Children vaccination coverage surveys: Impact of multiple sources of information and multiple contact attempts

BackgroundMonitoring vaccination coverage is an essential component of vaccination program evaluation. In Québec (Canada), children vaccination coverage surveys are conducted every two years since 2006. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of supplementing data based on vaccination booklets with data from vaccine providers, on the final estimated vaccination coverage and to compare vaccination coverage between respondents to each survey contact attempt.MethodsData from six cross-sectional surveys were used, which included 3508 children aged 2 years. Parents were invited to transcribe the information available in their child’s vaccination booklet on the questionnaire received by mail. The survey included a maximum of 4 contact attempts to obtain a response. Data were completed among vaccine providers identified by parents. The main outcome was a complete vaccination status by 24 months of age.ResultsThe addition of data from vaccine providers to those present in vaccination booklets increased the proportion of children fully vaccinated from 5.5% to 23.7% depending on the survey year. The proportion of children fully vaccinated by 24 months of age estimated among respondents to contact 1 was only 2.1% higher than the estimates among all respondents.ConclusionsWithout validation among vaccine providers for children with missing doses according to vaccination booklets, results underestimated vaccination coverage in the target population. Conducting multiple contact attempts increased the response rate but had limited impact on the validity of estimates. It would be useful in future surveys to present the coverage obtain from respondents to each contact attempt.     

Vaccine innovation prioritisation strategy: Findings from three country-stakeholder consultations on vaccine product innovations

As part of the Vaccine Innovation Prioritisation Strategy (VIPS), three immunization-stakeholder consultations were conducted between September 2018 and February 2020 to ensure that countries’ needs drove the prioritization of vaccine product innovations.All consultations targeted respondents with immunization program experience. They included: (1) an online survey to identify immunization implementation barriers and desired vaccine attributes in three use settings, (2) an online survey to identify and evaluate the most important immunization challenges for ten exemplar vaccines, and (3) in-depth interviews to better understand the perceived programmatic benefits and challenges that could be addressed by nine innovations and to rank the innovations that could best address current challenges.The first consultation included responses from 442 participants in 61 countries, representing 89% of the 496 respondents who correctly completed at least one section of the online survey. For facility-based settings, missed opportunities for vaccination due to reluctance to open multidose vaccine vials was the barrier most frequently selected by respondents. In community-based (outreach) and campaign settings, limited access to immunization services due to geographic barriers was most frequently selected. Multidose presentations with preservative or single-dose presentations were most frequently selected as desired vaccine attributes for facility-based settings while improved thermostability was most frequently selected for outreach and campaign settings. The second online survey was completed by 220 respondents in 54 countries. For the exemplar vaccines, vaccine ineffectiveness or wastage due to heat or freeze exposure and missed opportunities due to multidose vial presentations were identified as the greatest vaccine-specific challenges. In-depth interviews with 84 respondents in six countries ranked microarray patches, dual-chamber delivery devices, and heat-stable/controlled temperature chain qualified liquid vaccines as the three innovations that could have the greatest impact in helping address current immunization program challenges.These findings informed the VIPS prioritization and provided broader application to designing immunization interventions to better meet country needs.     

Public opinion on global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines: Evidence from two nationally representative surveys in Germany and the United States

Despite ongoing calls for a more even global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, there remains a great disparity between high- and low-income countries. We conducted representative surveys among the adult populations in the United States (N = 1,000) and Germany (N = 1,003) in June 2021 to assess public opinion in these countries on the distributive justice of COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted two instances of analytic hierarchy processes (AHP) to elicit how the public weighs different principles and criteria for vaccine allocation. In further discrete choice experiments, respondents were asked to split a limited supply of vaccine doses between a hypothetical high-income and a hypothetical low-income country. AHP weights in the United States and Germany were 37.4% (37.2–37.5) and 49.4% (49.2–49.5) for “medical urgency”, 32.7% (32.6–32.8) and 25.4% (25.2–25.5) for “equal access for all”, 13.7% (13.6–13.8) and 13.3% (13.2–13.4) for “production contribution”, and 16.3% (16.2–16.4) and 12.0% (11.9–12.1) for “free market rules”, respectively, with 95% CI shown in parentheses. In the discrete choice experiment, respondents in the United States and Germany split available vaccine doses such that the low-income country, which was three times more populous than the high-income country, on average received 53.9% (95% CI: 52.6–55.1) and 57.5% (95% CI: 56.3–58.7) of available doses, respectively. When faced with a dilemma where a vulnerable family member was waiting for a vaccine, 20.7% (95% CI: 18.2–23.3) of respondents in the United States and 18.2% (95% CI: 15.8–20.6) in Germany reduced the amount they allocated to the low-income country sufficiently to secure a vaccine for their family member. Our results indicate that the public in the United States and Germany favours utilitarian and egalitarian distribution principles of vaccines for COVID-19 over libertarian or meritocratic principles. This implies that political decisions favouring higher levels of redistribution would be supported by public opinion in these two countries.     

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial

IntroductionIndividuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.Patients and methodsBetween July 2020–January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up.ResultsAt baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4 (BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported.ConclusionIn participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer.Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.     

Individual factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in between and during pandemic waves (July–December 2020)

BackgroundA year after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global rollout of vaccines gives us hope of ending the pandemic. Lack of vaccine confidence, however, poses a threat to vaccination campaigns. This study aims at identifying individuals’ characteristics that explain vaccine willingness in Flanders (Belgium), while also describing trends over time (July–December 2020).MethodsThe analysis included data of 10 survey waves of the Great Corona Survey, a large-scale online survey that was open to the general public and had 17,722–32,219 respondents per wave. Uni- and multivariable general additive models were fitted to associate vaccine willingness with socio-demographic and behavioral variables, while correcting for temporal and geographical variability.ResultsWe found 84.2% of the respondents willing to be vaccinated, i.e., respondents answering that they were definitely (61.2%) or probably (23.0%) willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9.8% indicated maybe, 3.9% probably not and 2.2% definitely not. In Flanders, vaccine willingness was highest in July 2020 (90.0%), decreased over the summer period to 80.2% and started to increase again from late September, reaching 85.9% at the end of December 2020. Vaccine willingness was significantly associated with respondents’ characteristics: previous survey participation, age, gender, province, educational attainment, household size, financial situation, employment sector, underlying medical conditions, mental well-being, government trust, knowing someone with severe COVID-19 symptoms and compliance with restrictive measures. These variables could explain much, but not all, variation in vaccine willingness.ConclusionsBoth the timing and location of data collection influence vaccine willingness results, emphasizing that comparing data from different regions, countries and/or timepoints should be done with caution. To maximize COVID-19 vaccination coverage, vaccination campaigns should focus on (a combination of) subpopulations: aged 31–50, females, low educational attainment, large households, difficult financial situation, low mental well-being and labourers, unemployed and self-employed citizens.     

Global production capacity of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines in 2019

Vaccines will be an important element in mitigating the impact of an influenza pandemic. While research towards developing universal influenza vaccines is ongoing, the current strategy for vaccine supply in a pandemic relies on seasonal influenza vaccine production to be switched over to pandemic vaccines. Understanding how much vaccine could be produced, in which regions of the world and in what timeframe is critical to informing influenza pandemic preparedness. Through the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines, 2006–2016, WHO promoted an increase in vaccine production capacity and monitors the landscape through periodically surveying influenza vaccine manufacturers. This study compares global capacity for production of influenza vaccines in 2019 with estimates from previous surveys; provides an overview of countries with established production facilities; presents vaccine production by type and manufacturing process; and discusses limitations to these estimates. Results of the current survey show that estimated annual seasonal influenza vaccine production capacity changed little since 2015 increasing from 1.47 billion to 1.48 billion doses with potential maximum annual influenza pandemic vaccine production capacity increasing from 6.37 billion to 8.31 billion doses. However, this figure should be interpreted with caution as it presents a best-case scenario with several assumptions which may impact supply. Further, pandemic vaccines would not be immediately available and could take four to six months for first supplies with several more months needed to reach maximum capacity. A moderate-case scenario is also presented of 4.15 billion doses of pandemic vaccine in 12 months. It is important to note that two doses of pandemic vaccine are likely to be required to elicit an adequate immune response. Continued efforts are needed to ensure the sustainability of this production and to conduct research for vaccines that are faster to produce and more broadly protective taking into account lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine development.     

Immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine made from Sabin strains in a phase IV clinical trial for the vaccination of a large population

As a recently launched novel vaccine used as one of the vaccines for the final eradication of polios worldwide, complete data on the consistency and immunogenicity characteristics of the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine made from the Sabin strain (sIPV) and its safety in large-scale populations are required to support the future use of this vaccine worldwide. A phase IV clinical trial was conducted to perform an immunogenicity evaluation of lot-to-lot consistency of three commercial batches of sIPV in 1200 infants and to investigate the vaccine’s safety on a large-scale in 20,019 infants for active monitoring and 29,683 infants for passive monitoring through the Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting system in China. In the immunogenicity evaluation, the average seroconversion rates for type I, type II and type III of the three groups were 99.83%, 98.93% and 99.44%, respectively. No differences in the seroconversion rate and the GMT ratios were noted in the pair-to-pair comparisons. In the large-scale safety evaluation, most adverse reactions occurred 0–30 days after the first doses, and the common local and systemic reactions were similar to those in the phase III clinical trial, with low incidence in both activated and passive monitoring. In conclusion, sIPV exhibits good lot-to-lot consistency and safety in large-scale populations; thus, it is qualified to serve as one of the vaccines for use in eradicating all wild and vaccine-derived polioviruses worldwide in the near future.Clinic Trial Registration. NCT04224519 and NCT04220515.     

Characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A nationwide survey of 1000 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

ObjectivesTo identify potential predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (C19-VH) in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID).MethodsA total of 1000 IMID patients were enrolled in this web-based cross-sectional study. A standardised and self-administered survey was designed by members of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology Steering Committee for Infectious and Endemic diseases and distributed to IMID patients spread across Brazil.ResultsOf the 908 (90.8%) respondents eligible for analysis, 744 (81.9%) were willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. In our multivariable logistic regression model, concurrent malignancy, fibromyalgia, hydroxychloroquine use, and recent corticosteroid pulse therapy were independently associated with higher odds of C19-VH. The short duration of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials was the main reason for C19-VH.ConclusionWe identified novel characteristics potentially associated with C19-VH among adults with IMID. Greater awareness on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is needed for both IMID patients and attending physicians.     

Barriers and activities to implementing or expanding influenza vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries: A global survey

IntroductionDespite considerable global burden of influenza, few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have national influenza vaccination programs. This report provides a systematic assessment of barriers to and activities that support initiating or expanding influenza vaccination programs from the perspective of in-country public health officials.MethodsPublic health officials in LMICs were sent a web-based survey to provide information on barriers and activities to initiating, expanding, or maintaining national influenza vaccination programs. The survey primarily included Likert-scale questions asking respondents to rank barriers and activities in five categories.ResultsOf 109 eligible countries, 62% participated. Barriers to influenza vaccination programs included lack of data on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination programs (87%) and on influenza disease burden (84%), competing health priorities (80%), lack of public perceived risk from influenza (79%), need for better risk communication tools (77%), lack of financial support for influenza vaccine programs (75%), a requirement to use only WHO-prequalified vaccines (62%), and young children require two vaccine doses (60%). Activities for advancing influenza vaccination programs included educating healthcare workers (97%) and decision-makers (91%) on the benefits of influenza vaccination, better estimates of influenza disease burden (91%) and cost of influenza vaccination programs (89%), simplifying vaccine introduction by focusing on selected high-risk groups (82%), developing tools to prioritize target populations (80%), improving availability of influenza diagnostic testing (79%), and developing collaborations with neighboring countries for vaccine procurement (74%) and regulatory approval (73%). Responses varied by country region and income status.ConclusionsLocal governments and key international stakeholders can use the results of this survey to improve influenza vaccination programs in LMICs, which is a critical component of global pandemic preparedness for influenza and other pathogens such as coronaviruses. Additionally, strategies to improve global influenza vaccination coverage should be tailored to country income level and geographic location.     

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

IntroductionVaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.MethodsIn June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.ResultsIn June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel “very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive’ was derived from motivation to protect one’s own or others’ health and resume usual activities; being ‘less receptive’ was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.ConclusionThis study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.     

The v-safe after vaccination health checker: Active vaccine safety monitoring during CDC’s COVID-19 pandemic response

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed and implemented the v-safe after vaccination health checker (v-safe) to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety and as an active surveillance supplement to existing CDC vaccine safety monitoring programs. V-safe allows persons who received COVID-19 vaccines to report on post-vaccination experiences and how symptoms affected their health at daily, weekly, and monthly timepoints after vaccination. Text message reminders are sent linking to Internet-based health check-in surveys. Surveys include questions to identify v-safe participants who may be eligible to enroll in a separate pregnancy registry activity that evaluates maternal and infant outcomes in those pregnant at the time of vaccination or receiving vaccine in the periconception period.We describe the development of and enhancements to v-safe, data management, promotion and communication to vaccination sites and partners, publications, strengths and limitations, and implications for future systems. We also describe enrollment in v-safe over time and demographics of persons participating in v-safe during the first year of operation (December 14, 2020 – December 13, 2021). During this time, 9,342,582 persons submitted 131,543,087 v-safe surveys. The majority of participants were female (62.3 %) and non-Hispanic White (61.2 %); median age was 49.0 years. Most participants reported receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as their first recorded dose (95.0 %).V-safe contributed to CDC’s vaccine safety assessments for FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines by enabling near real-time reporting of reactogenicity once the COVID-19 vaccination program began in the community, encouraging reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and facilitating enrollment in a large post-vaccination pregnancy registry. Given that v-safe is an integral component of the most comprehensive safety monitoring program in U.S. history, we believe that this approach has promise as a potential application for future pandemic response activities as well as rollout of novel vaccines in a non-pandemic context.     

Immunogenicity of the pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) administered concomitantly with the meningococcal serogroup B (4CMenB) vaccine in infants: A post-hoc analysis in a phase 3b,randomised, controlled trial

BackgroundNo data are currently available on immunogenicity of higher-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines when co-administered with a 4-component meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB).MethodsPost-hoc analysis of pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) immunogenicity when co-administered with 4CMenB (2 + 1 schedule) and/or a CRM-conjugated meningococcal serogroup C vaccine (MenC-CRM) in a trial assessing 4CMenB reduced schedules and co-administration with MenC-CRM (NCT01339923). Infants were randomized to receive 4CMenB and MenC-CRM (Group 1) or MenC-CRM (Group 2) at 3, 5, and 12 months (M) of age. Both groups received PHiD-CV (3 + 1 schedule) as part of the Brazilian national immunisation programme at 3 M, 5 M, 7 M, and 12 M of age. Antibody responses were assessed pre-vaccination, 1 M post-dose 2, pre-booster, and 1 M post-booster.ResultsAnti-pneumococcal antibody responses were in similar ranges in the two study groups.Conclusions4CMenB co-administration did not seem to impact antibody responses to PHiD-CV in infants.     

Effectiveness of a multimodal intervention to increase vaccination in obstetrics/gynecology settings

ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention in obstetrics/gynecology (ob-gyn) clinics to increase uptake of influenza and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in pregnant women and these vaccines plus human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in non-pregnant women.MethodsA cluster randomized controlled trial among 9 private ob-gyn practices in Colorado from 9/2011 to 5/2014. The intervention consisted of: designation of immunization champions, staff/provider trainings, assistance with vaccine purchasing/management, identification of eligible patients, standing order implementation, chart review/feedback, and patient education materials. Control practices continued usual care. Primary outcomes were receipt of influenza and Tdap vaccines among pregnant women and these vaccines plus HPV vaccine among non-pregnant women, comparing a Baseline period (Year 0/Year 1) to Year 2, intervention versus control. With an estimated sample size of 32,590 per arm, there would be >80% power to detect a 10% difference between groups.ResultsIn the Baseline period, 27% of pregnant women in both intervention and control practices received influenza vaccine. In Year 2, 29% of pregnant women in intervention practices received influenza vaccine versus 41% in control practices. In the Baseline period, 18% of pregnant women in intervention practices received Tdap vaccine versus 22% in control practices. Both intervention and control practices increased to 51% in Year 2, representing an increase of 33% for intervention practices and 29% for control practices, consistent with a change in Tdap recommendations. Relatively few HPV, influenza or Tdap vaccines (≤6% of eligible patients) were given to non-pregnant patients in either intervention or control practices at any time during the study.ConclusionIn this cluster randomized trial designed to increase vaccination uptake, both intervention and control practices showed improved vaccination of pregnant but not non-pregnant patients. Future work should focus on tailoring evidence-based immunization practices or developing new approaches to specifically fit busy ob-gyn offices.     

Effect of provider recommendation style on the length of adolescent vaccine discussions

ObjectiveTo determine whether providers’ vaccine recommendation style affects length of the adolescent vaccine discussions.MethodsWe analyzed vaccine discussions using audio-recordings of clinical encounters where adolescents were eligible for HPV vaccines ± meningococcal vaccines. We measured length of vaccine discussions, the provider’s use of an “indicated” (vaccination due at visit) or “elective” (vaccination is optional) recommendation style, and vaccine receipt. Parent and child demographics, parental vaccination intentions, and parental satisfaction with vaccine discussion were collected from pre- and post-visit surveys. We used linear and logit regressions with random effects to estimate recommendation style’s association with discussion length and with vaccine receipt, respectively.ResultsWe analyzed 106 vaccine discussions (82 HPV; 24 meningococcal) across 82 clinical encounters and 43 providers. Vaccine discussions were longer when providers presented vaccination as elective versus indicated (140 vs. 74 s; p-value < 0.001). Controlling for vaccine type, parental vaccination intent, and patient characteristics, an elective style was associated with 41 seconds longer vaccine discussion (p-value < 0.05). Providers used the indicated style more frequently with the meningococcal vaccine than with the HPV vaccine (96% vs. 72%; p-value < 0.05). Parents’ odds of vaccinating were 9.3 times higher following an indicated versus an elective presentation (p-value < 0.05). Vaccine discussion length and presentation style were not associated with parental satisfaction.ConclusionsOur results suggest that using an indicated recommendation improves vaccine discussions’ efficiency and effectiveness, but this style is used more often with meningococcal than HPV vaccines. Increasing providers’ use of indicated styles for HPV vaccines has the potential to increase vaccination rates and save time during medical visits.     

Safety and immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in infants and children identified as HIV-infected during a randomized trial in sub-Saharan Africa

BackgroundWe assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in a subset of children identified as HIV-infected during a large phase III randomized controlled trial conducted in seven sub-Saharan African countries.MethodsInfants 6–12 weeks and children 5–17 months old were randomized to receive 4 RTS,S/AS01 doses (R3R group), 3 RTS,S/AS01 doses plus 1 comparator vaccine dose (R3C group), or 4 comparator vaccine doses (C3C group) at study months 0, 1, 2 and 20. Infants and children with WHO stage III/IV HIV disease were excluded but HIV testing was not routinely performed on all participants; our analyses included children identified as HIV-infected based on medical history or clinical suspicion and confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antibody testing. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and anti-circumsporozoite (CS) antibodies were assessed.ResultsOf 15459 children enrolled in the trial, at least 1953 were tested for HIV and 153 were confirmed as HIV-infected (R3R: 51; R3C: 54; C3C: 48). Among these children, SAEs were reported for 92.2% (95% CI: 81.1–97.8) in the R3R, 85.2% (72.9–93.4) in the R3C and 87.5% (74.8–95.3) in the C3C group over a median follow-up of 39.3, 39.4 and 38.3 months, respectively. Fifteen HIV-infected participants in each group (R3R: 29.4%, R3C: 27.8%, C3C: 31.3%) died during the study. No deaths were considered vaccination-related. In a matched case-control analysis, 1 month post dose 3 anti-CS geometric mean antibody concentrations were 193.3 EU/mL in RTS,S/AS01-vaccinated HIV-infected children and 491.5 EU/mL in RTS,S/AS01-vaccinated immunogenicity controls with unknown or negative HIV status (p = 0.0001).ConclusionsThe safety profile of RTS,S/AS01 in HIV-infected children was comparable to that of the comparator (meningococcal or rabies) vaccines. RTS,S/AS01 was immunogenic in HIV-infected children but antibody concentrations were lower than in children with an unknown or negative HIV status.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00866619.     

Meeting report: CEPI consultation on accelerating access to novel vaccines against emerging infectious diseases for pregnant and lactating women,London, 12–13 February 2020

Infectious diseases may cause serious morbidity and mortality in pregnant women, their foetuses, and infants; the risk associated with any newly emerging infectious disease (EID) is likely unknown at the time of its emergence. While the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic shows that the development of vaccines against new pathogens can be considerably accelerated, the immunization of pregnant women generally lags behind the general population. Guided by the priority pathogen list for WHO’s R&D Blueprint for Action to Prevent Epidemics, this workshop sought to define the evidence needed for use of vaccines against EIDs in pregnant and lactating women, using Lassa fever as a model. Close to 60 maternal immunization (MI) and vaccine safety experts, regulators, vaccine developers, Lassa fever experts, and investigators from Lassa-affected countries examined the critical steps for vaccine development and immunization decisions for pregnant and lactating women. This paper reports on key themes and recommendations from the workshop.Current practice still assumes the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. A shift in paradigm is needed to progress towards initial inclusion of pregnant women in Phase 2 and 3 trials. Several practical avenues were delineated. Participants agreed that vaccine platforms should be assessed early for their suitability for maternal immunization. It was noted that, in some cases, nonclinical data derived from assessing a given platform using other antigens may be adequate evidence to proceed to a first clinical evaluation and that concurrence from regulators may be sought with supporting rationale. For clinical trials, essential prerequisites such as documenting the disease burden in pregnant women, study site infrastructure, capabilities, and staff experience were noted. Early and sustained communication with the local community was considered paramount in any program for the conduct of MI trials and planned vaccine introduction.     

Vaccine administration error rates at a large academic medical center and its affiliated clinics – Familiarity matters

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to track and describe the absolute number of vaccine administration errors and corresponding error rates over time and by patient age and vaccine type.MethodsTotal vaccines administered to patients aged 0 through 19 years 364 days from 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2017 at a large academic health system in the Midwest United States with primary, specialty and school-based clinics, and a pediatric hospital were obtained from an electronic medical record. Vaccine administration errors over the same time period for the same patient criteria were analyzed from the health system’s incident reporting system and further compared to the frequency of all incidents reported. Vaccine administration error rates were calculated. Data were analyzed by patient age, vaccine type and year administered.ResultsOf the 1,431,206 vaccine doses given, 552 vaccine administration errors were identified (0.04%). The highest error rates occurred in children aged 2, 3, and 19 years. Vaccine types with the highest error rate were Td, rabies and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines. Overall vaccine doses given and errors reported increased over the study period. However, the increase was disproportionate, resulting in an increase in the error rate initially followed by a stabilization at the end of the study period.ConclusionsVaccine administration errors are uncommon. The error rate appears to be stabilizing. Errors are more likely at ages when vaccines are not commonly given, with vaccines that have age-specific dosing and with vaccines that are given less often. This suggests more safety checks are needed for vaccines that are rarely used or given off-schedule, and manufacturers should avoid vaccines with age-specific dosing.     

Performance and usability evaluation of novel intradermal injection device Immucise™ and reanalysis of intradermal administration trials of influenza vaccine for the elderly

Under the pandemic situation, there is an urgent need to produce and acquire sufficient quantities of prophylactic vaccines. It becomes important to devise a way to achieve reliable immunity with lower doses to distribute limited supplies of vaccines to maximum number of people very quickly. Intradermal (ID) vaccination is one such method to increase the effectiveness of vaccines. However, this method has not been widely used in general clinical practice because it is technically difficult to inject vaccines precisely into the ID tissue. Therefore, new ID delivery systems that allow reliable ID administration are under development. In this paper, we summarize its design and present the results of performance and usability testing for the Immucise? Intradermal Injection System (Immucise?). This study showed that Immucise? can reduce dead volume and inject drugs precisely into the ID tissues of subjects from infants to the elderly and can be used correctly and safely by healthcare professionals.This randomized controlled trial compared ID administration with Immucise? and standard subcutaneous (SC) administration of seasonal influenza vaccine by analyzing the efficacy of the vaccine in the elderly group at 90 days and 180 days after administration. It was found that the vaccine for the ID group was as effective or more effective than that for the SC group up to 180 days later. It was also found that the geometric mean titer values, especially for B strains, were higher in the two-dose ID group than in the two-dose SC group. These findings suggest that Immucise? is one of the best devices to distribute a small amount of vaccine quickly and widely to a larger number of people with little loss of vaccine during a pandemic.     

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination of migrant populations: A qualitative interview study of immunisation providers in Victoria,Australia

IntroductionThis study aimed to understand barriers and enablers, future strategies, communication approaches and resources needed for COVID-19 vaccination among migrant communities in Melbourne, Australia.Material and methodsWe interviewed 24 immunisation providers who deliver immunisation services to migrant populations in Melbourne. We used the WHO Behavioural and Social Drivers framework (underlined) to organise barriers and enablers to COVID-19 vaccination.ResultsParticipants believed migrants had concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy and saw vaccines as minimally beneficial in the ‘low COVID-19′ environment of Australia (what people think and feel). Healthcare providers with established relationships within migrant communities played key roles in vaccine advocacy (social processes). Migrants’ vaccine motivation was mediated by health literacy, institutional trust and previous experiences with health services. Practical issues included perceived lack of information on vaccine booking process and accessibility challenges.ConclusionsStrategies to increase migrant vaccine coverage should utilise immunisation providers with community links and trusted local vaccine ambassadors to engage and address community vaccine concerns.     

Advanced oxidation technology for the development of a next-generation inactivated West Nile virus vaccine

West Nile virus (WNV) is the most frequent mosquito-borne disease reported in the continental United States and although an effective veterinary vaccine exists for horses, there is still no commercial vaccine approved for human use. We have previously tested a 3% hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-based WNV inactivation approach termed, HydroVax, in Phase I clinical trials and the vaccine was found to be safe and modestly immunogenic. Here, we describe an advanced, next-generation oxidation approach (HydroVax-II) for the development of inactivated vaccines that utilizes reduced concentrations of H₂O₂ in combination with copper (cupric ions, Cu²⁺) complexed with the antiviral compound, methisazone (MZ). Further enhancement of this oxidative approach included the addition of a low percentage of formaldehyde, a cross-linking reagent with a different mechanism of action that, together with H₂O₂/Cu/MZ, provides a robust two-pronged approach to virus inactivation. Together, this new approach results in rapid virus inactivation while greatly improving the maintenance of WNV-specific neutralizing epitopes mapped across the three structural domains of the WNV envelope protein. In combination with more refined manufacturing techniques, this inactivation technology resulted in vaccine-mediated WNV-specific neutralizing antibody responses that were 130-fold higher than that observed using the first generation, H₂O₂-only vaccine approach and provided 100% protection against lethal WNV infection. This new approach to vaccine development represents an important area for future investigation with the potential not only for improving vaccines against WNV, but other clinically relevant viruses as well.