Dengue vaccines regulatory pathways: a report on two meetings with regulators of developing countries

Determining the efficacy of guppies and pyriproxyfen (Sumilarv® 2MR) combined with community engagement on dengue vectors in Cambodia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Evidence on the effectiveness of low-cost, sustainable, biological vector-control tools for the Aedes mosquitoes is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this trial is to estimate the impact of guppy fish (guppies), in combination with the use of the larvicide pyriproxyfen (Sumilarv® 2MR), and Communication for Behavioral Impact (COMBI) activities to reduce entomological indices in Cambodia.

Methods/design

In this cluster randomized controlled, superiority trial, 30 clusters comprising one or more villages each (with approximately 170 households) will be allocated, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive either (1) three interventions (guppies, Sumilarv® 2MR, and COMBI activities), (2) two interventions (guppies and COMBI activities), or (3) control (standard vector control). Households will be invited to participate, and entomology surveys among 40 randomly selected households per cluster will be carried out quarterly. The primary outcome will be the population density of adult female Aedes mosquitoes (i.e., number per house) trapped using adult resting collections. Secondary outcome measures will include the House Index, Container Index, Breteau Index, Pupae Per House, Pupae Per Person, mosquito infection rate, guppy fish coverage, Sumilarv® 2MR coverage, and percentage of respondents with knowledge about Aedes mosquitoes causing dengue. In the primary analysis, adult female Aedes density and mosquito infection rates will be aggregated over follow-up time points to give a single rate per cluster. This will be analyzed by negative binomial regression, yielding density ratios.

Discussion

This trial is expected to provide robust estimates of the intervention effect. A rigorous evaluation of these vector-control interventions is vital to developing an evidence-based dengue control strategy and to help direct government resources.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN85307778. Registered on 25 October 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2105-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent progress in dengue vaccine development

Dengue virus (DENV) has four distinct serotypes. DENV infection can result in classic dengue fever and life-threatening dengue hemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome. In recent decades, DENV infection has become an important public health concern in epidemic-prone areas. Vaccination is the most effective measure to prevent and control viral infections. However, several challenges impede the development of effective DENV vaccines, such as the lack of suitable animal models and the antibody-dependent enhancement phenomenon. Although no licensed DENV vaccine is available, significant progress has been made. This review summarizes candidate DENV vaccines from recent investigations.

Developing a dengue vaccine: progress and future challenges

Dengue is an expanding public health problem in the tropics and subtropical areas. Millions of people, most from resource-constrained countries, seek treatment every year for dengue-related disease. Despite more than 70 years of effort, a safe and efficacious vaccine remains unavailable. Antidengue antiviral drugs also do not exist despite attempts to develop or repurpose drug compounds. Gaps in the knowledge of dengue immunology, absence of a validated animal or human model of disease, and suboptimal assay platforms to measure immune responses following infection or experimental vaccination are obstacles to drug and vaccine development efforts. The limited success of one vaccine candidate in a recent clinical endpoint efficacy trial challenges commonly held beliefs regarding potential correlates of protection. If a dengue vaccine is to become a reality in the near term, vaccine developers should expand development pathway explorations beyond those typically required to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Implementing new health interventions in developing countries: why do we lose a decade or more?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how long it takes for health interventions to transition from research and development (R&D) to being used against diseases prevalent in resource-poor countries. We undertook an analysis of the time required to begin implementation of four vaccines and three malaria interventions. We evaluated five milestones for each intervention, and assessed if the milestones were associated with beginning implementation.

METHODS

The authors screened World Health Organization (WHO) databases to determine the number of years between first regulatory approval of interventions, and countries beginning implementation. Descriptive analyses of temporal patterns and statistical analyses using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associations between five milestones and the beginning of implementation for each intervention. The milestones were: (A) presence of a coordinating group focused on the intervention; (B) availability of an intervention tailored to developing country health systems; (C) international financing commitment, and; (D) initial and (E) comprehensive WHO recommendations. Countries were categorized by World Bank income criteria.

RESULTS

Five years after regulatory approval, no low-income countries (LICs) had begun implementing any of the vaccines, increasing to an average of only 4% of LICs after 10 years. Each malaria intervention was used by an average of 7% of LICs after five years and 37% after 10 years. Four of the interventions had similar implementation rates to hepatitis B vaccine (HepB), while one was slower and one was faster than HepB. A financing commitment and initial WHO recommendation appeared to be temporally associated with the beginning of implementation. The initial recommendation from WHO was the only milestone associated in all statistical analyses with countries beginning implementation (relative rate = 1.97, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although possible that four milestones were not associated with countries beginning implementation, we propose an alternative interpretation; that the milestones were not realized early enough in each intervention's development to shorten the time to beginning implementation. We discuss a framework built upon existing literature for consideration during the development of future interventions. Identifying critical milestones and their timing relative to R&D, promises to help new interventions realize their intended public health impact more rapidly.

Conserved MHC class I-presented dengue virus epitopes identified by immunoproteomics analysis are targets for cross-serotype reactive T-cell response

Dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever are significant global public health problems, and understanding the overall immune response to infection will contribute to appropriate management of the disease and its potentially severe complications. Live attenuated and subunit vaccine candidates, which are under clinical evaluation, induce primarily an antibody response to the virus and minimal cross-reactive T-cell responses. Currently, there are no available tools to assess protective T-cell responses during infection or after vaccination. In this study, we utilize an immunoproteomics process to uncover novel HLA-A2-specific epitopes derived from dengue virus (DV)-infected cells. These epitopes are conserved, and we report that epitope-specific cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTLs) are cross-reactive against all 4 DV serotypes. These epitopes have potential as new informational and diagnostic tools to characterize T-cell immunity in DV infection and may serve as part of a universal vaccine candidate complementary to current vaccines in trial.