We investigated and compared current national vaccination policies for health-care personnel (HCP) in Europe with results from our previous survey. Data from 36 European countries were collected ...using the same methodology as in 2011. National policies for HCP immunization were in place in all countries. There were significant differences in terms of number of vaccinations, target HCP and healthcare settings, and implementation regulations (recommended or mandatory vaccinations). Vaccination policies against hepatitis B and seasonal influenza were present in 35 countries each. Policies for vaccination of HCP against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella existed in 28, 24, 25 and 19 countries, respectively; and against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and poliomyelitis in 21, 20, 19, and 18 countries, respectively. Recommendations for hepatitis A immunization existed in 17 countries, and against meningococcus B, meningococcus C, meningococcus A, C, W, Y, and tuberculosis in 10, 8, 17, and 7 countries, respectively. Mandatory vaccination policies were found in 13 countries and were a pre-requisite for employment in ten. Comparing the vaccination programs of the 30 European countries that participated in the 2011 survey, we found that more countries had national vaccination policies against measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis A, diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, pertussis, meningococcus C and/or meningococcus A, C, W, Y; and more of these implemented mandatory vaccination policies for HCP. In conclusion, European countries now have more comprehensive national vaccination programs for HCP, however there are still gaps. Given the recent large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in Europe and the occupational risk for HCP, vaccination policies need to be expanded and strengthened in several European countries. Overall, vaccination policies for HCP in Europe should be periodically re-evaluated in order to provide optimal protection against vaccine-preventable diseases and infection control within healthcare facilities for HCP and patients.
Clinical trials covering the immunogenicity of a vaccine aim to study the longitudinal dynamics of certain immune cells after vaccination. The corresponding immunogenicity datasets are mainly ...analyzed by the use of statistical (mixed effects) models. This paper proposes the use of mathematical ordinary differential equation (ODE) models, combined with a mixed effects approach. ODE models are capable of translating underlying immunological post vaccination processes into mathematical formulas thereby enabling a testable data analysis. Mixed models include both population-averaged parameters (fixed effects) and individual-specific parameters (random effects) for dealing with inter- and intra-individual variability, respectively.
This paper models B-cell and T-cell datasets of a phase I/II, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study (NCT00492648) in which the immunogenicity of a new Herpes Zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is compared with the original Varicella Zoster Virus vaccine (Varilrix).
Since few significant correlations were found between the B-cell and T-cell datasets, each dataset was modeled separately. By following a general approach to both the formulation of several different models and the procedure of selecting the most suitable model, we were able to propose a mathematical ODE mixed-effects model for each dataset. As such, the use of ODE-based mixed effects models offers a suitable framework for handling longitudinal vaccine immunogenicity data. Moreover, this approach allows testing for differences in immunological processes between vaccines or schedules. We found that the Shingrix vaccination schedule led to a more pronounced proliferation of T-cells, without a difference in T-cell decay rate compared to the Varilrix vaccination schedule.
Abstract Background Intradermal vaccine delivery has been shown to induce good immune responses with low vaccine doses. Technologies for drug-delivery which specifically target the skin may render ...intradermal vaccination more accessible. Methods We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in 180 intended-to-treat healthy adults. Study objectives were to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of low-dose intradermal (ID) influenza vaccines delivered using a novel microneedle device (MicronJet). This device replaces a conventional needle, and is designed specifically for intradermal delivery. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either the full-dose standard flu shot (containing 15 μg hemagglutinin per strain) delivered intramuscularly using a conventional needle (IM group), a medium dose intradermal injection (6 μg hemagglutinin per strain) delivered with the MicronJet (ID2 group), or a low-dose intradermal injection (3 μg hemagglutinin per strain) delivered with the MicronJet (ID1 group). A marketed influenza vaccine for the 2006/2007 influenza season (α-RIX® by GSK Biologicals) was used for all injections. Adverse events were recorded over a 42-day period. Immunogenicity was evaluated by changes in hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titer, and by comparing geometric mean titers (GMTs), seroconversion, and seroprotection rates between the study groups. Results Local reactions were significantly more frequent following intradermal vaccination, but were mild and transient in nature. At 21 days after injection, GMT fold increase was 22, 18 and 22 in the ID1, ID2 and IM groups respectively for the H1N1 strain; 9, 9 and 16 for the H3N2 strain and 9, 13 and 11 for strain B. The CPMP criteria for re-licensure of seasonal influenza vaccines were met in full for all study groups. Conclusions Low-dose influenza vaccines delivered intradermally using microneedles elicited immunogenic responses similar to those elicited by the full-dose intramuscular vaccination. The microneedle injection device used in this study was found to be effective, safe, and reliable.
Abstract A pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has recently been adopted in several countries to indirectly protect young infants. This study assessed the effect of adding a pertussis component to ...the tetanus vaccination, in the pregnancy immunization program in Vietnam. A randomized controlled trial was performed. Pregnant women received either a Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria acellular pertussis) vaccine or a tetanus only vaccine between 19 and 35 weeks’ gestational age. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) against tetanus (TT), diphtheria (DT), pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemaglutinin (FHA) and pertactin (Prn) were measured using commercial ELISA tests, at baseline, 1 month after maternal vaccination, at delivery, and in infants from cord blood and before and after the primary series (EPI: month 2-3-4) of a pertussis containing vaccine. Significantly higher geometric mean concentrations (GMC) were observed for all 3 measured pertussis antigens in the offspring of the Tdap group, up to 2 months of age. One month after completion of the primary infant vaccination schedule, anti-Prn GMC, but not anti-PT and anti-FHA GMCs, was significantly ( p = 0.006) higher in the control group. Maternal antibodies induced by vaccination during pregnancy close the susceptibility gap for pertussis in young infants. Limited interference with the infant vaccine responses was observed. Whether this interference effect disappears with the administration of a fourth vaccine dose is further studied.
Conducting a vaccine trial in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can present unique challenges and lessons learned. This Ebola vaccine trial, enrolling 699 healthcare providers and frontliners ...and jointly set up by the University of Antwerp (Sponsor) and the University of Kinshasa (Principal Investigator (PI)), was conducted in Boende, a remote city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), between December 2019 and October 2022 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04186000). While being bound by strict ICH-GCP and international funder regulations, this trial, exemplary for being a public-private partnership, required collaboration between several international stakeholders (e.g., two universities, a pharmaceutical company, and a clinical research organization), local communities and government agencies. Here we address several logistical and administrative challenges, cultural differences, language barriers and regulatory, political, and ethical considerations over the trial's 2.5-year duration, while tailoring and adapting the study to the specific local context. Lessons learned include the importance of clear communication with participants in all phases of the study, but also within the study team and among different stakeholders. Challenges, mitigations, and lessons learned are presented in nine categories (e.g., safety management; trial documentation, tools, and materials; communication, staff training and community engagement/sensitization; financial and administrative hurdles; and more). Ultimately, to reach the successful end of the vaccine trial in this remote Ebola endemic area in the DRC, careful planning, collaboration, and great flexibility and adaptability was often required from all involved partners. Despite the encountered challenges, the vaccine trial discussed in this paper was able to obtain high participant retention rates (i.e., 92% of participants completed the study). We hope that other international teams aspiring to conduct similar trials in remote areas of LMICs can learn from the way our challenges were addressed, mitigations developed, and lessons were learned.
Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to ...respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses.
We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18–50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population—ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered with EudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787).
In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n=50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive.
Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants.
University of Antwerp and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Healthcare providers (HCP) are seen by the public as the most trustworthy source of information about vaccination. While HCPs could be a valuable partner to increase vaccine confidence in general, it ...is not clear whether they feel confident themselves to address questions concerning vaccination. In the context of the EU Joint Action on Vaccination (EU-JAV), the Vaccine Training Barometer, an online survey tool, was developed to assess how frequently HCPs receive questions about vaccination, how confident they feel to answer these questions, and to what extent they are willing to follow extra training. After a pilot test in Flanders, Belgium, the Barometer was launched and completed by 833 HCPs in Flanders and 291 HCPs in the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Navarre and Valencian Community from November 2020 until January 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, just before and during the start of the first COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. In both countries, HCPs frequently received questions about vaccination (mostly on a daily or weekly basis), and about two thirds of them indicated that the frequency of questions had increased during the three months prior to completing the survey. Most questions were about the side effects and safety of vaccines. In both countries, a considerable proportion of HCPs did not feel confident to answer vaccine-related questions (31.5% felt confident in Flanders, 21.6% in Spain). A large proportion of HCPs received questions in the last three months before the survey that they could not answer (52.4% of respondents in Flemish sample, 41.5% in Spanish sample). Only 11.4% (Flanders) and 11.3% (Spain) of the respondents felt they gained sufficient knowledge through their standard education to be able to answer questions about vaccination. Almost all respondents were willing to follow extra training on vaccination (Flanders: 95.4%, Spain: 96.6%). The Vaccine Training Barometer is thus a useful tool to monitor HCPs’ confidence to answer questions about vaccination and to capture their training needs.
Abstract
Background
In response to recent Ebola epidemics, vaccine development against the Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV) has been fast-tracked in the past decade. Health care providers and frontliners ...working in Ebola-endemic areas are at high risk of contracting and spreading the virus.
Methods
This study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen (administered at a 56-day interval) among 699 health care providers and frontliners taking part in a phase 2, monocentric, randomized vaccine trial in Boende, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The first participant was enrolled and vaccinated on 18 December 2019. Serious adverse events were collected up to 6 months after the last received dose. The EBOV glycoprotein FANG ELISA (Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was used to measure the immunoglobulin G–binding antibody response to the EBOV glycoprotein.
Results
The vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported. Twenty-one days after the second dose, an EBOV glycoprotein–specific binding antibody response was observed in 95.2% of participants.
Conclusions
The 2-dose vaccine regimen was well tolerated and led to a high antibody response among fully vaccinated health care providers and frontliners in Boende.
The administration of a heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen (56-day interval) in health care providers and frontliners from the Tshuapa province (Democratic Republic of the Congo) induced a robust Ebola virus glycoprotein–specific binding antibody response 21 days after the second dose.
Changes in serotype distribution have been described after the switch from the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) to the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) in Belgium.
To ...describe serotype’s invasive disease potential and the detailed evolution of serotype distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility of pneumococcal isolates (carriage and IPD) in children up to 30 months of age over a period during and after the vaccine switch (2015–2018).
S. pneumoniae strains isolated from the nasopharynx of healthy children attending day-care centres (DCCs) and strains from normally sterile sites of children with IPD were serotyped (Quellung-reaction) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed. Invasive disease potential was defined as the serotype-specific odds ratio (OR).
The highly invasive (OR > 1) serotypes 12F, 1, 3, 24A/B/F, 33F, 19A, and 9N were not frequently carried (<7.5% of carriage strains). Different serotypes dominated in carriage (23B, 23A, 11A, 15B) versus IPD (12F, 19A, 10A, 33F). PCV13 vaccine serotypes increased in carriage (5.4% (25/463) in period 1 vs 10.3% (69/668) in period 3) and in IPD (7.3% (8/110 in period 1 vs 23.9% (34/142) in period 3) due to an increase (p < 0.01) in serotype 19A. The penicillin non-susceptibility of 19A was lower (p = 0.02) in carriage (6.8%) than in IPD (23.5%). Erythromycin and tetracycline non-susceptibility were more frequent (p < 0.01) in IPD (26.0%; 23.0%) compared to carriage strains (18.2%; 14.5%) and penicillin non-susceptibility increased over the three year study period (carriage: 13.4%, 19.8%, 18.5%, p = 0.05; IPD: 11.8%, 15.0%, 20.4%, p = 0.02).
Only some of the serotypes with high invasive disease potential (serotype 1, 3, 19A) in Belgium are included in PCV10 and/or PCV13. This reinforces the need for continuous monitoring, both in healthy children as in children with IPD, to better understand the dynamics of pneumococcal disease, to optimise the composition and implementation of PCVs.
PDF
