Dengue is the world’s most prevalent and important arboviral disease. More than 50% of the world’s population lives at daily risk of infection and it is estimated more than 95 million people a year seek medical care following infection. Severe disease can manifest as plasma leakage and potential for clinically significant hemorrhage, shock, and death. Treatment is supportive and there is currently no licensed anti-dengue virus prophylactic or therapeutic compound. A single dengue vaccine, Sanofi Pasteur’s Dengvaxia®, has been licensed in 20 countries but uptake has been poor. A safety signal in dengue seronegative vaccine recipients stimulated an international re-look at the vaccine performance profile, new World Health Organization recommendations for use, and controversy in the Philippines involving the government, regulatory agencies, Sanofi Pasteur, clinicians responsible for testing and administering the vaccine, and the parents of vaccinated children. In this review, we provide an overview of Dengvaxia’s® development and discuss what has been learned about product performance since its licensure.

Dengue is a major global public health problem requiring a safe and efficacious vaccine as the foundation of a comprehensive countermeasure strategy. Despite decades of attempts, the world has a single dengue vaccine licensed in numerous countries, but restrictions and conditions of its use have deterred uptake. Recently, clinical efficacy data has been revealed for two additional dengue vaccine candidates and the data appears encouraging. In this perspective I discuss dengue, the complexities of dengue vaccine development, early development setbacks, and how the latest data from the field may be cause for measured optimism. Finally, I provide some perspectives on evaluating dengue vaccine performance and how the pursuit of the perfect dengue vaccine may prevent advancement of vaccines which are good enough.

Not all vaccines afford robust protection against ZIKV challenge in rhesus monkeys at 1 year after vaccination.

We conducted an open label, dose escalation Phase 1 clinical trial of a tetravalent dengue DNA vaccine (TVDV) formulated in Vaxfectin^® to assess safety and immunogenicity. A total of 40 dengue- and flavivirus-naive volunteers received either low-dose (1 mg) TVDV alone (N = 10, group 1), low-dose TVDV (1 mg) formulated in Vaxfectin (N = 10, group 2), or high-dose TVDV (2 mg, group 3) formulated in Vaxfectin^® (N = 20). Subjects were immunized intramuscularly with three doses on a 0-, 30-, 90-day schedule and monitored. Blood samples were obtained after each immunization and various time points thereafter to assess anti-dengue antibody and interferon gamma (IFNγ) T-cell immune responses. The most common adverse events (AEs) across all groups included mild to moderate pain and tenderness at the injection site, which typically resolved within 7 days. Common solicited signs and symptoms included fatigue (42.5%), headache (45%), and myalgias (47.5%). There were no serious AEs related to the vaccine or study procedures. No anti-dengue antibody responses were detected in group 1 subjects who received all three immunizations. There were minimal enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and neutralizing antibody responses among groups 2 and 3 subjects who completed the immunization schedule. By contrast, IFNγ T-cell responses, regardless of serotype specificity, occurred in 70%, 50%, and 79% of subjects in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The largest IFNγ T-cell responses were among group 3 subjects. We conclude that TVDV was safe and well-tolerated and elicited predominately anti-dengue T-cell IFNγ responses in a dose-related fashion.

The safety and immunogenicity of four formulations of an investigational tetravalent dengue purified inactivated vaccine (DPIV), formulated at 1 or 4 μg with aluminum hydroxide (alum) or at 1 μg with an adjuvant system (AS01_E or AS03_B), were evaluated in a first-time-in-human, placebo-controlled, randomized, observer-blind, phase 1 trial in the continental United States. Two doses of vaccine or placebo were administered intramuscularly 4 weeks apart to 100 healthy adults 18–39 years of age, randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to receive one of four DPIV formulations or saline placebo. The response to a third dose was evaluated in a subset of nine participants remote from primary vaccination. Humoral immunogenicity was assessed using a 50% microneutralization assay. All DPIV formulations were well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were observed through 12 months after the second vaccine dose. In all DPIV groups, geometric mean antibody titers peaked at Day 56, waned through 6 months after the second vaccine dose, and then stabilized. In the nine subjects where boosting was evaluated, a strong anamnestic response was observed. These results support continuation of the clinical development of this dengue vaccine candidate (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01666652).

Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Between July 2020–January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up. At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4 (BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported. In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer. Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.