Comments on: Vaccine Biosciences

By: Epi

Epi — Tue, 12 May 2015 19:59:02 +0000

Thank you Vish clear presentation and description of the program.

Q1: what are some examples of vaccines that the program developed and are now taken up by the private sector?

As discussed it would be great to sit together and discuss more on market assessment opportunities and assessment of animal health delivery services that PTVC can contribute to. The uptake and the wider impact of the vaccines that you and others develop in many developing countries are usually constraint by the quality of animal health delivery services, policy and lack of clarity on the roles of the private and public sectors, and often a dominance by the public sector, resulting in the crowding out of private investment in animal health delivery services. So, while you may develop a good product, it is the policy and institutional environment that becomes a barrier to uptake.

There are also externality problems whereby smallholders rely on common pastures, water points etc. an investment in animal health only makes sense if all farmers also invest – but for various reasons (including the above), there is underinvestment in animal health which negates all other investments (e.g. breeding, feeding), because unhealthy animals are less productive. So while you focus on the development of these vaccines in the lab, it is equally important to think about these issues, for these products to have a heater impact on productivity in smallholder production systems.

By: Saskia

Saskia — Tue, 12 May 2015 17:08:50 +0000

Sorry for joining the conversation this late.
I’ve been reading all the comments I would like to reply to some of the earlier comments and clarify some issues.
While diseases reporting information from OIE member states could be an indication for which diseases the vaccine team could consider working on, remember that it’s often only 20% of the diseases events that are reported. Even national disease information systems are a poor indicator of what is really happening disease wise because of a number of reasons. ILRI has done a lot of work on Participatory Epidemiology in the past – it is not all gone with Jeff Mariner leaving but the group has been reduced. Bernard Bett, Delia and some of her team members, Michel in Uganda and I in Southern Africa. And then of course all the people we have trained over the years in the 15-20 countries.
As a “goat fan” I welcome the work the team is doing on PPR, but I would like to argue for Heartwater to be considered. This is killer nr one in so many countries.
I also would like to stress again the issue of animal health service delivery – Roger already mentioned it and I have also raised it a number of times. Developing the vaccine and making it available to vet services or farmers is not enough, we need to think more carefully about how we get it into the animal in an appropriate format with limited resources. This will even influence the type of vaccine we should/can develop – the more thermo stable vaccine for PPR is a clear example of that.

By: Vish Nene

Vish Nene — Tue, 12 May 2015 13:17:11 +0000

In reply to Mats Lannerstad.

We would certainly like to see the disease portfolio expand and there are some very new and exciting technologies have hit the vaccine development community over the last 3 years or so, which we need to import or engage in. The question is which diseases and why?

As diseases are global our reach is beyond eastern Africa. Indeed, we have been talking with Steve S on how and what to engage with in SE Asia and we are in the process of establishing a joint animal health lab in Lanzhou in collaboration with CAAS initially to expand the scope of the Mycoplasma work.

With The Pirbright Institute (TPI) we are in a minor way getting into FMD – looking at how to improve the manufacturing process and to maintain vaccine stability post manufacture and through the delivery process. This involves the transfer of some interesting technology from TPI and CVL (Netherlands) and working with KEVAVAPI, who manufacture the vaccine in Kenya.

By: Vish Nene

Vish Nene — Tue, 12 May 2015 13:08:01 +0000

In reply to Polly Ericksen. Absolutely. I have commented on this under LSE. There is a huge role for monitoring what happens with vectors and vector-borne diseases. ECF/ASF have a wild-life reservoir, which further complicate control strategies! There is no evidence as yet for these pathogens to switch vectors, but when multiple vectors can transmit pathogens their relative importance can change; e.g., blue tongue.

By: Roger Pelle

Roger Pelle — Tue, 12 May 2015 12:45:20 +0000

Commenting on the line highlighted by Alessandra, Julie, Catherine, Silvia, I think if we want to improve the adoption and use of our products including vaccines as well as technologies, it would be important to make sure that the smallholder farmers understand what a project is trying to achieve and fill any gaps that may represent a serious constraint for the uptake i.e.: low level education and training, lack of professionalization of the livestock activity, etc… This preparation goes beyond the scope of the vaccine group and requires a better integration of several ILRI disciplines/programs.

By: Polly Ericksen

Polly Ericksen — Tue, 12 May 2015 11:52:43 +0000

In reply to Bernard.

hi .. and i would add in that environmental drivers are very important for the epidemiological research….

Vish you don’t mention environmental change as an issue that could change the vaccine landscape? is this (naive question I know) because once we have a vaccine for a disease the problem is solved? or could the pathway of transmission for some vector-borne diseases change?

By: Mats Lannerstad

Mats Lannerstad — Tue, 12 May 2015 11:38:13 +0000

From Nils Teufel and Mats Lannerstad
Great overview!

Do you see any need to expand your portfolio, e.g. other diseases or techniques, to be up to date with emerging challenges? Or is your program set for the future?

To what degree can your vaccine work contribute to a more global ILRI in your field? In other words, beyond Eastern Africa?

By: Barbara Wieland

Barbara Wieland — Tue, 12 May 2015 11:01:00 +0000

In reply to Vish Nene.

The Addis group is big with 26 participants today – so a name list would be rather long. But the comments reflect the overall impressions and excitement about possibilities to strengthen collaboration with ASSP. And there are clear expectations from the group towards me to ensure that you and your team know what is needed in the field to address AH constraints:-)! So expect me knocking on your door quite frequently with requests to target more/other diseases in the future….

By: Vish Nene

Vish Nene — Tue, 12 May 2015 09:44:45 +0000

In reply to cpfeifer. I think it would be great to have this type of input so that we learn from history. Are these catalogued any where?

By: Vish Nene

Vish Nene — Tue, 12 May 2015 08:43:22 +0000

Hi Addis, thanks for your comments. Not sure who they are coming from! I think some of the questions are addressed in my earlier responses.

There has been quite a lot of work done on modeling CBPP. So for a CBPP vaccine to play a role in eradication it needs different characteristics in the predicted TPP versus one needed for just control. And yes, epidemiology and who will take up and deliver a vaccine plays a huge role in designing vaccination strategies and campaigns.

Great to see all the positive responses!