Dataset Information

National stakeholder preferences for next-generation rotavirus vaccines: Results from a six-country study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently available live, oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced severe rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are not as effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where rotavirus disease burden is highest. Next-generation rotavirus vaccine (NGRV) candidates in development may have a greater public health impact where they are needed most. The feasibility and acceptability of possible new rotavirus vaccines were explored as part of a larger public health value proposition for injectable NGRVs in LMICs.

Objective

To assess national stakeholder preferences for currently available LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs and understand rationales and drivers for stated preferences.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with 71 national stakeholders who influence vaccine policy and national programming. Stakeholders from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, Senegal, and Sri Lanka were interviewed using a mixed-method guide. Vaccine preferences were elicited on seven vaccine comparisons involving LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs based on information presented comparing the vaccines' attributes. Reasons for vaccine preference were elicited in open-ended questions, and the qualitative data were analyzed on key preference drivers.

Results

Nearly half of the national stakeholders interviewed preferred a highly effective standalone, injectable NGRV over current LORVs. When presented as having similar efficacy to the LORV, however, very few stakeholders preferred the injectable NGRV, even at substantially lower cost. Similarly, a highly effective standalone injectable NGRV was generally not favored over an equally effective oral NGRV following a neonatal-infant schedule, despite higher cost of the neonatal option. An NGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine was strongly preferred over all other options, whether delivered alone with efficacy similar to current LORVs or co-administered alongside an LORV (LORV + NGRV-DTP) to increase efficacy.

Conclusion

Results from these national stakeholder interviews provide valuable insights to inform ongoing and future NGRV research and development.

SUBMITTER: Price J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8767494 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLive oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition.ObjectiveDetermine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs.Methods64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses.ResultsAlmost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization.ConclusionOur findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

Project description:Bluetongue (BT) is a haemorrhagic disease of wild and domestic ruminants with a huge economic worldwide impact on livestock. The disease is caused by BT-virus transmitted by Culicoides biting midges and disease control without vaccination is hardly possible. Vaccination is the most feasible and cost-effective way to minimize economic losses. Marketed BT vaccines are successfully used in different parts of the world. Inactivated BT vaccines are efficacious and safe but relatively expensive, whereas live-attenuated vaccines are efficacious and cheap but are unsafe because of under-attenuation, onward spread, reversion to virulence, and reassortment events. Both manufactured BT vaccines do not enable differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) and protection is limited to the respective serotype. The ideal BT vaccine is a licensed, affordable, completely safe DIVA vaccine, that induces quick, lifelong, broad protection in all susceptible ruminant species. Promising vaccine candidates show improvement for one or more of these main vaccine standards. BTV protein vaccines and viral vector vaccines have DIVA potential depending on the selected BTV antigens, but are less effective and likely more costly per protected animal than current vaccines. Several vaccine platforms based on replicating BTV are applied for many serotypes by exchange of serotype dominant outer shell proteins. These platforms based on one BTV backbone result in attenuation or abortive virus replication and prevent disease by and spread of vaccine virus as well as reversion to virulence. These replicating BT vaccines induce humoral and T-cell mediated immune responses to all viral proteins except to one, which could enable DIVA tests. Most of these replicating vaccines can be produced similarly as currently marketed BT vaccines. All replicating vaccine platforms developed by reverse genetics are classified as genetic modified organisms. This implies extensive and expensive safety trails in target ruminant species, and acceptance by the community could be hindered. Nonetheless, several experimental BT vaccines show very promising improvements and could compete with marketed vaccines regarding their vaccine profile, but none of these next generation BT vaccines have been licensed yet.

Project description:All currently available Streptococcus pneumoniae (Spn) vaccines have limitations due to their capsular serotype composition. Both the 23-valent Spn polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and 7, 10, or 13-valent Spn conjugate vaccines (PCV-7, 10, -13) are serotype-based vaccines and therefore they elicit only serotype-specific immunity. Emergence of replacement Spn strains expressing other serotypes has consistently occurred following introduction of capsular serotype based Spn vaccines. Furthermore, capsular polysaccharide vaccines are less effective in protection against non-bacteremic pneumonia and acute otitis media (AOM) than against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). These shortcomings of capsular polysaccharide-based Spn vaccines have created high interest in development of non-serotype specific protein-based vaccines that could be effective in preventing both IPD and non-IPD infections. This review discusses the progress to date on development of Spn protein vaccine candidates that are highly conserved by all Spn strains, are highly conserved, exhibit maximal antigenicity and minimal reactogenicity to replace or complement the current capsule-based vaccines. Key to development of a protein based Spn vaccine is an understanding of Spn pathogenesis. Based on pathogenesis, a protein-based Spn vaccine should include one or more ingredients that reduce NP colonization below a pathogenic inoculum. Elimination of all Spn colonization may not be achievable or even advisable. The level of expression of a target protein antigen during pathogenesis is another key to the success of protein based vaccines.. As with virtually all currently licensed vaccines, production of a serum antibody response in response to protein based vaccines is anticipated to provide protection from Spn infections. A significant advantage that protein vaccine formulations can offer over capsule based vaccination is their potential benefits associated with natural priming and boosting to all strains of Spn. One of the most universal and comprehensive approaches of identifying novel vaccine candidates is the investigation of human sera from different disease stages of natural infections. Antigens that are robustly reactive in preliminary human serum screening constitute a pathogen-specific antigenome. This strategy has identified a number of Spn protein vaccine candidates that are moving forward in human clinical trials.