Projecting vaccine demand and impact for emerging zoonotic pathogens.

BACKGROUND: Despite large outbreaks in humans seeming improbable for a number of zoonotic pathogens, several pose a concern due to their epidemiological characteristics and evolutionary potential. To enable effective responses to these pathogens in the event that they undergo future emergence, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is advancing the development of vaccines for several pathogens prioritized by the World Health Organization. A major challenge in this pursuit is anticipating demand for a vaccine stockpile to support outbreak response. METHODS: We developed a modeling framework for outbreak response for emerging zoonoses under three reactive vaccination strategies to assess sustainable vaccine manufacturing needs, vaccine stockpile requirements, and the potential impact of the outbreak response. This framework incorporates geographically variable zoonotic spillover rates, human-to-human transmission, and the implementation of reactive vaccination campaigns in response to disease outbreaks. As proof of concept, we applied the framework to four priority pathogens: Lassa virus, Nipah virus, MERS coronavirus, and Rift Valley virus. RESULTS: Annual vaccine regimen requirements for a population-wide strategy ranged from > 670,000 (95% prediction interval 0-3,630,000) regimens for Lassa virus to 1,190,000 (95% PrI 0-8,480,000) regimens for Rift Valley fever virus, while the regimens required for ring vaccination or targeting healthcare workers (HCWs) were several orders of magnitude lower (between 1/25 and 1/700) than those required by a population-wide strategy. For each pathogen and vaccination strategy, reactive vaccination typically prevented fewer than 10% of cases, because of their presently low R0 values. Targeting HCWs had a higher per-regimen impact than population-wide vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework provides a flexible methodology for estimating vaccine stockpile needs and the geographic distribution of demand under a range of outbreak response scenarios. Uncertainties in our model estimates highlight several knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to target vulnerable populations more accurately. These include surveillance gaps that mask the true geographic distribution of each pathogen, details of key routes of spillover from animal reservoirs to humans, and the role of human-to-human transmission outside of healthcare settings. In addition, our estimates are based on the current epidemiology of each pathogen, but pathogen evolution could alter vaccine stockpile requirements.

Medical countermeasures against henipaviruses: a review and public health perspective.

Henipaviruses, including Nipah virus, are regarded as pathogens of notable epidemic potential because of their high pathogenicity and the paucity of specific medical countermeasures to control infections in humans. We review the evidence of medical countermeasures against henipaviruses and project their cost in a post-COVID-19 era. Given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of henipavirus outbreaks, innovative strategies will be needed to circumvent the infeasibility of traditional phase 3 clinical trial regulatory pathways. Stronger partnerships with scientific institutions and regulatory authorities in low-income and middle-income countries can inform coordination of appropriate investments and development of strategies and normative guidelines for the deployment and equitable use of multiple medical countermeasures. Accessible measures should include global, regional, and endemic in-country stockpiles of reasonably priced small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines as part of a combined collection of products that could help to control henipavirus outbreaks and prevent future pandemics.

Evaluation of post-introduction COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness: Summary of interim guidance of the World Health Organization.

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50 to 95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help us to understand the vaccine's effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.