1,733
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Novel Vaccines

Safety and immunogenicity of conjugate vaccine for typhoid (Vi-DT): Finding from an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III clinical trial among healthy volunteers

ORCID Icon, , , , , , , , , , , , & show all
Article: 2301631 | Received 21 Aug 2023, Accepted 31 Dec 2023, Published online: 08 Jan 2024

ABSTRACT

Typhoid fever is a significant public health concern with most of the sufferers between 15 and 25 y of age in Nepal. We undertook this study to demonstrate Vi polysaccharide conjugated with diphtheria toxoid (Vi-DT) conjugate vaccine which is non-inferior to Typbar typhoid conjugate vaccine, a Vi polysaccharide vaccine conjugated with tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) with a focus on the adult population from Dhulikhel Hospital which was one of the total four sites in Nepal. In this study, we assigned the eligible participants in 1:1:1:1 ratio by block randomization, and stratified into three age groups (6 months to less than 2 y, 2 y to less than 18 y, and 18 y to 45 y), allotted to Group A, B, C, and D. Group A, B, and C received 25 μg (0.5 mL) of Vi-DT study vaccine and participants in Group D received 25 μg (0.5 mL) Vi-TT vaccine. We descriptively analyzed safety in all the participants receiving one dose of the investigational vaccine. The anti-Vi-IgG seroconversion rate in Vi-DT recipients was 99.71% (97.5% CI 98.04–99.96; 344 of 345 participants) and 99.13% (94.27–99.87; 114 of 115) in Vi-TT recipients which indicates that Vi-DT vaccine is non-inferior to Vi-TT vaccine. In safety aspect, 16.81% of total subject had at least one solicited adverse reaction and 22.61% of the Vi-TT participants experienced at least one solicited adverse reaction with most of them being local adverse reactions. None of the enrolled participants reported serious adverse events. Our study shows that a single dose of the Vi-DT vaccine is immunogenic, safe to administer and non-inferior to the Vi-TT vaccine four weeks after vaccination.

Introduction

Typhoid fever is one of the major public health issues in low-resource settings like Nepal, where there is poor sanitation and hygiene practice.Citation1–3 South Asia alone bears more than 70% of the global typhoid fever burden.Citation3 Typhoid infection mostly affects toddlers and children aged 6 to 12 y.Citation4,Citation5 However, the recent trend shows the shift of typhoid burden toward older age group in Nepal and India with the age of most of the Nepalese typhoid sufferers ranging from 15 to 25 y.Citation6–8 In the last decade, we have observed the rise in multidrug-resistant typhoid infections in Nepal along with other Asian countries as well as the emergence of extensively drug-resistant typhoid infections in Pakistan which has a direct impact on the control aspect of the disease and threatens to slow down or reverse the progress achieved in typhoid prevention and control so far.Citation9–14

Typhoid fever can be prevented by providing access to safe drinking water, proper sanitation and hygiene (WASH).Citation15 However, there exist significant challenges in setting up a large amount of infrastructure and maintenance of behavioral changes for easy availability of those preventive measures. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the systematic use of 0.5 mL single dose of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) in children from 6 months and in adults up to 45 y in endemic regions in March 2018,Citation16 which can also be an interim solution to limit the economic burden of the disease and combat the associated antimicrobial resistance.Citation17 The 2018 WHO position paper recommends that countries should consider typhoid vaccination in high-risk groups and for outbreak control. To address the typhoid vaccine supply and demand gap, a typhoid Vi polysaccharide-diphtheria toxoid (Vi-DT) conjugate vaccine development effort was undertaken to achieve WHO prequalification and contribute to the global supply of TCV.Citation18 Children below two years of age are in need of early intervention through typhoid vaccination.Citation19 Controlling typhoid fever in endemic countries would necessitate immunizing young children (those under the age of 15) and including the typhoid vaccine in the schedule of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI).Citation20,Citation21 The introduction, wide availability and easy accessibility of suitable typhoid vaccines through mop-up campaigns is also warranted to address the burden of typhoid fever in the older population and the children missing vaccination through EPI.Citation22

The WHO-prequalified Vi polysaccharide vaccine is recommended for the aged group two and above. Re-vaccination is recommended every three years owing to the limited lifespan of protective immunity.Citation16 However, native polysaccharide antigens do not induce T-cells; thus, they lack the development of immunologic memory, and this limitation of Vi polysaccharide vaccines against Salmonella typhi is overcome by incorporation of the carrier protein to the Vi through conjugation.Citation23 In children aged 9 months to 16 y, a single dosage of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) is immunogenic and effective in lowering S. Typhi bacteremia which showed a reduction in the incidence of typhoid fever by 81.6% in a phase III study in Nepal using Typbar TCV, a Vi-polysaccharide tetanus-toxoid (Vi-TT) conjugate typhoid vaccine.Citation24,Citation25

The collaborative effort of the International Vaccine Institute and SK Bioscience has developed the Vi-polysaccharide diphtheria-toxoid (Vi-DT) conjugate typhoid vaccine with the aim of achieving WHO prequalification and contributing to the global vaccine supply which will address supply and demand gap created after WHO prequalification of the TCV.Citation16 In phase I and II studies conducted among participants ranging from 6 months to 45 y of age in the Philippines, Vi-DT conjugate typhoid vaccine demonstrated safety and immunogenicity for both two-dose and single dose regimen.Citation26,Citation27 The phase III study was conducted in four sites: Kanti Children’s Hospital (KCH); BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (BPKIHS); Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital (DHKUH); and Nepalgunj Medical College (NMC) in Nepal. The study also demonstrated safety and immunological non-inferiority of Vi-DT compared to Vi-TT conjugate typhoid vaccine.Citation28 As many randomized clinical trials have provided data on toddlers and children, allotting the major bulk of the study to the adult population was critical to address the scarcity of data on the safety and immunogenicity of typhoid-conjugated vaccines in Nepalese adults.Citation6–8,Citation25,Citation29 Hence, we report age stratum specific safety and immunogenicity, mainly focusing adult age group, of a single dose of Vi-DT with a single dose of Vi-TT from subset study conducted at Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital, Nepal.

Methods

Study design

A randomized, observer-blind phase III study was conducted to demonstrate the non-inferiority of SK Bioscience’s Vi-DT typhoid vaccine in a single dose compared to that of Vi-TT typhoid vaccine (Typbar TCV) developed by Bharat Biotech International, India. This study was conducted at Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital along with other three different tertiary care hospitals in Nepal. The study was approved by the ethical review board of the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) and regulatory approval by the Department of Drug Administration (DDA). This study also received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) and the Institutional review committee of the Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital on 08 Nov 2023. Following the approval from the site ethics committee, site initiated to recruit the study participants.

Community engagement

We achieved the optimum support and engagement of stakeholders in three phases. At first, we conducted a series of meetings with local leaders and municipal health coordinators to elaborate on the importance, rationale, and safety strategies and clear the common misconceptions prevalent among the community regarding vaccine studies. Second, we approached school headmasters and school health nurses. Study nurses and co-investigators visited the local schools and took multiple guest lectures highlighting the design and protocol of the study among school teachers, students and their guardians. Third, we invited the local media representatives to let the local press understand the nature and reality of the clinical trial and all the ethical aspects associated with it.

We regularly contacted the stakeholders throughout the study to provide updates on study progression, recruitment, and retention. At the end of the study, we once again invited all the local stakeholders to share our experience of the clinical trial as well as acknowledge and appreciate their contribution toward the successful completion of the study. These activities proved to be one of the major contributors to the smooth commencement of the first clinical trial of its nature at our site.

Participants

The participants fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study were enrolled in the study. The eligibility criteria of the study were healthy volunteers aged 6 months to 45 y, participants, parents or legally authorized representatives (LARs) willing to provide consent and comply with the study procedures and not planning to leave the study area during the course of the study.

The key exclusion criteria were the presence of acute illness or any comorbid conditions, participation in any other clinical trial at the time of screening and a known history of allergy to vaccines or other medications; the factors that could impede elucidation of the study endpoints. The potential participants were pre-screened at the community and the participants and the study procedures were not started before the participants, parents or LARs provided duly signed informed written consent. A copy of the signed informed consent or assent form was provided to the participants for their records.

Randomization and masking

The participants eligible for enrollment were assigned randomly in a 1:1:1:1 fashion into four study groups (Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D) and two study arms (experimental and comparator arm). The experimental arm of the investigational product was divided into three lots where Test Group A through Test Group C was allocated to Lot 1 through Lot 3 of Vi-DT test vaccine respectively and a single active comparator arm was apportioned to Vi-TT active control, Typbar TCV as Test Group D. The stratification was done as per the participant’s age at enrollment into one of the three age strata: six months to less than two years, two years to less than 18 y and 18 y to 45 y of age. A randomization list was generated with block sizes of four and eight by an unbiased statistician for block-randomization of the study participants aiming for a proper balance of study intervention. The masking was possible by the use of two separate randomization lists; one containing a randomization number only available to the investigator for assigning randomization number and the other containing a randomization number alongside scratch able vaccine allocation information only available to the un-blinded pharmacist and vaccinator.

Procedures

Participants satisfying the study criteria were administered 0.5 mL (25 micrograms) of either Vi-DT vaccine or Vi-TT vaccine through intramuscular injection, preferably in the left deltoid area or the left anterolateral thigh after prior informed written consent (visit 1/visit 2). For at least 30 minutes following immunization, participants were monitored at the study site for any immediate adverse events. In a diary card, solicited adverse events were documented for 7 d after vaccination (visit 3), and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for 4 weeks following vaccination (visit 4). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were noted in a diary card and active telephonic follow-up was maintained throughout the study period of 24 weeks (visit 6). As a part of the safety evaluation, each participant’s height, weight, and vital signs were assessed at each study visit, detailed schedule of visit is described previously.Citation28

Baseline blood samples from each subject were obtained prior to vaccination on the day of enrollment and two more blood samples were taken during the rest of the study period, one each on day 28 and day 168 (week four and week 24) respectively, following vaccination which was analyzed for anti-Vi IgG concentrations using in house ELISA at IVI laboratory as described previously.Citation27,Citation30 The antibody titers were measured using a reference panel from the National Institute for Biologics Standard and Control (NIBSC) which is of WHO International Standard. The value of 0.14 international units (IU) per mL served as the lower limit to detect anti-Vi IgG titers.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Vi-DT vaccine in terms of immunogenicity as compared to Typbar TCV® after 4 weeks (Day 28) of vaccination.

The secondary immunogenic endpoints were rate of seroconversion at 24 weeks (Day 168) of vaccination, GMT of anti-Vi IgG 24 weeks after vaccination, and secondary safety endpoints were frequency of local and systemic adverse reactions within a week of vaccination, unsolicited adverse events up to four weeks of vaccination and SAEs throughout the study duration.

Statistical analyses

The sample size was calculated to provide 99% power for determining non-inferiority of seroconversion rate of Vi-DT vaccine (pooled groups A-C, 1350) compared to Vi-TT vaccine (group D, 450) assuming conservative 90% seroconversion and assumed non inferiority margin of −10% as per recommendation of WHO Technical Report Series 924, the details of the sample size calculation of primary study have been provided in separate publication.Citation28 Non-inferiority of the Vi-DT vaccine compared to Vi-TT vaccine was considered if the lower limit of 97.5% CI for the difference between the seroconversion rates was above predefined margin. A significance level of 0.0125 was used for a one-sided test of non-inferiority. Equal number of participant were divided in four sites where DHKUH was assigned age strata 2–15 yeas (152), age strata 15–40 y (296) in numbers and additional number of 12 of age strata 6 months to 2 y were added as one of the site could recruit allocated number where BPKIHS recruited total 400, KCH recruited 480 and NMC recruited 460 of participants. The statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4 and as per the protocol. The Chi-square test was used to derive p-values for categorical variables. Two sample t-test, the ANOVA test, and the ANCOVA test were used for the comparison of continuous variables. The safety aspect of the study was monitored by an independent data safety management board which included independent clinical experts and a biostatistician. The full analysis set (FAS), which included all the randomized participants who received one dose of the allocated vaccine, was used for demography and safety analysis. The immunogenicity analysis set, which was a subset of FAS, only included those with at least one post-baseline data on immunogenicity and was used for primary analysis of immunogenicity endpoints. The per-protocol (PP) set consisting of only those participants who did not have major protocol deviation was used to perform sensitivity analysis of primary and secondary immunogenicity endpoints. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier (NCT number): NCT03933098.

Results

A total of 481 participants were screened during the period of 29 Nov 2019 to 08 Mar 2020 of which 460 participants, 115 participants in each group; A, B, C and D, were enrolled in the study. All the enrolled participants received one dose of the allotted vaccine on Day 0 and provided one blood sample for immunogenicity on Day 28 and Day 168 for immunogenicity. We have pooled three groups (Group A + Group B + Group C) as Vi-DT groups and Group D as Vi-TT groups. The details of the participant visit, follow-up and activities performed at each visit are outlined in the flowchart as shown in .

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram showing the number of patients who were screened, randomized into the treatment groups, completed the study, and included in the analysis.

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram showing the number of patients who were screened, randomized into the treatment groups, completed the study, and included in the analysis.

The mean age of the study population was 21.61 y (SD = 10.04). There were a total of 57.17% (n = 263) females and 42.83% (n = 197) males with a male: female ratio of 0.75. There were 12 participants in age strata 1 (6 months to less than 2 y), 152 participants in age strata 2 (2 y to 18 y) and 296 participants in age strata 3 (18 y to 45 y). The adult population comprised 39.53% (n = 117) males and 60.47% (n = 179) females ().

Table 1. Demographics information of enrolled participants.

The weight, height, heart rate, temperature, respiratory rate of all the participants and blood pressure (applicable for adults only) were similar across the study and comparator group at enrollment and during the follow-up.

The anti-Vi-IgG ELISA response was compared between the study vaccine (Vi-DT) and comparator vaccine (Vi-TT) at four weeks of vaccination. In the immunogenicity set, the seroconversion rate was 99.71% (97.5% CI 98.04–99.96; 344 of 345 participants) for the Vi-DT vaccine as compared to 99.13% (94.27–99.87; 114 of 115) for Vi-TT vaccine which demonstrated the non-inferiority of the study vaccine (p = .8553). The seroconversion rate for age strata 1 was 100% (70.09–100.00; 9 of 9) and 100% (43.85–100.00; 3 of 3) for the Vi-DT group and Vi-TT group, respectively. Similarly, 100% (96.74, 100.00; 114 of 114) for the Vi-DT group and 100% (90.82, 100.00; 38 of 38) for the Vi-TT group were the seroconversion rates in age strata 2. In age strata 3, 99.55% (97.49–99.92; 221 of 222) seroconverted in the Vi-DT group and 98.65% (92.73, 99.76; 73 of 74) seroconverted in the Vi-TT group (p = .4381). There is no significant difference in seroconversion in the two groups (). We observed similar results upon analyzing the PP set. The GMT of anti -Vi-IgG at 4 weeks for all participatns and age stratum of Vi-DT group were comparable to Vi-TT group ().

Table 2. Anti-vi-IgG ELISA response for seroconversion - non-inferiority data at week 4 for immunogenicity set.

The GMT of anti-Vi-IgG at week 24 of vaccinfation for all ages was 122.06 IU/mL (95% CI 107.77, 138.25) in the Vi-DT group and 118.49 IU/mL (99.46, 141.15) in the Vi-TT group (p= .8723). In the participants aged 6 months to less than 2 y, the GMT of anti-Vi-IgG was 46.96 IU/mL (28.79, 76.60) in the Vi-DT group whereas 32.56 IU/mL (6.42, 165.08) in the Vi-TT group (p = .3732). In the age strata 2 i.e, participants aged 2 y up to 18 y, GMT was 101.84 IU/mL (86.78, 119.52) in the Vi-DT vaccine group which was significantly lower than 142.82 IU/mL (110.65, 184.35) in Vi-TT vaccine group (p = .0332). In the adult age group, GMT was 140.09 IU/mL (117.63, 166.85) in the Vi-DT group and 112.48 IU/mL (88.95, 142.24) in the Vi-TT group (p = .1379) (). The results of GMT were similar in the PP analysis set. The anti-Vi-IgG ELISA at week 24 of vaccination for all participants and in each stratum of Vi-DT group were comparable to Vi-TT group and greater than non inferiority margin of -10% ().

Table 3. Anti-vi-IgG ELISA GMT at week 24 for immunogenicity set.

There was only one immediate reaction observed within 30 min of vaccination in the Vi-DT group. It was pain at the injection site in a participant of age group 18–45 y (p = 1.0000). It was moderate in nature and resolved in few hours. There were a total of 16.81% (58 of 345) participants who experienced solicited adverse events in the Vi-DT vaccine group of which 16.23% (56 of 345) were related to the vaccination while 22.61% (26 of 115) of participants experienced solicited adverse events in the Vi-TT vaccine group and only 20.87% (24 of 115) had relatedness to the vaccination. The majority of these adverse events fell into age strata 3 which accounted for 21.67% (20.72% related to vaccination) in the test group and 28.38% (25.68% related to vaccination) in the comparator group ().

Table 4. Solicited adverse Events.

The solicited adverse events were reported as local and systemic adverse events (). All the local adverse events were related to the vaccination and most of the systemic adverse events were also related to the vaccination. Among the local adverse events, pain/tenderness was the most common adverse reaction 13.33% (n = 46) and 19.13% (n = 22) respectively in both the Vi-DT group and Vi-TT groups (p = .1293). In the systemic adverse events category in Vi-DT pooled group versus the Vi-TT group, headache 3.87% (n = 13) versus 4.46% (n = 5), respectively, was most commonly encountered (p = .7833) followed by lethargy, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, loss of appetite and fever. Very few participants faced symptoms like vomiting, arthralgia, drowsiness, chills and nasopharyngitis while none experienced rash, persistent crying or irritability. Most of the solicited events were mild to moderate and resolved in few days. Two solicited event (one fever in 2 to less than 18 y group and one local tenderness in 18 to 45 y group) belonging to ViDT groups were present and resolved in few days.

Table 5. Distribution of solicited adverse events.

There were 38 instances of unsolicited adverse events reported within four weeks of vaccination in the Vi-DT pooled group from 4.64% (16 of 345) participants and for the Vi-TT group, there were 7 occurrences of such events from 2.61% (3 of 115) participants (p = .4280) (). All of the unsolicited adverse events were mild to moderate and resolved without sequelae. We did not observe any significant differences in the occurrence of unsolicited events in both the test and comparator vaccine groups in either age stratum. None of the unsolicited adverse events was related to the vaccination. No SAEs were reported.

Table 6. Unsolicited adverse events.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that the Vi-DT vaccine is immunogenic and non-inferior compared to the WHO pre-qualified Vi-TT Typbar TCV vaccine which is licensed for use in Nepal, after four weeks of single intramuscular injection in all the age groups and also within each age stratum. The seroconversion rate of participants receiving Vi-DT was 99.71% which shows that the immunogenicity of the vaccine is robust.

The safety profile of the vaccine is comparable with that of Typbar TCV. Only 16.81% of the Vi-DT participants experienced at least one of the solicited adverse reactions, whereas 22.61% of the participants in the Vi-TT group faced at least a solicited adverse event and the majority of them were local adverse events, pain at the injection site is the most common one in both the pools which is also the expected outcome as the route of administration is intramuscular. There were very few cases reporting itching and swelling (0.58%) and redness over the site of injection was rare (0.29%). The occurrence of serious adverse events (SAE) was nil.

In age group 2–18 year participants, a large difference of anti-Vi IgG GMT among Vi-DT and Vi-TT groups was observed, as compared to difference observed in participants aged 6 months to younger than 2 y and those aged 18 y to 45 y. Though, the difference observed was not statistical significant, but this finding needs to be investigated further to fully understand the reasons and its clinical implications. The safety and immunogenicity data on conjugated typhoid vaccines are available from several studies which focus mainly on children and few studies recruiting the adult population had quite a small adult representation.Citation29,Citation31 A large phase III study on the efficacy of TCV was done in Nepalese children less than 16 y of age;Citation25 however, the median age of the Nepalese population in a typhoid fever surveillance program was shown to be 27 y ranging mostly from 15 to 48 y of ageCitation7,Citation8 which is seen as a rise in the incidence of typhoid fever in the adult population as compared to older studies.Citation32 Therefore, the safety and immunogenicity data on the healthy adult participants carry a unique significance as shown by our study.

One of the limitations of the study was COVID-19-related travel restrictions, which mainly affected the follow-up visit at week 24 causing an inability to obtain blood samples from 10% of the participants from both groups; however, this had an minor impact on PP analysis. Lot to lot consistency of the different lots of Vi-DT vaccine could not be evaluated in this sub-study which has been evaluated in the main study.Citation28 As our site was selected for adult and young children population, there was few number of participant in age strata 6 month to less than 2 y and also could not evaluate the immune noninterference of Vi-DT TCV with measles-rubella vaccine which has been evaluated in previously published article.Citation33 Also, as Nepal is a typhoid-endemic country, there exists a possibility that few of the study participants could have a subclinical infection or they could be asymptomatic carriers. However, any such potential participants were equally distributed among four randomized groups eliminating the biased statistical findings.

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the immunogenicity of the single dose Vi-DT TCV is similar to its WHO-prequalified counterpart employed in the study (Vi-TT TCV) and Vi-DT is also safe to administer in individuals aged six months to 45 y mainly adult population.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful towards Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1115556) for supporting this study in Nepal. In addition, our sincere gratitude to International vaccine Institute for intensive trainings, supervision and guidance to complete the study. Similarly, we would like to thank Dhulikhel Hospital for their underpin support to initiate the study. The author also like to thank all the participants of this study for their time and effort.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1115556] including site preparation.

References

  • Crump JA. Progress in typhoid fever epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(Supplement_1):S4–9. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy846.
  • Pitzer VE, Meiring J, Martineau FP, Watson CH, Kang G, Basnyat B, Baker S. The invisible burden: diagnosing and combatting typhoid fever in Asia and Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(Supplement_5):S395–401. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz611.
  • Stanaway JD, Reiner RC, Blacker BF, Goldberg EM, Khalil IA, Troeger CE, Andrews JR, Bhutta ZA, Crump JA, Im J. et al. The global burden of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(4):369–81. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30685-6.
  • Lee J-S, Mogasale VV, Mogasale V, Lee K. Geographical distribution of typhoid risk factors in low and middle income countries. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:732. doi:10.1186/s12879-016-2074-1.
  • John J, Van Aart CJ, Grassly NC, Baker S. The burden of typhoid and paratyphoid in India: systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(4):e0004616. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004616.
  • Barkume C, Date K, Saha SK, Qamar FN, Sur D, Andrews JR, Luby SP, Khan MI, Freeman A, Yousafzai MT. et al. Phase I of the surveillance for enteric fever in Asia project (SEAP): an overview and lessons learned. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(suppl_4):S188–94. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiy522.
  • Andrews JR, Vaidya K, Bern C, Tamrakar D, Wen S, Madhup S, Shrestha R, Karmacharya B, Amatya B, Koju R. et al. High rates of enteric fever diagnosis and lower burden of culture-confirmed disease in Peri-urban and rural Nepal. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(suppl_4):S214–21. doi:10.1093/infdis/jix221.
  • Garrett DO, Longley AT, Aiemjoy K, Yousafzai MT, Hemlock C, Yu AT, Vaidya K, Tamrakar D, Saha S, Bogoch II. et al. Incidence of typhoid and paratyphoid fever in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan: results of the surveillance for enteric fever in Asia project. Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10:e978–88. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00119-X.
  • Khanal B, Sharma SK, Bhattacharya SK, Bhattarai NR, Deb M, Kanungo R. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella enterica serotype typhi in eastern Nepal. J Health Popul Nutr. 2007;25:82–7.
  • Ochiai RL, Acosta CJ, Danovaro-Holliday MC, Baiqing D, Bhattacharya SK, Agtini MD, Bhutta ZA, Canh DG, Ali M, Shin S. et al. A study of typhoid fever in five Asian countries: disease burden and implications for controls. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:260–8. doi:10.2471/BLT.06.039818.
  • Bhetwal A, Maharjan A, Khanal PR, Parajuli NP. Enteric fever caused by Salmonella enterica Serovars with reduced susceptibility of fluoroquinolones at a community based teaching hospital of Nepal. Iran J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2017;2017:1–6. doi:10.1155/2017/2869458.
  • Britto CD, Wong VK, Dougan G, Pollard AJ, Kang G. A systematic review of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar typhi, the etiological agent of typhoid. PloS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(10):e0006779. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006779.
  • Qamar FN, Yousafzai MT, Dehraj IF, Shakoor S, Irfan S, Hotwani A, Hunzai MJ, Thobani RS, Rahman N, Mehmood J. et al. Antimicrobial Resistance in Typhoidal Salmonella: Surveillance for Enteric Fever in Asia Project, 2016-2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:S276–84. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1323.
  • Masuet-Aumatell C, Atouguia J. Typhoid fever infection – antibiotic resistance and vaccination strategies: a narrative review. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021;40:101946. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101946.
  • Brockett S, Wolfe MK, Hamot A, Appiah GD, Mintz ED, Lantagne D. Associations among water, sanitation, and hygiene, and food exposures and typhoid fever in case–control studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103(3):1020–31. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0479.
  • WHO. Summary of the WHO position paper on typhoid vaccines: WHO position paper—March 2018. [ accessed 2022 Feb 17]. https://www.who.int/immunization/policy/position_papers/PP_typhoid_2018_summary.pdf.
  • Bilcke J, Antillón M, Pieters Z, Kuylen E, Abboud L, Neuzil KM, Pollard AJ, Paltiel AD, Pitzer VE. Cost-effectiveness of routine and campaign use of typhoid Vi-conjugate vaccine in Gavi-eligible countries: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(7):728–39. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30804-1.
  • WHO. Weekly epidemiological record. Typhoid vaccines: WHO position paper–March 2018. 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/typhoid-vaccines-who-position-paper-march-2018”.
  • Jeon HJ, Pak GD, Im J, Owusu-Dabo E, Adu-Sarkodie Y, Gassama Sow A, Bassiahi Soura A, Gasmelseed N, Keddy KH, Bjerregaard-Andersen M. et al. Determining the best immunization strategy for protecting African children against invasive salmonella disease. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2018; [accessed 2022 Feb 19]. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy386.
  • Syed KA, Saluja T, Cho H, Hsiao A, Shaikh H, Wartel TA, Mogasale V, Lynch J, Kim JH, Excler J-L. et al. Review on the recent advances on typhoid vaccine development and challenges ahead. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(Supplement_2):S141–50. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa504.
  • Sahastrabuddhe S, Saluja T. Overview of the typhoid conjugate vaccine pipeline: Current status and future plans. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(Supplement_1):S22–6. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy884.
  • Qamar FN, Batool R, Qureshi S, Ali M, Sadaf T, Mehmood J, Iqbal K, Sultan A, Duff N, Yousafzai MT. Strategies to improve coverage of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) immunization campaign in Karachi, Pakistan. Vaccines. 2020;8(4):697. doi:10.3390/vaccines8040697.
  • Jakobsen H, Jonsdottir I. Mucosal Vaccination Against Encapsulated Respiratory Bacteria - New Potentials for Conjugate Vaccines? Scand J Immunol. 2003;58:119–28. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3083.2003.01292.x.
  • Shakya M, Colin-Jones R, Theiss-Nyland K, Voysey M, Pant D, Smith N, Liu X, Tonks S, Mazur O, Farooq YG. et al. Phase 3 efficacy analysis of a typhoid conjugate vaccine trial in Nepal. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(23):2209–18. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1905047.
  • Shakya M, Voysey M, Theiss-Nyland K, Colin-Jones R, Pant D, Adhikari A, Tonks S, Mujadidi YF, O’Reilly P, Mazur O. et al. Efficacy of typhoid conjugate vaccine in Nepal: final results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(11):e1561–8. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00346-6.
  • Capeding MR, Teshome S, Saluja T, Syed KA, Kim DR, Park JY, Yang JS, Kim YH, Park J, Jo S-K. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine: phase I trial in healthy Filipino adults and children. Vaccine. 2018;36(26):3794–801. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.038.
  • Capeding MR, Sil A, Tadesse BT, Saluja T, Teshome S, Alberto E, Kim DR, Park EL, Park JY, Yang JS. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of Vi-DT conjugate vaccine among 6-23-month-old children: phase II, randomized, dose-scheduling, observer-blind study. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;27:100540. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100540.
  • Rai GK, Saluja T, Chaudhary S, Tamrakar D, Kanodia P, Giri BR, Shrestha R, Uranw S, Kim DR, Yang JS. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine in healthy volunteers in Nepal: an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(4):529–40. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00455-2.
  • Kundu R, Kandulna AK, Nayak U, Jangid SK, Babu TR, Vukkala R, Sharma S, Goyal VK, Daultani P, Mittal R. et al. Immunogenicity and safety of typhoid conjugate vaccine in healthy Indian subjects: a randomized, active-controlled, comparative clinical trial. Indian Pediatr. 2020;57(7):625–30. doi:10.1007/s13312-020-1890-y.
  • Lee EY, Park JY, Kim DR, Song M, Sahastrabuddhe S, Kim H, Chon Y, Yang JS, Darton TC. Comparison of anti-Vi IgG responses between two clinical studies of typhoid Vi conjugate vaccines (Vi-DT vs Vi-TT). PloS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(3):e0008171. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008171.
  • Choi SK, Baik YO, Kim CW, Kim SK, Oh IN, Yoon H, Yu D, Lee C. An open-label, comparative, single dose, clinical phase I study to assess the safety and immunogenicity of typhoid conjugate vaccine (Vi-CRM197) in healthy Filipino adults. Vaccine. 2021;39(19):2620–7. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.089.
  • Azmatullah A, Qamar FN, Thaver D, Zaidi AK, Bhutta ZA. Systematic review of the global epidemiology, clinical and laboratory profile of enteric fever. J Glob Health. 2015;5(2):020407. doi:10.7189/jogh.05.020407.
  • Saluja T, Rai GK, Chaudhary S, Kanodia P, Giri BR, Kim DR, Yang JS, Park I-Y, Kyung S-E, Vemula S. et al. Immune non-interference and safety study of Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine with a measles, mumps and rubella containing vaccine in 9-15 months old Nepalese infants. Vaccine. 2022;40:5828–34. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.034.

Appendix

Table A1. GMT of anti-vi IgG ELISA response at week 4 for Dhulikhel Hospital – immunogenicity set.

Table A2. Seroconversion rate of anti-vi IgG ELISA response at week 24 for Dhulikhel Hospital – immunogenicity set.