaccine > or =10 years earlier. The odds of being a case student increased with each 1-year increase in time from receipt of the second dose of MMR vaccine (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.68) among case students and roommates aged 18-19 years but not among those aged > or =20 years. Students aged 18-19 years had a higher risk of mumps (risk ratio, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-6.16), compared with students aged > or =22 years; women living in dormitories had increased risk of mumps (risk ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.76), compared with men not living in dormitories. CONCLUSION: High 2-dose MMR coverage protected many students from developing mumps but was not sufficient to prevent the mumps outbreak. Vaccine-induced protection may wane. Similar US settings where large numbers of young adults from wild-type naive cohorts live closely together may be at particular risk for mumps outbreaks.

Detection of RNA of mumps virus during an outbreak in a population with a high level of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine coverage.

The duration of mumps virus RNA detection was studied during a mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated university population. Seven of the eight reverse transcription-PCR-positive specimens were collected during the first 3 days of parotitis, suggesting that viral shedding is minimal after the first 3 days of symptoms.

Efforts at rubella elimination in the United States: the impact of hemispheric rubella control.

We examined rubella vaccination trends, rubella surveillance, and disease patterns for the Americas, Mexico, and the United States, to evaluate the impact of hemispheric rubella control on rubella elimination in the United States during 1997-2004. In 1997, 130,375 rubella cases were reported in the Americas, with 38,042 reported in Mexico. Over the next 7 years, a rubella control initiative resulted in the administration of approximately 110 million rubella-containing vaccine doses in Latin America, with 77.7 million doses administered within Mexico. By 2004, the number of reported rubella cases had declined to 3103 in the Americas and 698 in Mexico. Concurrently, the number of rubella cases in the United States fell from 817 during 1997-1999 to <25 cases/year from 2001 onward, with loss of seasonality and geographic clustering, despite no change in vaccination rates. Implementation of rubella control strategies in the Americas, particularly in Mexico, appears to have facilitated rubella elimination in the United States.