Search

The use of inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) will be required to achieve, world-wide eradication of polio. The current expense of IPV is however prohibitive for, some countries, and therefore efforts to decrease the costs of the vaccine are a high, priority. Our results show that the addition of oil-in-water emulsion adjuvants to an, inactivated trivalent poliovirus vaccine are dose-sparing and are capable of enhancing, neutralizing antibody titers in the rat potency model., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Transcutaneous immunisation (TCI) using a skin patch is a non-invasive vaccination route relevant to mass vaccination against infectious diseases. This phase I/II clinical study, documents that TCI of human adult volunteers with the live-attenuated measles vaccine ROUVAX® is safe and poorly reactogenic. It promotes induction of measles-specific salivary IgA and a tendency to increased frequency of MV-specific IFNγ-producing T cells. However, in contrast to the subcutaneous route, TCI failed to evoke neutralising MV-specific serum antibodies. Thus, alternative delivery methods and/or devices providing optimal uptake by skin DC should be considered for live-attenuated virus vaccines, such as the measles vaccine. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In high-income countries, there is an increased tendency to replace inactivated seasonal trivalent influenza (TIV) vaccines with quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines as these are considered to give a greater public health benefit. In addition, several recent studies from the USA and Europe indicate that replacement with QIV might also be cost-effective; however, the situation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is less clear as few studies have investigated this aspect. The paper by de Boer et al. (2008) describes a dynamic modelling study commissioned by WHO that suggests that in LMICs, under certain conditions, QIV might also be more cost-effective than TIV. In this commentary, we discuss some important aspects that policymakers in LMICs might wish to take into account when considering replacing TIV by QIV. Indeed, from the data presented in the paper by de Boer et al. it can be inferred that replacing QIV for TIV would mean a 25–29% budget increase for seasonal influenza vaccination in South Africa and Vietnam, resulting in an incremental influenza-related health impact reduction of only 7–8% when a 10% symptomatic attack rate is assumed. We argue that national health budget considerations in LMIC might lead decision-makers to choose other investments with higher health impact for a budget equivalent to roughly a quarter of the yearly TIV immunization costs. In addition to an increased annual cost that would be associated with a decision to replace TIV with QIV, there would be an increased pressure on manufacturers to produce QIV in time for the influenza season requiring manufacturers to produce some components of the seasonal vaccine at risk prior to the WHO recommendations for influenza vaccines. Unless the current uncertainties, impracticalities and increased costs associated with QIVs are resolved, TIVs are likely to remain the more attractive option for many LMICs. Each country should establish its context-specific process for decision-making based on national data on disease burden and costs in order to determine whether the health gains out-weigh the additional cost of moving to QIV. For example, immunizing more people in the population, especially those in higher risk groups, with TIV might not only provide better value for money but also deliver better health outcomes in LMICs. Countries with local influenza vaccine manufacturing capacity should include in their seasonal influenza vaccine procurement process an analysis of the pros- and cons- of TIV versus QIV, to ensure both feasibility and sustainability of local manufacturing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While progress towards a Group A Streptococcus (GAS) vaccine has been stalled by a combination of scientific, regulatory, and commercial barriers, the problem persists. The high and globally-distributed burden of disease attributable to GAS makes vaccination an imperative global public health goal. Advances across a range of scientific disciplines in understanding GAS diseases have made the goal a realistic one and focused attention on the need for coordinated global action. With a view to accelerating GAS vaccine development, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) convened a global stakeholder consultation on the 12th and 13th of December 2016, in Seoul, South Korea. Topics discussed included: (1) gaps in current knowledge of global GAS epidemiology, burden of disease, and molecular epidemiology; (2) contribution of pre-clinical models to candidate vaccine evaluation and new immunological assays to address GAS immunology knowledge gaps; (3) status and future of the GAS vaccine development pipeline; and (4) defining a pathway to licensure, policy recommendations and availability of a vaccine. The meeting determined to establish a GAS vaccine working group to coordinate preparation of a global vaccine values proposition, preferred product characteristics, and a technical research and development roadmap. A new global GAS vaccine consortium will drive strategic planning to anticipate requirements for licensure, prequalification, and policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, there has been a flurry of research on adjuvants for vaccines, and several novel adjuvants are now in licensed products or in late stage clinical development. The success of adjuvants in enhancing the immune response to recombinant antigens has led many researchers to re-focus their vaccine development programs. Successful vaccine development requires knowing which adjuvants to use and knowing how to formulate adjuvants and antigens to achieve stable, safe and immunogenic vaccines. For the majority of vaccine researchers this information is not readily available, nor is access to well-characterized adjuvants. In this review, we outline the current state of adjuvant research and development and how formulation parameters can influence the effectiveness of adjuvants. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]