Barriers to vaccine development
Vaccine development requires the conduct of clinical trials to generate the necessary safety, quality and efficacy data needed for licensure1. Starting initially with small trials to demonstrate safety, and progressively scaling up to look at immunogenicity and finally efficacy, this process has resulted in the development of vaccines against 25 diseases, with more in the pipeline2 which have significantly reduced morbidity and mortality since their introduction3.
Vaccine development takes on average 10–15 years and costs at least $500 m to bring a new product to market, with probability of success estimated to be as low as 10%4 The high level of investment of both time and money needed to progress vaccine candidates combined with high risk of failure can disincentivize development of some products. The feasibility of clinical development and the likelihood of regulatory approval are key drivers of developer decision-making when considering which products to progress, especially as vaccines move towards pivotal efficacy studies which require significant investment5. Whilst quality and safety standards are well defined, establishing efficacy can be challenging.
Given that infectious diseases still kill millions of people worldwide, particularly in Africa, some parts of south-east Asia and south America6 alternative strategies must be considered to address the challenges of progressing vaccines through late-stage development.
These challenges can be technical, such as low disease incidence, diagnostic or enrolment challenges, or lack of understanding of protective immunity in target populations. Challenges can also be financial, with candidate vaccines failing to attract the necessary level of investment to conduct efficacy trials if market demand or return on investment are uncertain, falling into “the second valley of death” between late-stage clinical development and licensure7.
The majority of vaccines licenced to date have been assessed for efficacy against clinical disease endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCT’s), this approach is viewed as the gold standard method to demonstrate the efficacy data required by regulators for licensure. However, this traditional approach is not always feasible in certain situations.
The outbreak of Sudan ebolavirus (SUDV) in Uganda in 2022 highlights this issue for emerging infectious diseases. When the outbreak of SUDV was declared in Uganda8, there were no licenced vaccines, but there were 3 vaccine candidates in development9 Plans were rapidly drawn up by Ugandan authorities and the WHO, to conduct a “ring vaccination” study using WHO’s SOLIDARITY trials core protocol to assess the effect of a single vaccine dose in protecting recent contacts of newly confirmed cases of SUVD against lab-confirmed SUVD10 The first doses of candidate vaccines arrived in Uganda just 79 days after the outbreak was declared. However, before the trial started, the outbreak was declared over. Given the deadly nature of ebolavirus disease (this outbreak recorded 142 confirmed cases and 55 confirmed deaths) medical counter measures to control outbreaks are still urgently needed. Whilst the control and eventual ending of the outbreak was achieved through leadership, teamwork, contact tracing testing and control measures such as quarantines and lockdowns, such measures are not without their significant downsides, particularly for the poorest people in societies where not working means no income to support their families11.
This issue does not only affect emerging infectious diseases, other examples include:
-
Where disease incidence is low e.g. a cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial for a Nipah virus vaccine was estimated to take 516 years and over 163,000 vaccine doses under current epidemic conditions12.
-
Where large trials are required e.g. licensure of a maternal GBS vaccine to prevent neonatal disease require enrolment of up to 80,000 pregnant women13,14, or prevention of enteric fever caused by S. paratyphi A, where low attack rates mean efficacy studies would require 100,000–250,000 participants15.
-
Where unpredictable market demand and return on investment mean products fail to attract necessary investment e.g. new TB vaccines16,17.
The need to understand protective immunity: the case for correlates of protection
Identification of correlates of protection, (immune responses associated with protection from disease), that can act as predictors of efficacy has the potential to unlock the development of safe, technically promising and potentially life-saving vaccines. Supporting research into discovery and use CoP data has the potential to improve go/no-go decision making in clinical development, allow rationale design of new or improved vaccines, reduce the time and cost of phase 3 testing by informing clinical trial design and provide a pathway to continue development when clinical efficacy studies are unfeasible. Coupling CoP-based approaches with post-authorisation studies to demonstrate effectiveness could lead to licensure when clinical efficacy cannot be feasibly achieved.
Barriers to the use of correlates of protection, and solutions: The 4 C’s
In September 2022 Wellcome convened vaccine developers, regulators and policy makers to determine how to embed the identification and validation of correlates of protection early in the clinical development process and enable their use throughout.
Gaps in consistency of data collection and analysis, lack of collaboration and co-ordination between stakeholders and clear communication of evidence gaps and how to address these were all identified as challenges (workshop report in press).
Conclusions
Licenced vaccines have traditionally been designed empirically, and achieved authorisation through RCT’s based on clinical endpoints to demonstrate efficacy. However, such approaches are not always feasible and have not been successful against more technically challenging targets such as HIV. Alternative approaches to inform rationale vaccine design, demonstrating effectiveness and increasing probabilities of success are needed to stop new products stalling in development, and leaving vulnerable populations at risk of morbidity and mortality caused by infectious diseases.
Developing new methods to define protective immune responses, coupled with commitment to post-introduction studies to ensure safety and effectiveness, has the potential to improve our understanding of protective immunity in target populations which in turn will inform vaccine design, development and use.
Without new approaches to develop vaccines, many communities will continue to bear the burden of infectious diseases and are exposed to the risk of infectious diseases escalating. The COVID-19 pandemic reminded us all of the devastating impact infectious diseases can have on our lives, and whilst multiple vaccines were rapidly developed for this disease, new vaccines are still needed to prevent death and disability caused by endemic diseases such as TB, and to be prepared for future outbreaks. Given the growing threats to controlling infectious diseases such as climate change and antimicrobial resistance, it is important to act now to ensure that we are better prepared to tackle infectious diseases that affect everyone now and in the future.
References
Singh, K. & Mehta, S. The clinical development process for a novel preventive vaccine: An overview. J. Postgrad. Med. 62, 4 (2016).
Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/diseases (2024).
Immunization, https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/immunization (2024).
MacPherson, A. et al. Probability of success and timelines for the development of vaccines for emerging and reemerged viral infectious diseases. Ann Intern Med. 174, 326–334 (2021).
A vaccine ecosystem equipped to meet the challenges of future infectious disease. Wellcome, https://wellcome.org/reports/effective-vaccine-ecosystem-equipped-meet-challenges-future-infectious-disease-threats (2024).
Death rate from infectious diseases, 2019, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/infectious-disease-death-rates-gbd (2024).
Kaslow, D. C. et al. Vaccine candidates for poor nations are going to waste. Nature 564, 337–339 (2021).
Ebola outbreak 2022 - Uganda, https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/ebola-uganda-2022 (2024).
WHO Technical Advisory Group on candidate vaccine prioritization. Summary of the evaluations and recommendations on the three Sudan ebolavirus vaccines that are candidates for inclusion in the planned ring vaccination trial in Uganda (“Tokomeza Ebola”), https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-vaccine-prioritization-working-group.--summary-of-the-evaluations-and-recommendations-on-the-three-sudan-ebolavirus-vaccines-that-are-candidates-for-inclusion-in-the-planned-ring-vaccination-trial-in-uganda-(-tokomeza-ebola) (2024).
Solidarity Trials Core Protocol - Ring vaccination trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Sudan ebolavirus vaccine in Uganda, https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/solidarity-trials-core-protocol---ring-vaccination-trial-to-evaluate-the-efficacy-and-safety-of-a-sudan-ebolavirus-vaccine-in-uganda (2024).
Ebola in Uganda: lessons from COVID show that heavy-handed lockdowns may be a bad idea. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ebola-uganda-lessons-covid-show-heavy-handed-lockdowns-may-be-bad-idea (2024).
Nikolay, B. et al. Assessing the feasibility of Nipah vaccine efficacy trials based on previous outbreaks in Bangladesh. Vaccine 39, 5600–5606 (2021).
Absalon, J. et al. Advances towards licensure of a maternal vaccine for the prevention of invasive group B streptococcus disease in infants: a discussion of different approaches. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 18, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21645515.2022.2037350 (2022).
Madhi, S. A. et al. Considerations for a phase-III trial to evaluate a group B Streptococcus polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccine in pregnant women for the prevention of early- and late-onset invasive disease in young-infants. Vaccine 31, D52–D57 (2013).
Martin, L. B. et al. Vaccine value profile for Salmonella enterica serovar Paratyphi A. Vaccine 41, S114–S133 (2023).
Cobelens, F. et al. Accelerating research and development of new vaccines against tuberculosis: a global roadmap. Lancet Infect. Dis. 22, e108 (2022).
Kochhar, S. et al. Building the concept for WHO Evidence Considerations for Vaccine Policy (ECVP): Tuberculosis vaccines intended for adults and adolescents as a test case. Vaccine 40, 1681 (2022).
Acknowledgements
D.K., H.G. and C.W. are all employees of Wellcome. All views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.F.K., H.G. and C.W. developed the Comment outline, D.F.K. drafted the article. All authors reviewed the article and agreed the submitted version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
King, D.F., Groves, H. & Weller, C. The role of correlates of protection in overcoming barriers to vaccine development and demonstrating efficacy. npj Vaccines 9, 78 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-024-00873-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-024-00873-5