#Effect of #measles #vaccination in #infants younger than 9 months on the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Infect Dis., abstract)

[Source: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Effect of measles vaccination in infants younger than 9 months on the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laura M Nic Lochlainn, PhD, Brechje de Gier, PhD, Nicoline van der Maas, PhD, Rob van Binnendijk, PhD, Peter M Strebel, MBChB, Tracey Goodman, MA, Hester E de Melker, PhD, Prof William J Moss, MD, Susan J M Hahné, PhD

Open Access / Published: September 20, 2019 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30396-2

 

Summary

Background

Vaccinating infants with a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) before 9 months of age in high-risk settings has the potential to reduce measles-related morbidity and mortality. However, there is concern that early vaccination might blunt the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effect of MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months on their immune responses to subsequent MCV doses.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We included studies reporting data on strength or duration of humoral and cellular immune responses, and on vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness after two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules. Our outcome measures were proportion of seropositive infants, geometric mean titre, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, antibody avidity index, and T-cell stimulation index. We used random-effects meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of the outcomes, where appropriate. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

Findings

Our search retrieved 1156 records and 85 were excluded due to duplication. 1071 records were screened for eligibility, of which 351 were eligible for full-text screening and 21 were eligible for inclusion in the review. From 13 studies, the pooled proportion of infants seropositive after two MCV doses, with MCV1 administered before 9 months of age, was 98% (95% CI 96–99; I2=79·8%, p<0·0001), which was not significantly different from seropositivity after a two-dose MCV schedule starting later (p=0·087). Only one of four studies found geometric mean titres after MCV2 administration to be significantly lower when MCV1 was administered before 9 months of age than at 9 months of age or later. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect of age at MCV1 administration on antibody avidity. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate derived from two studies of a two-dose MCV schedule with MCV1 vaccination before 9 months of age was 95% (95% CI 89–100; I2=12·6%, p=0·29). Seven studies reporting on measles virus-specific cellular immune responses found that T-cell responses and T-cell memory were sustained, irrespective of the age of MCV1 administration. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate to very low.

Interpretation

Our findings suggest that administering MCV1 to infants younger than 9 months followed by additional MCV doses results in high seropositivity, vaccine effectiveness, and T-cell responses, which are independent of the age at MCV1, supporting the vaccination of very young infants in high-risk settings. However, we also found some evidence that MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months resulted in lower antibody titres after one or two subsequent doses of MCV than when measles vaccination is started at age 9 months or older. The clinical and public-health relevance of this immunity blunting effect are uncertain.

Funding

WHO.

Keywords: Measles; Vaccines; Pediatrics.

——

Advertisements

Immunogenicity, #effectiveness, and #safety of #measles #vaccination in #infants younger than 9 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Infect Dis., abstract)

[Source: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety of measles vaccination in infants younger than 9 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laura M Nic Lochlainn, PhD, Brechje de Gier, PhD, Nicoline van der Maas, PhD, Peter M Strebel, MBChB, Tracey Goodman, MA, Rob S van Binnendijk, PhD, Hester E de Melker, PhD, Susan J M Hahné, PhD

Open Access / Published: September 20, 2019 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30395-0

 

Summary

Background

Measles is an important cause of death in children, despite the availability of safe and cost-saving measles-containing vaccines (MCVs). The first MCV dose (MCV1) is recommended at 9 months of age in countries with ongoing measles transmission, and at 12 months in countries with low risk of measles. To assess whether bringing forward the age of MCV1 is beneficial, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and risks of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Proquest, Global Health, the WHO library database, and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing database, and consulted experts. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We assessed: proportion of infants seroconverted, geometric mean antibody titre, avidity, cellular immunity, duration of immunity, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, and safety. We used random-effects models to derive pooled estimates of the endpoints, where appropriate. We assessed methodological quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines.

Findings

Our search identified 1156 studies, of which 1071 were screened for eligibility. 351 were eligible for full-text screening, and data from 56 studies that met all inclusion criteria were used for analysis. The proportion of infants who seroconverted increased from 50% (95% CI 29–71) for those vaccinated with MCV1 at 4 months of age to 85% (69–97) for those were vaccinated at 8 months. The pooled geometric mean titre ratio for infants aged 4–8 months vaccinated with MCV1 compared with infants vaccinated with MCV1 at age 9 months or older was 0·46 (95% CI 0·33–0·66; I2=99·9%, p<0·0001). Only one study reported on avidity and suggested that there was lower avidity and a shorter duration of immunity following MCV1 administration at 6 months of age than at 9 months of age (p=0·0016) or 12 months of age (p<0·001). No effect of age at MCV1 administration on cellular immunity was found. One study reported that vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed measles virus infection was 94% (95% CI 74–98) in infants vaccinated with MCV1 at 4·5 months of age. The pooled vaccine effectiveness of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months against measles was 58% (95% CI 9–80; I2=84·9%, p<0·0001). The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate from within-study comparisons of infants younger than 9 months vaccinated with MCV1 were 51% (95% CI −44 to 83; I2=92·3%, p<0·0001), and for those aged 9 months and older at vaccination it was 83% (76–88; I2=93·8%, p<0·0001). No differences in the risk of adverse events after MCV1 administration were found between infants younger than 9 months and those aged 9 months of older. Overall, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Interpretation

MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months induces a good immune response, whereby the proportion of infants seroconverted increases with increased age at vaccination. A large proportion of infants receiving MCV1 before 9 months of age are protected and the vaccine is safe, although higher antibody titres and vaccine effectiveness are found when MCV1 is administered at older ages. Recommending MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months for those at high risk of measles is an important step towards reducing measles-related mortality and morbidity.

Funding

WHO.

Keywords: Measles; Vaccines; Pediatrics.

——

#Medical #Outcomes in Women Who Became #Pregnant after #Vaccination with a #VLP Experimental #Vaccine against #Influenza A (#H1N1) 2009 Virus Tested during 2009 #Pandemic Outbreak (Viruses, abstract)

[Source: US National Library of Medicine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Viruses. 2019 Sep 17;11(9). pii: E868. doi: 10.3390/v11090868.

Medical Outcomes in Women Who Became Pregnant after Vaccination with a Virus-Like Particle Experimental Vaccine against Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Virus Tested during 2009 Pandemic Outbreak.

Cérbulo-Vázquez A1, Arriaga-Pizano L2, Cruz-Cureño G3, Boscó-Gárate I4, Ferat-Osorio E5, Pastelin-Palacios R6, Figueroa-Damian R7, Castro-Eguiluz D8, Mancilla-Ramirez J9, Isibasi A10, López-Macías C11,12,13.

Author information: 1 Facultad de Medicina, Plan de Estudios Combinados en Medicina (MD, PhD Program), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City CP 04510, Mexico. cerbulo@unam.mx. 2 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunoquímica, Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico City CP 06720, Mexico. landapi@hotmail.com. 3 Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, Programa de Inmunología, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City CP 11340, Mexico. gabrielacruz30@gmail.com. 4 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunoquímica, Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico City CP 06720, Mexico. ibosco45@hotmail.com. 5 Servicio de Cirugía Gastrointestinal, Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad, Hospital de Especialidades Dr Bernardo Sepúlveda Gutiérrez, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico City CP 06720, Mexico. eduardoferat@prodigy.net.mx. 6 Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Química, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City CP 04510, Mexico. rodolfop@unam.mx. 7 Departamento de Infectología, Instituto Nacional de Perinatología, Mexico City CP 11000, Mexico. rfd6102@yahoo.com.mx. 8 Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT)- Departamento de Investigación Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City CP 14080, Mexico. angeldenisse@gmail.com. 9 Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional; Hospital de la Mujer, Secretaria de Sauld, Mexico City CP 11340, Mexico. javiermancilla@hotmail.com. 10 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunoquímica, Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico City CP 06720, Mexico. isibasi@prodigy.net.mx. 11 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunoquímica, Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico City CP 06720, Mexico. constantino@sminmunologia.mx. 12 Visiting Professor of Immunology, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. constantino@sminmunologia.mx. 13 Mexican Translational Immunology Research Group, Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies Centers of Excellence, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City 04510, Mexico. constantino@sminmunologia.mx.

 

Abstract

The clinical effects and immunological response to the influenza vaccine in women who later become pregnant remain to be thoroughly studied. Here, we report the medical outcomes of 40 women volunteers who became pregnant after vaccination with an experimental virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine against pandemic influenza A(H1N1)2009 (influenza A(H1N1)pdm09) and their infants. When included in the VLP vaccine trial, none of the women were pregnant and were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: (1) placebo, (2) 15 μg dose of VLP vaccine, or (3) 45 μg dose of VLP vaccine. These 40 women reported becoming pregnant during the follow-up phase after receiving the placebo or VLP vaccine. Women were monitored throughout pregnancy and their infants were monitored until one year after birth. Antibody titers against VLP were measured in the mothers and infants at delivery and at six months and one year after birth. The incidence of preeclampsia, fetal death, preterm delivery, and premature rupture of membranes was similar among groups. All vaccinated women and their infants elicited antibody titers (≥1:40). Women vaccinated prior to pregnancy had no adverse events that were different from the nonvaccinated population. Even though this study is limited by the sample size, the results suggest that the anti-influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 VLP experimental vaccine applied before pregnancy is safe for both mothers and their infants.

KEYWORDS: antibody titers; influenza A(H1N1)pdm09; pregnant women; vaccination; virus-like particle

PMID: 31533277 DOI: 10.3390/v11090868

Keywords: Pandemic Influenza; H1N1pdm09; Vaccines; Pregnancy.

——

Long-term #immunity against #yellowfever in #children vaccinated during infancy: a longitudinal cohort study (Lancet Infect Dis., abstract)

[Source: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Long-term immunity against yellow fever in children vaccinated during infancy: a longitudinal cohort study

Cristina Domingo, Juliane Fraissinet, Patrick O Ansah, Corey Kelly, Niranjan Bhat, Samba O Sow, José E Mejía

Open Access / Published: September 19, 2019 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30323-8

 

Summary

Background

A single dose of vaccine against yellow fever is routinely administered to infants aged 9–12 months under the Expanded Programme on Immunization, but the long-term outcome of vaccination in this age group is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the long-term persistence of neutralising antibodies to yellow fever virus following routine vaccination in infancy.

Methods

We did a longitudinal cohort study, using a microneutralisation assay to measure protective antibodies against yellow fever in Malian and Ghanaian children vaccinated around age 9 months and followed up for 4·5 years (Mali), or 2·3 and 6·0 years (Ghana). Healthy children with available day-0 sera, a complete follow-up history, and no record of yellow fever revaccination were included; children seropositive for yellow fever at baseline were excluded. We standardised antibody concentrations with reference to the yellow fever WHO International Standard.

Findings

We included 587 Malian and 436 Ghanaian children vaccinated between June 5, 2009, and Dec 26, 2012. In the Malian group, 296 (50·4%, 95% CI 46·4–54·5) were seropositive (antibody concentration ≥0·5 IU/mL) 4·5 years after vaccination. Among the Ghanaian children, 121 (27·8%, 23·5–32·0) were seropositive after 2·3 years. These results show a large decrease from the proportions of seropositive infants 28 days after vaccination, 96·7% in Mali and 72·7% in Ghana, reported by a previous study of both study populations. The number of seropositive children increased to 188 (43·1%, 95% CI 38·5–47·8) in the Ghanaian group 6·0 years after vaccination, but this result might be confounded by unrecorded revaccination or natural infection with wild yellow fever virus during a 2011–12 outbreak in northern Ghana.

Interpretation

Rapid waning of immunity during the early years after vaccination of 9-month-old infants argues for a revision of the single-dose recommendation for this target population in endemic countries. The short duration of immunity in many vaccinees suggests that booster vaccination is necessary to meet the 80% population immunity threshold for prevention of yellow fever outbreaks.

Funding

Wellcome Trust.

Keywords: Yellow Fever; Vaccines; Pediatrics.

——

Immune #correlates of the #Thai #RV144 #HIV #vaccine regimen in South Africa (Sci Transl Med., abstract)

[Source: Science Translational Medicine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Immune correlates of the Thai RV144 HIV vaccine regimen in South Africa

Glenda E. Gray1,2,3,*, Ying Huang3, Nicole Grunenberg3, Fatima Laher1, Surita Roux4,†, Erica Andersen-Nissen3,5, Stephen C. De Rosa3, Britta Flach5, April K. Randhawa3, Ryan Jensen3, Edith M. Swann6, Linda-Gail Bekker4, Craig Innes7, Erica Lazarus1, Lynn Morris8, Nonhlanhla N. Mkhize8, Guido Ferrari9, David C. Montefiori9, Xiaoying Shen9, Sheetal Sawant9, Nicole Yates9, John Hural3, Abby Isaacs3, Sanjay Phogat10, Carlos A. DiazGranados10, Carter Lee11, Faruk Sinangil11, Nelson L. Michael12, Merlin L. Robb12, James G. Kublin3, Peter B. Gilbert3, M. Juliana McElrath3, Georgia D. Tomaras9 and Lawrence Corey3

1 Perinatal HIV Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1864, South Africa. 2 South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town 7505, South Africa. 3 Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. 4 The Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 8001, South Africa. 5 Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory, Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa, Cape Town 8001, South Africa. 6 Vaccine Research Program, Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20852, USA. 7 The Aurum Institute, Klerksdorp 2570, South Africa. 8 National Institute for Communicable Diseases, National Health Laboratory Service, Sandringham, Johannesburg 2192, South Africa. 9 Duke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA. 10 Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA 18370, USA. 11 Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA. 12 US Military HIV Research Program, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.

*Corresponding author. Email: glenda.gray@mrc.ac.za

† Present address: Synexus Clinical Research SA (Pty) Ltd., Somerset West, Cape Town, South Africa.

Science Translational Medicine  18 Sep 2019: Vol. 11, Issue 510, eaax1880 / DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aax1880

 

Taking RV144 beyond Thailand

The RV144 vaccine trial in Thailand is the only HIV vaccine to show efficacy against HIV infection to date. Gray et al. designed the HVTN 097 trial to test this regimen in South Africa, where clade C HIV circulates; this clade is heterologous to the vaccine antigens. They intently examined immune protective responses previously identified in the RV144 trial and found that the vaccine seemed to be even more immunogenic in South Africans. CD4+ T cell responses were stronger and more common in HVTN 097, and the magnitude of protective antibody responses was greater compared to RV144. Their results indicate that the RV144 regimen or others like it could be protective in areas where HIV is endemic.

 

Abstract

One of the most successful HIV vaccines to date, the RV144 vaccine tested in Thailand, demonstrated correlates of protection including cross-clade V1V2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) breadth, Env-specific CD4+ T cell polyfunctionality, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) in vaccinees with low IgA binding. The HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 097 trial evaluated this vaccine regimen in South Africa, where clade C HIV-1 predominates. We compared cellular and humoral responses at peak and durability immunogenicity time points in HVTN 097 and RV144 vaccinee samples, and evaluated vaccine-matched and cross-clade immune responses. At peak immunogenicity, HVTN 097 vaccinees exhibited significantly higher cellular and humoral immune responses than RV144 vaccinees. CD4+ T cell responses were more frequent in HVTN 097 irrespective of age and sex, and CD4+ T cell Env-specific functionality scores were higher in HVTN 097. Env-specific CD40L+ CD4+ T cells were more common in HVTN 097, with individuals having this pattern of expression demonstrating higher median antibody responses to HIV-1 Env. IgG and IgG3 binding antibody rates and response magnitude to gp120 vaccine– and V1V2 vaccine–matched antigens were higher or comparable in HVTN 097 than in RV144 ADCC, and ADCP functional antibody responses were elicited in HVTN 097. Env-specific IgG and CD4+ Env responses declined significantly over time in both trials. Overall, cross-clade immune responses associated with protection were better than expected in South Africa, suggesting wider applicability of this regimen.

Keywords: HIV/ADIS; Vaccines; South Africa.

——

#Safety and #immunogenicity of investigational seasonal #influenza #hemagglutinin #DNA #vaccine followed by #TIV administered intradermally or intramuscularly in healthy adults… (PLoS One, abstract)

[Source: PLoS One, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

OPEN ACCESS /  PEER-REVIEWED / RESEARCH ARTICLE

Safety and immunogenicity of investigational seasonal influenza hemagglutinin DNA vaccine followed by trivalent inactivated vaccine administered intradermally or intramuscularly in healthy adults: An open-label randomized phase 1 clinical trial

Cristina Carter , Katherine V. Houser , Galina V. Yamshchikov, Abbie R. Bellamy, Jeanine May, Mary E. Enama, Uzma Sarwar, Brenda Larkin, Robert T. Bailer, Richard Koup, Grace L. Chen, Shital M. Patel, Patricia Winokur,  [ … ],the VRC 703 study team

Published: September 18, 2019 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222178

 

Abstract

Background

Seasonal influenza results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but the currently licensed inactivated vaccines generally have low vaccine efficacies and could be improved. In this phase 1 clinical trial, we compared seasonal influenza vaccine regimens with different priming strategies, prime-boost intervals, and administration routes to determine the impact of these variables on the resulting antibody response.

Methods

Between August 17, 2012 and January 25, 2013, four sites enrolled healthy adults 18–70 years of age. Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following vaccination regimens: trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) DNA prime followed by trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost with a 3.5 month interval (DNA-IIV3), IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (IIV3-IIV3), or concurrent DNA and IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (DNA/IIV3-IIV3). Each regimen was additionally stratified by an IIV3 administration route of either intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID). DNA vaccines were administered by a needle-free jet injector (Biojector). Study objectives included evaluating the safety and tolerability of each regimen and measuring the antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI).

Results

Three hundred and sixteen subjects enrolled. Local reactogenicity was mild to moderate in severity, with higher frequencies recorded following DNA vaccine administered by Biojector compared to IIV3 by either route (p <0.02 for pain, swelling, and redness) and following IIV3 by ID route compared to IM route (p <0.001 for swelling and redness). Systemic reactogenicity was similar between regimens. Though no overall differences were observed between regimens, the highest titers post boost were observed in the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route and in the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route.

Conclusions

All vaccination regimens were found to be safe and tolerable. While there were no overall differences between regimens, the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route, and the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route, showed higher responses compared to the other same-route regimens.

___

Citation: Carter C, Houser KV, Yamshchikov GV, Bellamy AR, May J, Enama ME, et al. (2019) Safety and immunogenicity of investigational seasonal influenza hemagglutinin DNA vaccine followed by trivalent inactivated vaccine administered intradermally or intramuscularly in healthy adults: An open-label randomized phase 1 clinical trial. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222178

Editor: Patricia Evelyn Fast, IAVI, UNITED STATES

Received: February 26, 2019; Accepted: July 28, 2019; Published: September 18, 2019

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This clinical study was conducted with funding and support by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Intramural Research program, using resources provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and contract #HHSN272201000049I awarded to the Emmes Corporation (AB, JM, SP, PW, RB, CD). The Clinical and Translational Research Unit at Stanford University was supported by an NIH/NCRR CTSA award UL1 RR025744. The Emmes Corporation and other funders provided support in the form of salaries for authors AB and JM but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The Emmes Corporation provided support in the form of salaries for authors AB and JM but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. This support does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Keywords: Seasonal Influenza; Vaccines.

——

#UK #vaccines #network: Mapping #priority #pathogens of #epidemic #potential and vaccine #pipeline developments (Vaccine, abstract)

[Source: US National Library of Medicine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Vaccine. 2019 Sep 12. pii: S0264-410X(19)31197-1. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.009. [Epub ahead of print]

UK vaccines network: Mapping priority pathogens of epidemic potential and vaccine pipeline developments.

Noad RJ1, Simpson K2, Fooks AR3, Hewson R4, Gilbert SC5, Stevens MP6, Hosie MJ7, Prior J8, Kinsey AM9, Entrican G10, Simpson A11, Whitty CJM12, Carroll MW13.

Author information: 1 Pathobiology and Population Science, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK. Electronic address: rnoad@rvc.ac.uk. 2 JKS Bioscience Ltd, 2 Midanbury Court, 44 Midanbury Lane, Southampton SO18 4HF, UK. Electronic address: Karl.simpson@jksbioscience.co.uk. 3 Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, UK. Electronic address: Tony.Fooks@apha.gsi.gov.uk. 4 National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 0JG, UK. 5 Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK. Electronic address: sarah.gilbert@ndm.ox.ac.uk. 6 The Roslin Institute & Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK. Electronic address: Mark.Stevens@roslin.ed.ac.uk. 7 MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, College of Veterinary, Medical and Life Sciences, Garscube Estate, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK. Electronic address: margaret.hosie@glasgow.ac.uk. 8 CBR Division, Dstl Porton Down, Wiltshire SP3 4DZ, UK. Electronic address: jlprior@dstl.gsi.gov.uk. 9 Medical Research Council, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN, UK. Electronic address: anna.kinsey@mrc.ukri.org. 10 Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan, Penicuik, Near Edinburgh, Scotland EH26 0PZ, UK. Electronic address: Gary.Entrican@moredun.ac.uk. 11 National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 0JG, UK. Electronic address: Andrew.simpson@phe.gov.uk. 12 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St., London WC1E 7HT, UK. Electronic address: christopher.whitty@lshtm.ac.uk. 13 National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 0JG, UK. Electronic address: miles.carroll@phe.gov.uk.

 

Abstract

During the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa an expert panel was established on the instructions of the UK Prime Minister to identify priority pathogens for outbreak diseases that had the potential to cause future epidemics. A total of 13 priority pathogens were identified, which led to the prioritisation of spending in emerging diseases vaccine research and development from the UK. This meeting report summarises the process used to develop the UK pathogen priority list, compares it to lists generated by other organisations (World Health Organisation, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and summarises clinical progress towards the development of vaccines against priority diseases. There is clear technical progress towards the development of vaccines. However, the availability of these vaccines will be dependent on sustained funding for clinical trials and the preparation of clinically acceptable manufactured material during inter-epidemic periods.

Copyright © 2019.

KEYWORDS: Epidemic; Outbreak; Pathogen; Priority; UKVN; Vaccine

PMID: 31522809 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.009

Keywords: Infectious Diseases; Emerging Diseases; UK; Vaccines.

——