Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28002420›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

The Impact of the Newly Licensed Dengue Vaccine in Endemic Countries.

Maíra Aguiar, Nico Stollenwerk, Scott B Halstead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mapping climate change-driven epidemics.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maíra AguiarCenter for Mathematics, Fundamental Applications and Operations Research, Lisbon University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8354-9944
Nico StollenwerkCenter for Mathematics, Fundamental Applications and Operations Research, Lisbon University, Lisbon, Portugal.
Scott B HalsteadDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith approximately 3 billion people at risk of acquiring the infection, dengue fever is now considered the most important mosquito-borne viral disease in the world, with 390 million dengue infections occurring every year, of which 96 million manifest symptoms with any level of disease severity. Treatment of uncomplicated dengue cases is only supportive and severe dengue cases require hospital intensive care. A vaccine now licensed in several countries and developed by Sanofi Pasteur (CYD-TDV, named Dengvaxia), was able to protect, in the first 25 months of the two Phase III, 66% of a subset of 9-16 year old participants. However, a significantly lower efficacy (including negative vaccine efficacy) was noted for children younger than 9 years of age. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsAnalysis of year 3 results of phase III trials of Dengvaxia suggest high rates of protection of vaccinated partial dengue immunes but high rates of hospitalizations during breakthrough dengue infections of persons who were vaccinated when seronegative, with vaccine appearing to induce enhancing antibodies (ADE). An age structured model was developed based on Sanofi's recommendation to vaccinate persons age 945 years in dengue endemic countries. The model was used to explore the clinical burden of two vaccination strategies: 1) Vaccinate 4 or 20% of individuals, ages 9-45 years, seropositives and seronegatives, and 2) vaccinate 4 or 20% of individuals, ages 9-45 years, who are dengue immune only. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results show that vaccinating dengue monotypic immune individuals prevents dengue hospitalizations, but at the same time dengue infections of vaccine-sensitized persons increases hospitalizations. When the vaccine is given only to partial immune individuals, after immunological screening of the population, disease burden decreases considerably.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralChildClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDengueDengue VaccinesDengue VirusEndemic DiseasesFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedSevere DengueAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralDengue VaccinesVaccines, Attenuated

Identifiers

PMID28002420
PMCPMC5176165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.