What Is the Value of Different Zika Vaccination Strategies to Prevent and Mitigate Zika Outbreaks?

BACKGROUND: While the 2015-2016 Zika epidemics prompted accelerated vaccine development, decision makers need to know the potential economic value of vaccination strategies. METHODS: We developed models of Honduras, Brazil, and Puerto Rico, simulated targeting different populations for Zika vaccination (women of childbearing age, school-aged children, young adults, and everyone) and then introduced various Zika outbreaks. Sensitivity analyses varied vaccine characteristics. RESULTS: With a 2% attack rate ($5 vaccination), compared to no vaccination, vaccinating women of childbearing age cost $314-$1664 per case averted ($790-$4221/disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted) in Honduras, and saved $847-$1644/case averted in Brazil, and $3648-$4177/case averted in Puerto Rico, varying with vaccination coverage and efficacy (societal perspective). Vaccinating school-aged children cost $718-$1849/case averted (≤$5002/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $819-$1609/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3823-$4360/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating young adults cost $310-$1666/case averted ($731-$4017/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $953-$1703/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3857-$4372/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating everyone averted more cases but cost more, decreasing cost savings per case averted. Vaccination resulted in more cost savings and better outcomes at higher attack rates. CONCLUSIONS: When considering transmission, while vaccinating everyone naturally averted the most cases, specifically targeting women of childbearing age or young adults was the most cost-effective.

Reducing animal experimentation in foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency tests.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Manual and the European Pharmacopoeia (EP) still prescribe live challenge experiments for foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) immunogenicity and vaccine potency tests. However, the EP allows for other validated tests for the latter, and specifically in vitro tests if a "satisfactory pass level" has been determined; serological replacements are also currently in use in South America. Much research has therefore focused on validating both ex vivo and in vitro tests to replace live challenge. However, insufficient attention has been given to the sensitivity and specificity of the "gold standard"in vivo test being replaced, despite this information being critical to determining what should be required of its replacement. This paper aims to redress this imbalance by examining the current live challenge tests and their associated statistics and determining the confidence that we can have in them, thereby setting a standard for candidate replacements. It determines that the statistics associated with the current EP PD(50) test are inappropriate given our domain knowledge, but that the OIE test statistics are satisfactory. However, it has also identified a new set of live animal challenge test regimes that provide similar sensitivity and specificity to all of the currently used OIE tests using fewer animals (16 including controls), and can also provide further savings in live animal experiments in exchange for small reductions in sensitivity and specificity.