Developing a vaccine against Zika

The race to develop a vaccine against Zika began in February 2016, when the unusual clustering of cases of microcephaly and other neurological disorders associated with Zika virus infection led to the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern. When the World Health Organization held its first consultation in March, 14 active vaccine projects had already been announced.1 Today, WHO’s pipeline tracker counts about 30 active projects, pursued by developers from endemic and non-endemic countries, private and public sector.2 Such a jump start in vaccine development is rare, and several candidates have already progressed to clinical development. This pace is facilitated by our collective experience in developing vaccines against flaviviruses, the availability of novel vaccine technologies that greatly facilitate manufacturing of vaccines appropriate for trials in humans, and generous funding from some governments to support both basic research and product development

Health Systems Global, the new international society for health systems research

I see starting a new international society for health systems research as a step towards renewing our collective commitment to global health goals; in particular I see the proposed society as marking a commitment to equitable universal health care. From my perspective it is important that we are clear on the values that underpin the development of this new society. In addition, the society needs a clear strategy to help achieve this goal, in particular we need to first identify who is the target audience or constituency for the society; and second, the tools through which the society will work and how the society will engage with its audience.Fil: Kraushaar, D.. No especifíca;Fil: Kieny, M. P.. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Lazarus, J. V.. Health Systems Global; Estados UnidosFil: Bermejo, R.. University Of The Philippines; FilipinasFil: Abimbola, S.. National Primary Health Care Development Agency; NigeriaFil: Prashanth, N.. Institute Of Public Health; IndiaFil: Flores, W.. Center For The Study Of Equity And Governance In Health; GuatemalaFil: Freddie Ssengooba. Makerere University School Of Public Health; UgandaFil: Maceira, Daniel Alejandro. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Research priorities to increase vaccination coverage in Europe (EU joint action on vaccination)

BACKGROUND: Deciding how best to invest in healthcare is never an easy task and prioritization is therefore an area of great interest for policymakers. Too low public vaccine confidence, which results in insufficient vaccine uptake, remains an area of concern for EU policy-makers. Within the European Joint action on vaccination, a work-package dedicated to research aims to define tools and methods for priority-setting in the field of vaccination research. We therefore propose a prioritization framework to identify research priorities towards generating and synthesizing evidence to support policies and strategies aiming at increasing vaccine coverage. MATERIALS/METHODS: We used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative developed by Rudan et al. This quantitative methodology follows a series of steps involving different groups of experts and relevant stakeholders. The first step consists in identifying key research questions through a broad consultation. In parallel, a first group of experts is tasked to select criteria for prioritization of research questions, taking into consideration the ultimate goal of the exercise. Another group of experts is then requested to assess a weight to each of the criteria, using pair-wise comparisons. The final step consists in gathering experts who will assess each research question against the weighted criteria. This evaluation leads to assigning a score to each individual research question, which can then be ranked in order of priority. RESULTS: We focused our work on four pre-selected pilot vaccines (pertussis, measles containing combination vaccines, influenza and HPV). The consultation generated 124 questions, which were secondarily sorted and re-worded to obtain 27 questions to be ranked. Criteria for setting priorities were the following: accessibility, answerability, deliverability, disease prevalence/incidence, effectiveness, equity, generalization, and territory. During a final face-to-face meeting international experts ranked the 27 questions and agreed on a consensual list of six top-priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a transparent, evidence-based rigorous framework to defined key research questions to generate evidence towards the design of policies and strategies to increase vaccine coverage. Results were disseminated broadly and submitted to the EC for potential funding in the context of The Horizon Europe Program. The same process will be conducted in 2021 to identify vaccination research priorities regarding all vaccines used in the EU as well as COVID-19 vaccines

Determinants of antibody persistence across doses and continents after single-dose rVSV-ZEBOV vaccination for Ebola virus disease: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV) vaccine expressing the Zaire Ebola virus (ZEBOV) glycoprotein is efficacious in the weeks following single-dose injection, but duration of immunity is unknown. We aimed to assess antibody persistence at 1 and 2 years in volunteers who received single-dose rVSV-ZEBOV in three previous trials. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we prospectively followed-up participants from the African and European phase 1 rVSV-ZEBOV trials, who were vaccinated once in 2014-15 with 300 000 (low dose) or 10-50 million (high dose) plaque-forming units (pfu) of rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine to assess ZEBOV glycoprotein (IgG) antibody persistence. The primary outcome was ZEBOV glycoprotein-specific IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) measured yearly by ELISA compared with 1 month (ie, 28 days) after immunisation. We report GMCs up to 2 years (Geneva, Switzerland, including neutralising antibodies up to 6 months) and 1 year (Lambaréné, Gabon; Kilifi, Kenya) after vaccination and factors associated with higher antibody persistence beyond 6 months, according to multivariable analyses. Trials and the observational study were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Geneva: NCT02287480 and NCT02933931; Kilifi: NCT02296983) and the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry (Lambaréné PACTR201411000919191). FINDINGS: Of 217 vaccinees from the original studies (102 from the Geneva study, 75 from the Lambaréné study, and 40 from the Kilifi study), 197 returned and provided samples at 1 year (95 from the Geneva study, 63 from the Lambaréné, and 39 from the Kilifi study) and 90 at 2 years (all from the Geneva study). In the Geneva group, 44 (100%) of 44 participants who had been given a high dose (ie, 10-50 million pfu) of vaccine and who were seropositive at day 28 remained seropositive at 2 years, whereas 33 (89%) of 37 who had been given the low dose (ie, 300 000 pfu) remained seropositive for 2 years (p=0·042). In participants who had received a high dose, ZEBOV glycoprotein IgG GMCs decreased significantly between their peak (at 1-3 months) and month 6 after vaccination in Geneva (p0·05). Neutralising antibodies seem to be less durable, with seropositivity dropping from 64-71% at 28 days to 27-31% at 6 months in participants from the Geneva study. INTERPRETATION: Antibody responses to single-dose rVSV-ZEBOV vaccination are sustained across dose ranges and settings, a key criterion in countries where booster vaccinations would be impractical. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust and Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking

Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis in the Philippines: Health Status of Patients Having Received Purified Equine F(ab')2 Fragment Rabies Immunoglobulin (Favirab)

Infection from a bite by a rabid animal is fatal unless rapid treatment (thorough cleaning of the wound, administration of rabies immunoglobulins (RIG), and a full anti-rabies vaccination course) is provided. Ideally human RIG should be used, but cheaper, more readily available purified horse RIG (pERIG) are widely used in developing countries. Follow-up of over 7,600 patients previously given pERIG at the rabies treatment reference center in Manila (Philippines) provided updated health status for 6,458 patients 39 days to 29 months after treatment. A total of 151 patients had been bitten by animals with laboratory-confirmed rabies. Two rabies deaths were reported, one in a 4-year-old girl with bites on the back, shoulder, and neck so severe that stitching was required to prevent bleeding (against recommended practice), and another in an 8-year-old boy who only received rabies vaccination on the day of initial treatment. A 7-year-old cousin of this boy, bitten by the same animal, who did receive the full vaccination course was still healthy 10 months later. Fourteen other reported deaths had causes unrelated to rabies. These data illustrate the effectiveness of pERIG as part of the recommended treatment regimen, while highlighting the importance of adhering to current recommendations

Ring vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV under expanded access in response to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease in Guinea, 2016: an operational and vaccine safety report.

BACKGROUND: In March, 2016, a flare-up of Ebola virus disease was reported in Guinea, and in response ring vaccination with the unlicensed rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine was introduced under expanded access, the first time that an Ebola vaccine has been used in an outbreak setting outside a clinical trial. Here we describe the safety of rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine and operational feasibility of ring vaccination as a reactive strategy in a resource-limited rural setting. METHODS: Approval for expanded access and compassionate use was rapidly sought and obtained from relevant authorities. Vaccination teams and frozen vaccine were flown to the outbreak settings. Rings of contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and eligible individuals, who had given informed consent, were vaccinated and followed up for 21 days under good clinical practice conditions. FINDINGS: Between March 17 and April 21, 2016, 1510 individuals were vaccinated in four rings in Guinea, including 303 individuals aged between 6 years and 17 years and 307 front-line workers. It took 10 days to vaccinate the first participant following the confirmation of the first case of Ebola virus disease. No secondary cases of Ebola virus disease occurred among the vaccinees. Adverse events following vaccination were reported in 47 (17%) 6-17 year olds (all mild) and 412 (36%) adults (individuals older than 18 years; 98% were mild). Children reported fewer arthralgia events than adults (one [<1%] of 303 children vs 81 [7%] of 1207 adults). No severe vaccine-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The results show that a ring vaccination strategy can be rapidly and safely implemented at scale in response to Ebola virus disease outbreaks in rural settings. FUNDING: WHO, Gavi, and the World Food Programme

The Classic: A Morphogenetic Matrix for Differentiation of Cartilage in Tissue Culture

This Classic Article is a reprint of the original work by Hiroshi Nogami and Marshall R. Urist, A Morphogenetic Matrix for Differentiation of Cartilage in Tissue Culture. An accompanying biographical sketch of Marshall R. Urist, MD is available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-1067-4; a second Classic Article is available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-1068-3; and a third Classic Article is available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-1070-9. The Classic Article is © 1970 by the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine and is reprinted with permission from Nogami H, Urist MR. A morphogenetic matrix for differentiation of cartilage in tissue culture. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1970;134;530–535

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ça Suffit!).

BACKGROUND: rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6-17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9-100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3-100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. INTERPRETATION: The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. FUNDING: WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)