Search

The WHO/MPP mRNA Technology Transfer Programme, initiated in 2021, focuses on establishing mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity in LMICs. On 17-21 April 2023, Programme partners were convened to review technology transfer progress, discuss sustainability aspects and promote mRNA product development for diseases relevant to LMICs. To help guide product development, this report introduces key considerations for for understanding the likelihood of technical and regulatory success and of policy development and procurement for mRNA vaccines to be developed and manufactured in LMICs. The report underscores the potential for LMICs to establish sustainable mRNA R&D pipelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is a need for investment in manufacturing for vaccine microarray patches (vMAPs) to accelerate vMAP development and access. vMAPs could transform vaccines deployment and reach to everyone, everywhere., Areas Covered: We outline vMAPs' potential benefits for epidemic preparedness and for outreach in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), share lessons learned from pandemic response, and highlight that investment in manufacturing-at-risk could accelerate vMAP development., Expert Opinion: Pilot manufacturing capabilities are needed to produce clinical trial material and enable emergency response. Funding vMAP manufacturing scale-up in parallel to clinical proof-of-concept studies could accelerate vMAP approval and availability. Incentives could mitigate the risks of establishing multi-vMAP manufacturing facilities early.

This paper explores the pipeline of new and upcoming vaccines as it relates to monitoring their safety. Compared with most currently available vaccines, that are constituted of live attenuated organisms or inactive products, future vaccines will also be based on new technologies. Several products that include such technologies are either already licensed or at an advanced stage of clinical development. Those include viral vectors, genetically attenuated live organisms, nucleic acid vaccines, novel adjuvants, increased number of antigens present in a single vaccine, novel mode of vaccine administration and thermostabilisation. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) monitors novel vaccines, from the time they become available for large scale use. GACVS maintains their safety profile as evidence emerges from post-licensure surveillance and observational studies. Vaccines and vaccine formulations produced with novel technologies will have different safety profiles that will require adapting pharmacovigilance approaches. For example, GACVS now considers viral vector templates developed on the model proposed by Brighton Collaboration. The characteristics of those novel products will also have implications for the risk management plans (RMPs). Questions related to the duration of active monitoring for genetic material, presence of adventitious agents more easily detected with enhanced biological screening, or physiological mechanisms of novel adjuvants are all considerations that will belong to the preparation of RMPs. In addition to assessing those novel products and advising experts, GACVS will also consider how to more broadly communicate about risk assessment, so vaccine users can also benefit from the committee's advice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Developing country vaccine manufacturers (DCVMs) supply over half of the vaccines used in developing country immunisation programs. Decisions by developing countries to establish vaccine manufacturing should be based on economic viability, however reliable assessments of vaccine production costs are lacking. This study aimed to quantify the cost of establishing vaccine manufacturing facilities and producing vaccines in developing countries. This study estimates vaccine production costs in developing countries based on twelve vaccines produced by eight DCVMs. The results were based on estimates of the capital and operating costs required to establish vaccine manufacturing facilities under three hypothetical scenarios of production scale and scope. Cost patterns were then compared to vaccine prices paid by countries in both industrialized and developing country markets. The cost of producing vaccines in developing countries was estimated to be on average US$ 2.18 per dose, ranging between US$ 0.98 and US$ 4.85 for different vaccine types and formulations. Vaccine costs-per-dose decrease as production scale and scope increase. Cost-per-dose is mainly driven by fixed costs, but at a scale of production over 20 million doses per year it becomes driven by variable costs. Under the three hypothetical scenarios used, costs-per-dose of vaccines produced by developing countries were around 47% lower than vaccine prices in developing-country markets and 84% lower than prices in industrialized-country markets. This study has found that local production of vaccines in developing countries exhibits both economies of scale and economies of scope. The lower costs relative to prices suggests that a producer surplus and potential profits may be attainable in both developing and developed country markets, supporting sustainable production., (Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The need for rapid and accurate comparison of panels of adjuvanted vaccine formulations and subsequent rational down selection, presents several challenges for modern vaccine development. Here we describe a method which may enable vaccine and adjuvant developers to compare antigen/adjuvant combinations in a harmonized fashion. Three reference antigens: Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA1), hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), and Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85A (Ag85A), were selected as model antigens and were each formulated with three adjuvants: aluminium oxyhydroxide, squalene-in-water emulsion, and a liposome formulation mixed with the purified saponin fraction QS21., Results: The nine antigen/adjuvant formulations were assessed for stability and immunogenicity in mice in order to provide benchmarks against which other formulations could be compared, in order to assist subsequent down selection of adjuvanted vaccines. Furthermore, mouse cellular immune responses were analyzed by measuring IFN-γ and IL-5 production in splenocytes by ELISPOT, and humoral responses were determined by antigen-specific ELISA, where levels of total IgG, IgG1, IgG2b and IgG2c in serum samples were determined., Conclusions: The reference antigens and adjuvants described in this study, which span a spectrum of immune responses, are of potential use as tools to act as points of reference in vaccine development studies. The harmonized methodology described herein may be used as a tool for adjuvant/antigen comparison studies.

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.

Articulating the wide range of health, social and economic benefits that vaccines offer may help to overcome obstacles in the vaccine development pipeline. A framework to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine—the Full Value of Vaccine Assessment (FVVA)—has been developed by the WHO. The FVVA framework offers a holistic assessment of the value of vaccines, providing a synthesis of evidence to inform the public health need of a vaccine, describing the supply and demand aspects, its market and its impact from a health, financial and economic perspective. This paper provides a practical guide to how FVVAs are developed and used to support investment in vaccines, ultimately leading to sustained implementation in countries. The FVVA includes a range of elements that can be broadly categorised as synthesis, vaccine development narrative and defining vaccine impact and value. Depending on the features of the disease/vaccine in question, different elements may be emphasised; however, a standardised set of elements is recommended for each FVVA. The FVVA should be developed by an expert group who represent a range of stakeholders, perspectives and geographies and ensure a fair, coherent and evidence-based assessment of vaccine value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Global research in vaccines and immunization is advancing in many priority areas. • More innovation is urgently needed to improve vaccine access and coverage. • Implementation research should be an integral component of vaccine R&D. Every two years, the Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum takes stock of global research in vaccines and immunization. As in prior years, the 2018 meeting addressed vaccine discovery, development, decision-making, and deployment. This time, however, it also featured two overarching themes: "Innovating for Equity" and "End-to-End Integration." Significant advances have been made in the last two years, but participants noted that some important goals of the Global Vaccine Action Plan are not being met and called urgently for innovation in improving access to vaccines. Two factors were highlighted as crucial to improving coverage: a focus on equity and sustainability throughout the immunization ecosystem, and an enabling political environment that prioritizes health and immunization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innate immune responses to vaccine adjuvants based on lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a component of Gram-negative bacterial cell walls, are driven by Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 and adaptor proteins including MyD88 and TRIF, leading to the production of inflammatory cytokines, type I interferons, and chemokines. We report here on the characterization of a synthetic hexaacylated lipid A derivative, denoted as glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant (GLA). We assessed the effects of GLA on murine and human dendritic cells (DC) by combining microarray, mRNA and protein multiplex assays and flow cytometry analyses. We demonstrate that GLA has multifunctional immunomodulatory activity similar to naturally-derived monophosphory lipid A (MPL) on murine DC, including the production of inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, DC maturation and antigen-presenting functions. In contrast, hexaacylated GLA was overall more potent on a molar basis than heterogeneous MPL when tested on human DC and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). When administered in vivo, GLA enhanced the immunogenicity of co-administered recombinant antigens, producing strong cell-mediated immunity and a qualitative TH1 response. We conclude that the GLA adjuvant stimulates and directs innate and adaptive immune responses by inducing DC maturation and the concomitant release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines associated with immune cell trafficking, activities which have important implications for the development of future vaccine adjuvants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and innovation have been fundamental to many of the successes in immunization thus far, and will play important roles in the future success of Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). Strategic Priority 7 (SP7) of IA2030, which addresses research and innovation, is explicitly informed by country needs and priorities, and aims to strengthen the innovation ecosystem through capacity building and collaboration at country, regional, and global levels. SP7 identifies four key focus areas: (1) "needs-based innovation", (2) "new and improved products, services, and practices", (3) "evidence for implementation", and (4) "local capacity". Strategic interventions in these key focus areas apply the lessons of the Global Vaccine Action Plan and the "Decade of Vaccines" to emphasize local innovation, promote the use of research by countries to improve program performance and impact, and encourage capacity building for the development and implementation of innovations. The proposed approach will maintain a focus on the development of new vaccines and the improvement of existing vaccines, and increase attention to innovation in service delivery. Monitoring and evaluation will foster evidence-based priority setting at the country level and help to ground the global research and development (R&D) agenda in the needs of communities. Together, these approaches are intended to harness the power of research and innovation more effectively, to meet the challenges of the future and achieve the ambitious goals of IA2030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Abstract: Immunostimulatory molecules such as monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), a Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) agonist, can be formulated to enhance vaccine adjuvant effects and to promote a Th1-type immune response. This study compares the in vitro and in vivo potency of aqueous and emulsion formulations containing a synthetic MPL analogue. In addition, formulation structure and association of the synthetic TLR-4 agonist and antigen with the formulation are characterized using dynamic light scattering, zeta potential measurement, HPLC, and SDS-PAGE. The biological and biophysical effects of formulating the agonist with different oil and surfactant components from animal, plant, and synthetic sources are examined. These findings have important implications for the formulation of TLR4 agonists as well as the influence of formulation component substitution on adjuvant activity. The results indicate that (1) the agonist is associated with the oil droplets in emulsion formulations, (2) the emulsion formulations containing synthetic TLR4 agonist induce higher IgG2a/IgG1 antibody ratios than aqueous formulations or an emulsion formulation without the agonist, and (3) appropriate plant-derived components can be substituted for animal-derived components in oil-in-water emulsions without loss of biological activity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The respiratory syncytial virus causes a considerable respiratory disease burden globally, most markedly in young infants, in low and middle income countries. A diverse product pipeline illustrates the recent intensification of research and development activities for vaccines and monoclonal antibodies against RSV. With the aim to ensure that product development activities are directed to address the public health needs, the World Health Organization has developed a research and development technical roadmap and articulated product characteristics preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]