ReviewFrontiers in medicine2018
Controlled Human Infections As a Tool to Reduce Uncertainty in Clinical Vaccine Development.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.Vaccine · 2021Guideline
- Advances in vaccine development through the controlled human infection models for hookworm and schistosomiasis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Review
- Exploring the ethics of tuberculosis human challenge models.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Development of an intranasal, universal influenza vaccine in an EU-funded public-private partnership: the FLUniversal consortium.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Phase 1 Open-Label Dose Escalation Trial for the Development of a Human Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Challenge Model for Assessment of Tuberculosis Immunity In Vivo.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- From setbacks to success: lessons from the journey of RSV vaccine development.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2024Review
- A human model of Buruli ulcer: The case for controlled human infection and considerations for selecting a Mycobacterium ulcerans challenge strain.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Review
- Perceptions and acceptability of the controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) model in The Gambia: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials.PloS one · 2022Article
- Five decades of clinical assessment of whole-sporozoite malaria vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Frontiers in Parasitology Grand Challenge.Frontiers in parasitology · 2022Article
- Article
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Review
- COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issues.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Review
- The early landscape of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine development in the UK and rest of the world.Immunology · 2020Review
- Malaria vaccines: facing unknowns.F1000Research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.