Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30420951›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2018

Controlled Human Infections As a Tool to Reduce Uncertainty in Clinical Vaccine Development.

Meta Roestenberg, Ingrid M C Kamerling, Saco J de Visser

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. From setbacks to success: lessons from the journey of RSV vaccine development.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Frontiers in Parasitology Grand Challenge.Frontiers in parasitology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issues.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Meta RoestenbergDepartment of Parasitology and Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Ingrid M C KamerlingCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, Netherlands.
Saco J de VisserPaul Janssen Futurelab, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines can be extremely cost-effective public health measures. Unfortunately the research and development (R&D) of novel vaccines is suffering from rising costs and declining success rates. Because many vaccines target low- and middle income markets (LMIC), output needs to be maintained at a constrained budget. In addition, scientific neglect and political uncertainty around reimbursement decisions make it an unattractive arena for private investors. The vaccine development pipeline for LMIC thus is in need for a different, sustainable, and cost-effective development model. In conventional vaccine development, objectives for every clinical development phase have been predefined. However, given the scarcity of resources, the most efficient clinical development path should identify vaccine candidates with the highest potential impact as soon as possible. We argue for a custom-made question-based development path based on the scientific questions, success probabilities and investments required. One question can be addressed by several studies and one study can provide partial answers to multiple questions. An example of a question-based approach is the implementation of a controlled human malaria infection model (CHMI). Malaria vaccine R&D faces major scientific challenges and has limited resources. Therefore, early preliminary efficacy data needs to be obtained in order to reallocate resources as efficiently as possible and reduce clinical development costs. To meet this demand, novel malaria vaccines are tested for efficacy in so-called CHMI trials in which small groups of healthy volunteers are vaccinated and subsequently infected with malaria. Early evaluation studies of critical questions, such as CHMI, are highly rewarding, since they prevent expenditures on projects that are unlikely to succeed. Each set of estimated probabilities and costs (combined with market value) will have its own optimal priority sequence of questions to address. Algorithms can be designed to determine the optimal order in which questions should be addressed. Experimental infections of healthy volunteers is an example of how a question-based approach to vaccine development can be implemented and has the potential to change the arena of clinical vaccine development.

Indexed as

clinical developmentlow-income accessmalariaproduct development (PD) processvaccine

Identifiers

PMID30420951
PMCPMC6215823

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.