Dengue has emerged as a significant global health threat. Despite decades of research, only two dengue vaccines—CYD-TDV (Dengvaxia) and TAK-003 (Qdenga)—have been licensed to date, with limited implementation. This paper explores and outlines strategies for integrating dengue vaccines into routine immunization programs, particularly in high-burden regions. TAK-003, a tetravalent live-attenuated vaccine, has demonstrated 61% efficacy against virologically confirmed dengue and 84% efficacy against hospitalizations in endemic settings. However, concerns remain about vaccine-enhanced disease, particularly among seronegative individuals exposed to DENV3 and DENV4. WHO recommends targeted introduction in high-transmission settings without pre-vaccination screening, while ongoing post-introduction studies will further clarify long-term safety and efficacy. Effective vaccine rollout requires a multi-pronged approach, including school-based immunization, integration with adolescent health services, and strong community engagement. Decision-making for vaccine introduction should be guided by National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs), local epidemiological data, and cost-effectiveness assessments. While future vaccines, including mRNA and virus-like particle candidates, are under development, optimizing the use of currently available vaccines is crucial to reducing dengue’s public health impact. Given the continued rise in cases, immediate action—combining vaccination with vector control—is essential to prevent further morbidity and mortality.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the predominant cause of acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) in young children worldwide, yet no licensed RSV vaccine exists to help prevent the millions of illnesses and hospitalizations and tens of thousands of young lives taken each year. Monoclonal antibody (mAb) prophylaxis exists for prevention of RSV in a small subset of very high-risk infants and young children, but the only currently licensed product is impractical, requiring multiple doses and expensive for the low-income settings where the RSV disease burden is greatest. A robust candidate pipeline exists to one day prevent RSV disease in infant and pediatric populations, and it focuses on two promising passive immunization approaches appropriate for low-income contexts: maternal RSV vaccines and long-acting infant mAbs. Licensure of one or more candidates is feasible over the next one to three years and, depending on final product characteristics, current economic models suggest both approaches are likely to be cost-effective. Strong coordination between maternal and child health programs and the Expanded Program on Immunization will be needed for effective, efficient, and equitable delivery of either intervention. This 'Vaccine Value Profile' (VVP) for RSV is intended to provide a high-level, holistic assessment of the information and data that are currently available to inform the potential public health, economic and societal value of pipeline vaccines and vaccine-like products. This VVP was developed by a working group of subject matter experts from academia, non-profit organizations, public private partnerships and multi-lateral organizations, and in collaboration with stakeholders from the WHO headquarters. All contributors have extensive expertise on various elements of the RSV VVP and collectively aimed to identify current research and knowledge gaps. The VVP was developed using only existing and publicly available information.

The Monitoring & Evaluation/Accountability (M&E/A) framework of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) was used to report progress annually to the World Health Assembly (WHA). Stakeholder feedback was obtained through five reviews consisting of surveys and semi-structured interviews conducted from 2017 to 2019. Participants consisted of individuals involved in the development and implementation of GVAP or its M&E/A process, national immunization managers, academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and civil society organizations. The feedback was mixed and contradictory for some components, though most participants reported that the M&E/A process was a highlight of GVAP and a step in the right direction. Several of the goals and targets were considered aspirational and unrealistic for many countries. There were mixed responses on whether it promoted accountability, especially at the country level. The mixed and contradictory views on the M&E/A processes and its impact suggested a failure of communication about its scope and intent. Though the process, especially the annual reporting to the WHA, kept immunization high on the global agenda, it failed to fully meet the expectations in promoting accountability. Engaging with countries to capture the local context in setting global goals and targets and promoting local M&E/A processes will be important to achieve accountability in the next decade.

The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), unanimously endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2012, defined an ambitious strategy to improve immunization. At the end of the decade, significant progress has been made but four of the five GVAP goals are likely to be missed. This report describes a set of surveys and interviews relating to GVAP, conducted to inform the immunization strategy for the next decade. Three surveys and two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2017 to 2019. Respondents consisted of immunization stakeholders at global, regional, and country levels, and included individuals who had been involved in the development and implementation of GVAP or its monitoring, evaluation and accountability (M&E/A) process; national immunization managers; academics; and personnel from non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations. The surveys and interviews gave consistent results. They highlighted the value of GVAP in increasing visibility for immunization and the benefits of the GVAP M&E/A framework. The main limitations of GVAP were identified as the limited ownership by countries and other stakeholders leading to incomplete implementation of the strategy and poor accountability for achieving GVAP targets. These results informed the review of GVAP and the development of its successor strategy, the Immunization Agenda 2030. In addition, these surveys and interviews identified two challenges in assessing the value of GVAP: the need to rely exclusively on stakeholder perspectives and difficulties in attributing benefits. These challenges are inherent in evaluating an over-arching strategy such as GVAP and should be factored into interpretation of the results.

For lifetime protection against diphtheria and tetanus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends six doses of diphtheria and tetanus containing vaccines. Td (reduced diphtheria toxoid, ≥2-5 IU) vaccines are currently licensed for ages 7 years and older, but use of Td vaccine for ages 4 years and older would have advantages for immunization programs in many low- and middle-income countries. For this reason, WHO convened an expert consultation to review the currently available evidence for the use of Td vaccine from 4 to 7 years of age which concluded: (1) no relevant biological difference in immune response in the relevant age group compared with children over 7 years of age; (2) adequate seroprotection in several studies with Td vaccine in the 4-7 age group and many studies using combination vaccines; (3) durable and protective response of at least 9-11 years duration in several longitudinal and modelling studies, (4) less reactogenicity compared with use of full-dose diphtheria vaccine, potentially improving the vaccination experience; and (5) adequate control of diphtheria in several countries using Td-containing combination vaccines in 4-7 year old children. On this basis, the experts concluded that from a programmatic perspective, Td vaccine given in ages 4-7 years, as a second booster dose in a six-dose series, would provide adequate protection against diphtheria and tetanus and recommended steps to include this change in age extension listed in the package insert.