RESULTS: The LACV was evaluated for its colonization potential, reactogenicity, immunogenicity and protective efficacy in animal models after its storage at room temperature for 140 days. In suckling mice colonization assay, the LACV recorded the highest recovery of (7.2 × 107 CFU/mL) compared to those of unformulated VCUSM14P (5.6 × 107 CFU/mL) and the WT O139 strain (3.5 × 107 CFU/mL). The LACV showed no reactogenicity even at an inoculation dose of 104-106 CFU/mL in a rabbit ileal loop model. The rabbits vaccinated with the LACV or unformulated VCUSM14P survived a challenge with WT O139 and showed no signs of diarrhoea or death in the reversible intestinal tie adult rabbit diarrhoea (RITARD) model. Vaccinated rabbits recorded a 275-fold increase in anti-CT IgG and a 15-fold increase in anti-CT IgA antibodies compared to those of rabbits vaccinated with unformulated VCUSM14P. Vibriocidal antibodies were increased by 31-fold with the LACV and 14-fold with unformulated VCUSM14P.
CONCLUSION: The vaccine formulation mimics a natural infection, is non-reactogenic and highly immunogenic in vivo and protects animals from lethal wild-type V. cholerae O139 challenge. The single dose LACV formulation was found to be stable at room temperature (25 ± 2 °C) for 140 days and it would result in significant cost savings during mass cholera vaccination campaigns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental before and after study performed between October 2014 and March 2015. Five hundred and eighty students were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. All were required to complete both pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaires. Those in the intervention group were given an information leaflet to read before answering the post-intervention questionnaire.
RESULTS: Almost half (48.3%) of the students had poor knowledge, with a score less than 5, and only 51 (8.8%) exhibited good knowledge, with a score of 11 and above. After educational intervention, the number of students with poor knowledge was reduced to 177 (29.3%) and the number of students who exhibited good knowledge increased to 148 (25.5%). Students from the intervention group demonstrated significant higher total scores in knowledge regarding 'HPV infection and cervical cancer' (p=0.000) and 'HPV vaccination and cervical cancer prevention' (p=0.000) during post-intervention as compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge on HPV infection and vaccination is low among pre-university students. Educational intervention in the form of information leaflets appears effective in creating awareness and improving knowledge.
METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.
RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.
CONCLUSION: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price.