Publication: Melioidosis vaccines: A systematic review and appraisal of the potential to exploit biodefense vaccines for public health purposes
Issued Date
2012-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
19352735
19352727
19352727
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84856565602
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Vol.6, No.1 (2012)
Suggested Citation
Sharon J. Peacock, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Yoel Lubell, Gavin C K W Koh, Lisa J. White, Nicholas P J Day, Richard W. Titball Melioidosis vaccines: A systematic review and appraisal of the potential to exploit biodefense vaccines for public health purposes. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Vol.6, No.1 (2012). doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001488 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/15115
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Melioidosis vaccines: A systematic review and appraisal of the potential to exploit biodefense vaccines for public health purposes
Abstract
Background: Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within the biothreat context, but the resulting vaccines could be applicable to populations who are at risk of naturally acquired melioidosis. Here, we discuss target populations for vaccination, consider the cost-benefit of different vaccination strategies and review potential vaccine candidates. Methods and Findings: Melioidosis is highly endemic in Thailand and northern Australia, where a biodefense vaccine might be adopted for public health purposes. A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed, which showed that a vaccine could be a cost-effective intervention in Thailand, particularly if used in high-risk populations such as diabetics. Cost-effectiveness was observed in a model in which only partial immunity was assumed. The review systematically summarized all melioidosis vaccine candidates and studies in animal models that had evaluated their protectiveness. Possible candidates included live attenuated, whole cell killed, sub-unit, plasmid DNA and dendritic cell vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines were not considered favorably because of possible reversion to virulence and hypothetical risk of latent infection, while the other candidates need further development and evaluation. Melioidosis is acquired by skin inoculation, inhalation and ingestion, but routes of animal inoculation in most published studies to date do not reflect all of this. We found a lack of studies using diabetic models, which will be central to any evaluation of a melioidosis vaccine for natural infection since diabetes is the most important risk factor. Conclusion: Vaccines could represent one strand of a public health initiative to reduce the global incidence of melioidosis. © 2012 Peacock et al.