Recent setbacks in measles elimination: the importance of investing in innovations for immunizations

Recent setbacks in measles elimination: the importance of investing in innovations for immunizations

James L. Goodson^1,&

 

¹Accelerated Disease Control and Surveillance Branch, Global Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

 

 

^&Corresponding author
James L. Goodson, Accelerated Disease Control and Surveillance Branch, Global Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

 

 

 

 

The recent setbacks in efforts to achieve measles elimination goals are alarming [1]. After reaching a nadir of <100,000 estimated measles deaths globally for the first time in 2016, global measles deaths increased to > 140,000 in 2018 [1]. Since 2016, both global measles cases and incidence have steadily increased, to the highest levels since 2011. During 2016-2018, the global number of measles cases increased 167% with increases in measles incidence in five of the six World Health Organization (WHO) regions, including a 246% increase in the WHO African Region (AFR). The increase in AFR measles cases was driven by large outbreaks that occurred in Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar, and Nigeria, while other countries maintained relatively low incidence. In the AFR in 2018, coverage with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) was 74%, coverage with the second dose (MCV2) was 26% [2], and an estimated 52,600 children died of measles [1]. Although the AFR countries established a regional goal in 2011 to achieve measles elimination by 2020, and the World Health Assembly (WHA) endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) in 2012, with the objective to achieve measles and rubella elimination in five of the six WHO regions by 2020, it will be important to maintain political commitment and ensure substantial, sustained investments to achieve the global and regional measles elimination goals [1,3-5]. Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits of strong immunization programs, vaccination coverage among specific populations in certain countries are stagnant or decreasing due to barriers to access, insufficient vaccine investments, and humanitarian crises [5]. To reverse the current trends, it is imperative that the global health community urgently intensify efforts and make resource commitments to implement evidence-based elimination strategies fully, including supporting research and innovations [6].

 

Measles and rubella elimination research priorities have been identified, including operational research and potential game-changing new tools, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) [7, 8]. Early and sustained investments in these research priorities could avoid potential future program setbacks and unnecessary excess morbidity and mortality. Evidence generated from this research and the development of effective new tools could be used to shape policy, refine strategies, and strengthen practices of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI). EPI programs aim for control and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases and reduction of morbidity and mortality [1, 9-11]; elimination efforts reinforce a data-driven focus to reach vaccination coverage and equity targets. When fully resourced, EPI and related research can readily identify gaps in immunization services based on data and field experience and drive innovation through an iterative process of developing and implementing new strategies, field testing, analyzing data, and making evidence-based program adjustments. Strategic recommendations based on the evidence are endorsed by policy-setting bodies including the global WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization, and regional and national Immunization Technical Advisory Groups.

 

Strengthening immunization service delivery

 

Measles outbreak investigations, case-based surveillance data analysis, vaccination coverage surveys, systematic EPI reviews, vaccine-preventable disease impact assessments, and cost-effectiveness studies provide opportunities for research to generate evidence for refinement of elimination strategies. The published literature is rich with evidence that supports simultaneous EPI strengthening and measles elimination, including the impact of the recently updated Reaching Every District strategy; integration of other public health interventions with immunizations service delivery including supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) [12-14]; incorporation of mobile phone use, electronic immunization registries, and recall and reminder systems for vaccination messaging [15]; novel approaches to reduce vaccination dropouts and missed opportunities for vaccination (MOVs); establishing a second-year-of-life (2YL) platform; and SIA microplanning to reach un- and under-vaccinated children [16].

 

In 2009, an accumulation of evidence led to the WHO recommendation that all countries provide two doses of measles-containing vaccine [17]. Globally, estimated MCV2 coverage increased from 18% in 2000 to 69% in 2018, largely because of an increase in the number of countries providing MCV2 from 98 (51%) in 2000 to 171 (88%) in 2018 [1]. In many AFR countries, MCV2 introduction was the first routine EPI vaccine given to children beyond infancy that required establishing a 2YL clinic visit for scheduled vaccination [2, 18]. Multiple post-introduction evaluations for MCV2 and 2YL initiatives have led to an accumulation of information that can be used to strengthen EPI operations, including using the MCV2 vaccination visit to catch up on previously missed doses of all vaccines [19-22]. Providing two doses of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) to all children has also further highlighted the advantages of using 5-dose vials rather than 10-dose vials of MCV. In 2019, an important comprehensive study by John Snow, Inc. (JSI) showed that using 5-dose vials compared with 10-dose vials was associated with a substantial increase in MCV2 coverage, a significant decrease in MCV1-MCV2 dropouts, and a significantly lower MCV wastage rate (16% compared with 30%). Furthermore, the wastage-adjusted vaccine price per dose was $0.98 for 5-dose vials compared with $0.94 for 10-dose vials, and there was only a 4.9% increase in cold chain space requirements for using 5-dose vials [23]. In November 2019, after careful review of evidence, including the JSI study, the African Regional Immunization Technical Advisory Group now encourages the use of 5-dose vials of MCV in appropriate settings [24].

 

Risk mitigation and preventive actions

 

Advances in serological surveys, disease mathematical modeling, measles-susceptibility profiles, and measles risk assessments have facilitated identifying measles population immunity gaps and sub-national areas at-risk [25-30]. However, the results of these studies could be better used to support timely preventive actions, including SIAs to mitigate risk before large measles outbreaks occur. For example, the prescient results from analysis of data from serological surveys published by Winter et al. indicated the risk for a massive measles outbreak in Madagascar; in hindsight, it could have led to immediate preventive action or a timelier outbreak response [27]. Similarly, given WHO and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates of national immunization coverage indicating low population immunity in DRC, a decision could have been made to repeat a measles SIA earlier than the three-year interval between the 2016 and the 2019 measles SIAs, at least mitigating the scale of the current outbreak.

 

Periodic nationwide SIAs are a long-established cornerstone of elimination efforts that include special strategies and microplanning for reaching zero-dose and under-vaccinated children previously missed by routine immunization services. Starting in 2016, however, global measles donor funds were redirected toward organizations that focused on health systems strengthening rather than measles elimination [31]; this was followed by funding reviews that suggested that countries downsize nationwide measles SIAs to subnational SIAs, extend the interval between SIAs, or restrict SIA target age groups to young children [32]. It was thought that the cost savings from the proposed smaller SIAs could then be used flexibly on additional immunizations systems strengthening activities in districts not included in the SIA [33]. However, pilot testing of this approach found that data quality was not high enough to support decisions to exclude certain districts from SIAs.

 

SIA frequency and target age groups should be based on epidemiological analyses, and adequate resources made available to ensure optimal implementation of the indicated target population and SIA timing [34, 35]. Previous published studies in the AFR have shown negative impacts of narrow target age groups, delayed SIA implementation, subnational phased implementation, and long gaps in SIA frequency [36-40]. The impact of suboptimal SIA implementation can be devasting, including, for example, the deadly measles epidemics that have continued to occur predictably in DRC, including 327,959 reported cases and 6,256 reported deaths during December 31, 2018-January 19, 2020 [41]. Any proposed alternative strategies, including methods that aim to identify subnational target populations, limit the geographic scope, or decrease the frequency of SIAs should be carefully evaluated to provide evidence of impact on disease burden and long-term cost effectiveness compared with existing elimination strategies.

 

Changing measles epidemiology, vaccine effectiveness and immunity

 

Measles epidemiology has changed over time, following decreases in measles incidence in all regions since 2000. Studies have documented this changing epidemiology, including in the AFR [42], and recent reviews have described some fundamental aspects of current measles epidemiology related to elimination strategies [43-45]. For example, with increased vaccination coverage, there has been a shift from protective immunity developing primarily after wild-type measles virus infection to one that is derived from vaccination, with less opportunity for natural boosting from exposure to wild-type measles virus. This has resulted in a shift in measles-susceptibility to older age groups, including young adults [8, 38, 42]. In addition, infants become susceptible to measles at an earlier age [46, 47]. Studies have shown that maternally derived measles antibodies passively transferred to infants via the placenta from vaccinated mothers are lower and wane faster below the protective threshold than from mothers who had measles from wild-type infection [45, 46, 48]. A recent study in an elimination setting found 92% of infants became susceptible to measles by 3 months of age [46].

 

Similarly, a recent review of the measles reproduction number (R0), the measure of transmissibility that drives herd immunity and subsequent vaccination coverage levels needed to interrupt measles virus transmission, showed that R0 estimates vary considerably by setting and more widely than the often-cited 12-18 range, and they are dependent on context-specific factors including population density, birth rates, and age-mixing patterns [49]. Better understanding of the contributors to transmissibility in various settings may improve elimination efforts in specific contexts.

 

With changing measles-susceptibility, a recent review of the effect of age at first dose and time since vaccination on measles vaccine effectiveness (VE) was completed. It showed that, in measles-endemic settings, one-dose VE increased by 1.5% (95% confidence interval=0.5, 2.5) for every month increase in age at first dose and found no evidence of waning VE. More data, however, are needed to answer the question of whether measles VE wanes in measles-elimination settings [50]. Recent studies in some elimination settings have suggested that waning immunity among older children and adults might have led to emerging measles susceptibility and that breakthrough infections might have played a role in some outbreaks. However, this phenomenon has been observed only in a small number of elimination settings that likely experienced gaps in cold chain and/or vaccine mishandling in the past [51-53]. Detailed case investigations and laboratory evaluations are needed to confirm measles cases as breakthrough cases and provide clearer evidence of potential waning measles immunity, to support decisions to revaccinate populations experiencing re-emerging measles susceptibility [54, 55].

 

Measles virus infection leads to severe viremia and lymphopenia and can cause immunosuppression that can last for months to years [43]; however, the long-term impact of measles on the immune system is not fully understood [56]. Recent studies have demonstrated that measles virus can infect up to 70% of memory T-cells during the first 3-10 days after infection [57, 58], and measles virus infection diminishes specific preexisting antibodies that were providing protection from other pathogens [51-60]. Further studies are needed to quantify the impact and implications of the long-term susceptibility to other pathogens caused by measles infection.

 

Potential game-changing tools

 

Important innovative tools are on the horizon, including a measles rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and a measles-rubella (MR) vaccine microneedle patch that are among the highest priorities for measles and rubella elimination research [8]. A measles RDT is currently being field tested in several studies in Ghana, India, Malaysia, and Uganda, and a rubella RDT is in development. RDTs have the potential to substantially reduce time to case confirmation and fundamentally change approaches to outbreak response and infection control measures [61]. For example, rapid confirmation of a suspect measles outbreak by a district health officer or diagnostic testing of suspect measles cases at the clinic could lead to more timely outbreak response immunization, and appropriate triaging and isolation of cases in hospitals and health centers. The MR microneedle patch is widely recognized as a potential game-changer for elimination strategies. The MR patches will require minimal storage and disposal capacity, are easily transported, do not require reconstitution with diluent, cannot be re-used because they dissolve in the skin, do not generate sharps waste, and are easily administered, permitting vaccination by minimally trained personnel [62]. The patch will eliminate adverse events following immunizations due to human error during reconstitution and make house-to-house vaccination campaigns possible, a key strategy for elimination and eradication efforts [63, 64]. Despite the clear potential positive impact on vaccination coverage and equity, and long-standing urgent calls for investments in MR microneedle patches [65, 66], securing sustained predictable funding commitments has been challenging, adding unnecessary years to licensure and use [67]. The current optimistic timeline for developing and commercializing MR patches, even with timely funding, is estimated to be 7-8 years. Novel product development to improve upon existing products often requires formation of global public-private partnerships, similar to the partnership that supported development of the N. meningitides group A vaccine, MenAfriVac^™, to firmly establish the public health need, advocacy, and to make the business case for shared costs and risks of the development process [68].

 

Build synergy for common goals

 

With the decade of vaccines coming to an end in 2020, global immunization partners are establishing the “Immunization Agenda 2030: A Global Strategy to Leave No One Behind” (IA2030) [69] to be approved by the WHA in May 2020 for the next decade. This new global guidance document builds on lessons learned and progress made toward the GVAP goals. The IA2030 includes research and innovation as a core strategic priority and identifies measles as a “tracer” for improving immunisation services and strengthening primary health care systems. Measles has proven to be an effective tracer for EPI performance and as a driver for efforts to strengthen health systems and innovations [70]. Key factors that make this possible include: 1) very high measles vaccine effectiveness, 2) very high transmissibility of measles virus among unimmunized people, and 3) the absence of silent measles virus transmission, a characteristic which distinguishes measles from polio. All measles cases have a well-defined clinical presentation of maculopapular rash and fever, sometimes seen with the pathognomonic Koplik spots; therefore, are detectable by disease surveillance. Measles epidemiology accurately reflects measles susceptibility in the population, thereby identifying areas and communities with low vaccination coverage. Also, measles is frequently the first vaccine-preventable disease detected when weaknesses in immunization service delivery occur. Therefore, measles is often referred to as the “canary in the coalmine” for EPI and as such, can be effectively used as a signal and driver for overall immunizations systems strengthening [71]. Achieving measles elimination in AFR will focus efforts to deliver two doses of measles vaccine safely and effectively to ≥95% of children in a timely manner, as well as detect, prevent, and respond effectively to measles cases and outbreaks. These efforts can dovetail synergistically with the aims of the Global Health Security (GHS) and the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) agendas to strengthen primary health care systems, immunizations and preventive services, disease surveillance, and outbreak preparedness and response capacity [3, 72-75]. To achieve these common goals, attain vaccination coverage and equity targets that leave no one behind, and accelerate progress toward disease eradication and elimination goals, sustained investments are needed for the identified research and innovations priorities.

 

 

The author declares no competing interests.

 

 

1. Patel M, Dumolard L, Nedelec Y, Sodha S, Steulet C, Gacic Dobo M et al. Progress toward regional measles elimination - Worldwide, 2000-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(48):1105-1. PubMed | Google Scholar


2. Peck M, Gacic-Dobo M, Diallo MS, Nedelec Y, Sodha SV, Wallace AS. Global routine vaccination coverage, 2018. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2019;68(42):937-42. PubMed | Google Scholar


3. World Health Organization. Global vaccine action plan 2011-2020. 2012; Geneva. Accessed Jan 15, 2020


4. Thompson KM, Strebel PM, Dabbagh A, Cherian T, Cochi SL. Enabling implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan: developing investment cases to achieve targets for measles and rubella prevention. Vaccine. 2013 Apr 18;31 Suppl 2:B149-56. PubMed | Google Scholar


5. Gostin LO, Hodge JG, Bloom BR, El-Mohandes A, Fielding J, Hotez P et al. The public health crisis of underimmunisation: a global plan of action. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020 2020/01/01/;20(1):e11-e6. PubMed | Google Scholar


6. World Health Organization. Global Measles and Rubella Strategic Plan 2012-2020. Accessed Jan 15, 2020


7. Kriss JL, Grant GB, Moss WJ, Durrheim DN, Shefer A, Rota PA et al. Research priorities for accelerating progress toward measles and rubella elimination identified by a cross-sectional web-based survey. Vaccine. 2019;37(38):5745-53. PubMed | Google Scholar


8. Grant GB, Masresha BG, Moss WJ, Mulders MN, Rota PA, Omer SB et al. Accelerating measles and rubella elimination through research and innovation - Findings from the Measles & Rubella Initiative research prioritization process, 2016. Vaccine. 2019;37(38):5754-61. PubMed | Google Scholar


9. Okwo Bele J-M, Cherian T. The expanded programme on immunization: a lasting legacy of smallpox eradication. Vaccine. 2011;29 Suppl 4:D74-D. PubMed | Google Scholar


10. Henderson DA. The eradication of smallpox-an overview of the past, present, and future. Vaccine. 2011 Dec 30;29 Suppl 4:D7-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


11. Breman JG, de Quadros CA, Dowdle WR, Foege WH, Henderson DA, John TJ et al. The role of research in viral disease eradication and elimination programs: lessons for malaria eradication. PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 25;8(1):e1000405. PubMed | Google Scholar


12. Wallace A, Ryman T, Dietz V. Experiences integrating delivery of maternal and child health services with childhood immunization programs: systematic review update. J Infect Dis. 2012;205 Suppl 1:S6-19. PubMed | Google Scholar


13. Goodson JL, Kulkarni MA, Vanden Eng JL, Wannemuehler KA, Cotte AH, Desrochers RE et al. Improved equity in measles vaccination from integrating insecticide-treated bednets in a vaccination campaign, Madagascar. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2012;17(4):430-7. PubMed | Google Scholar


14. Wallace A, Ryman T, Mihigo R, Ndoutabe M, Tounkara B, Grant G et al. Strengthening evidence-based planning of integrated health service delivery through local measures of health intervention delivery times. J Infect Dis. 2012;205(suppl_1):S40-S8. PubMed | Google Scholar


15. Jacobson Vann J, Jacobson R, Coyne Beasley T, Asafu Adjei J, Szilagyi P. Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;1:CD003941-CD. PubMed | Google Scholar


16. Wallace AS, Bohara R, Stewart S, Subedi G, Anand A, Burnett E et al. Impact of an intervention to use a measles, rubella, and polio mass vaccination campaign to strengthen routine immunization services in Nepal. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(suppl_1):S280-S6. PubMed | Google Scholar


17. World Health Organization. Measles vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2009 28 August 2009;vol. 84(35):pp 349-60. PubMed | Google Scholar


18. Nyaku M, Wardle M, Eng JV, Ametewee L, Bonsu G, Larbi Opare JK et al. Immunization delivery in the second year of life in Ghana: the need for a multi-faceted approach. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;27(Suppl 3):4. PubMed | Google Scholar


19. Magodi R, Mmbaga EJ, Massaga J, Lyimo D, Mphuru A, Abade A. Factors associated with non-uptake of measles-rubella vaccine second dose among children under five years in Mtwara district council, Tanzania, 2017. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2019;33:67. PubMed | Google Scholar


20. Masresha BG, Luce R, Okeibunor J, Shibeshi ME, Kamadjeu R, Fall A. Introduction of the second dose of measles containing vaccine in the childhood vaccination programs within the WHO Africa Region - Lessons learnt. J Immunol Sci. 2018;Suppl:113-21. PubMed | Google Scholar


21. Wallace AS, Krey K, Hustedt J, Burnett E, Choun N, Daniels D et al. Assessment of vaccine wastage rates, missed opportunities, and related knowledge, attitudes and practices during introduction of a second dose of measles-containing vaccine into Cambodia's national immunization program. Vaccine. 2018;36(30):4517-24. PubMed | Google Scholar


22. Zoma RL, Walldorf JA, Tarbangdo F, Patel JC, Diallo AO, Nkwenkeu SF et al. Evaluation of the impact of meningococcal serogroup A conjugate vaccine introduction on second-year-of-life vaccination coverage in Burkina Faso. J Infect Dis. 2019;220 (Suppl 4):S233-S43. PubMed | Google Scholar


23. John Snow IJ. Implementing 5-dose Measles-Rubella Vaccine Vials in Zambia. Report. 2019.


24. World Health Organization African Regional Office. Regional Immunization Technical Advisory Group (RITAG) November 2019 Meeting Report. Congo-Brazzaville: 2019.


25. Lam E, Schluter WW, Masresha BG, Teleb N, Bravo-Alcántara P, Shefer A et al. Development of a district-level programmatic assessment tool for risk of measles virus transmission. Risk Analysis. 2015;37(6):1052-1062. PubMed | Google Scholar


26. Kriss JL, De Wee RJ, Lam E, Kaiser R, Shibeshi ME, Ndevaetela EE et al. Development of the World Health Organization measles programmatic risk assessment tool using experience from the 2009 measles outbreak in Namibia. Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. Jun 2017;37(6):1072-1081. PubMed | Google Scholar


27. Winter A, Wesolowski A, Mensah K, Ramamonjiharisoa M, Randriamanantena A, Razafindratsimandresy R et al. Revealing measles outbreak risk with a nested immunoglobulin G serosurvey in Madagascar. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(10):2219-26. PubMed | Google Scholar


28. Prada JM, Metcalf CJE, Ferrari MJ. Improving measles incidence inference using age-structured serological data. Epidemiology and Infection. 2018;146(13):1699-706. PubMed | Google Scholar


29. Truelove SA, Graham M, Moss WJ, Metcalf CJE, Ferrari MJ, Lessler J. Characterizing the impact of spatial clustering of susceptibility for measles elimination. Vaccine. 2019;37(5):732-41. PubMed | Google Scholar


30. Harris JB, Badiane O, Lam E, Nicholson J, Oumar Ba I, Diallo A et al. Application of the World Health Organization programmatic assessment tool for risk of measles virus transmission - lessons learned from a measles outbreak in Senegal. Risk Analysis. 2015;36 (9):1708-17. PubMed | Google Scholar


31. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. 2016–2020 mid-term review report. Published 2018. Accessed Feb 2, 2020


32. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Programme and Policy Committee (PPC) Report to the Board 28-29 Nov 2018. Accessed Feb 2, 2020


33. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Independent Review Committee. Accessed 2/2/2020


34. World Health Organization. Meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization, November 2013 - conclusions and recommendations. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2014 Jan 03;89(1):1-20.. PubMed | Google Scholar


35. World Health Organization. Planning and implementing high-quality supplementary immunization activities for injectable vaccines using an example of measles and rubella vaccines: field guide. WHO Press, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. 2016. Accessed Feb 2, 2020


36. Masresha B, Luce R, Katsande R, Fall A, Eshetu M, Mihigo R. The effect of targeted wide age range SIAs in reducing measles incidence in the African Region. The Pan African medical journal. 2017;27(Suppl 3):13. PubMed | Google Scholar


37. Masresha BG, Dixon MG, Kriss JL, Katsande R, Shibeshi ME, Luce R et al. Progress toward measles elimination - African Region, 2013-2016. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2017;66(17):436-43.. PubMed | Google Scholar


38. Shibeshi ME, Masresha BG, Smit SB, Biellik RJ, Nicholson JL, Muitherero C et al. Measles resurgence in southern Africa: challenges to measles elimination. Vaccine. 2014;32(16):1798-807. PubMed | Google Scholar


39. Sugerman DE, Fall A, Guigui M-T, N'dolie M, Balogun T, Wurie A et al. Preplanned national measles vaccination campaign at the beginning of a measles outbreak-Sierra Leone, 2009-2010. J Infect Dis. 2011 July 1, 2011;204(suppl 1):S260-S9. PubMed | Google Scholar


40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Progress in measles control--Kenya 2002-2007. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2007;56(37):969-72. PubMed | Google Scholar


41. Scobie H, Ilunga B, Mulumba A, Shidi C, Coulibaly T, Obama R et al. Antecedent causes of a measles resurgence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2015;21:30. PubMed | Google Scholar


42. Goodson JL, Masresha BG, Wannemuehler K, Uzicanin A, Cochi S. Changing epidemiology of measles in Africa. J Infect Dis. 2011 July 1, 2011;204(suppl 1):S205-S14. PubMed | Google Scholar


43. Rota P, Moss W, Takeda M, de Swart R, Thompson K, Goodson J. Measles. Nature reviews disease primers. 2016;2:16049. PubMed | Google Scholar


44. Moss WJ. Measles. The Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2490-502. PubMed


45. Peter Strebel M, Paul Gastañaduy A, James Goodson L. Measles vaccines. In: Stanley Plotkin WO, Paul Offit, Kathryn M. Edwards, editor. Vaccines (Seventh Edition) 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elisevier; 2018. p. 579-618.


46. Science M, Savage R, Severini A, McLachlan E, Hughes SL, Arnold C et al. Measles antibody levels in young infants. 2019;144(6). Google Scholar


47. Markowitz LE, Albrecht P, Rhodes P, Demonteverde R, Swint E, Maes EF et al. Changing levels of measles antibody titers in women and children in the United States: impact on response to vaccination. Kaiser Permanente Measles Vaccine Trial Team. Pediatrics. 1996 Jan;97(1):53-8. PubMed | Google Scholar


48. Maldonado YA, Lawrence EC, DeHovitz R, Hartzell H, Albrecht P, Maldonado YA et al. Early loss of passive measles antibody in infants of mothers with vaccine-induced immunity. Pediatrics. 1995 Sep;96(3 Pt 1):447-50. PubMed | Google Scholar


49. Guerra FM, Bolotin S, Lim G, Heffernan J, Deeks SL, Li Y et al. The basic reproduction number (R0) of measles: a systematic review. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(12):e420-e428. PubMed | Google Scholar


50. Hughes SL, Bolotin S, Khan S, Li Y, Johnson C, Friedman L et al. The effect of time since measles vaccination and age at first dose on measles vaccine effectiveness - A systematic review. Vaccine. 2020;38(3):460-469. PubMed | Google Scholar


51. Lee CT, Hagan JE, Jantsansengee B, Tumurbaatar O-E, Altanchimeg S, Yadamsuren B et al. Increase in infant measles deaths during a nationwide measles outbreak-Mongolia, 2015-2016. J Infect Dis. 2019;220 (11):1771-1779. PubMed | Google Scholar


52. Hagan JE, Takashima Y, Sarankhuu A, Dashpagma O, Jantsansengee B, Pastore R et al. Risk factors for measles virus infection among adults during a large outbreak in postelimination era in Mongolia, 2015. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(10):1187-95. PubMed | Google Scholar


53. Hales CM, Johnson E, Helgenberger L, Papania MJ, Larzelere M, Gopalani SV, et al. Measles Outbreak Associated With Low Vaccine Effectiveness Among Adults in Pohnpei State, Federated States of Micronesia, 2014. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2016;3(2):ofw064. PubMed | Google Scholar


54. Hickman C, Hyde T, Sowers S, Mercader S, McGrew M, Williams N et al. Laboratory characterization of measles virus infection in previously vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. J Infect Dis. 2011;204 Suppl 1:S549-S58.. PubMed | Google Scholar


55. Sowers SB, Rota JS, Hickman CJ, Mercader S, Redd S, McNall RJ et al. High concentrations of measles neutralizing antibodies and high-avidity measles IgG accurately identify measles reinfection cases. 2016;23(8):707-16. Google Scholar


56. Mina MJ, Metcalf CJE, de Swart RL, Osterhaus ADME, Grenfell BT. Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality. 2015;348(6235):694-9. Google Scholar


57. Laksono B, de Vries R, Verburgh RJ, Visser E, de Jong A, Fraaij PLA et al. Studies into the mechanism of measles-associated immune suppression during a measles outbreak in the Netherlands. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):4944. PubMed | Google Scholar


58. de Swart R, Ludlow M, de Witte L, Yanagi Y, van Amerongen G, McQuaid S et al. Predominant infection of CD150+ lymphocytes and dendritic cells during measles virus infection of macaques. PLoS Pathogens. 2007;3(11):e178. PubMed | Google Scholar


59. Mina MJ, Kula T, Leng Y, Li M, de Vries RD, Knip M et al. Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from other pathogens. 2019;366(6465):599-606. Google Scholar


60. Petrova VN, Sawatsky B, Han AX, Laksono BM, Walz L, Parker E et al. Incomplete genetic reconstitution of B cell pools contributes to prolonged immunosuppression after measles. 2019;4(41).. Google Scholar


61. Shonhai A, Warrener L, Mangwanya D, Slibinskas R, Brown K, Brown D et al. Investigation of a measles outbreak in Zimbabwe, 2010: potential of a point of care test to replace laboratory confirmation of suspected cases. Epidemiol Infect. 2015 Dec;143(16):3442-50. PubMed | Google Scholar


62. World Health Organization and The United Nations Children’s Fund. Measles-rubella microarray patch (MR–MAP) target product profile. June 2019. Accessed Jan 14, 2020


63. Edens C, Collins ML, Goodson JL, Rota PA, Prausnitz MR. A microneedle patch containing measles vaccine is immunogenic in non-human primates. Vaccine. 2015;33(37):4712-8. PubMed | Google Scholar


64. Joyce JC, Carroll TD, Collins ML, Chen M-h, Fritts L, Dutra JC et al. A Microneedle patch for measles and rubella vaccination is immunogenic and protective in infant rhesus macaques. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(1):124-32. PubMed | Google Scholar


65. Durrheim DN, Goodson JL. Time for an immunisation paradigm shift. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017;111(2):41-2. PubMed | Google Scholar


66. World Health Organization. Meeting of the strategic advisory group of experts on immunization, October 2016 - conclusions and recommendations. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2016 Dec 02;91(48):561-82. PubMed


67. Peyraud N, Zehrung D, Jarrahian C, Frivold C, Orubu T, Giersing B. Potential use of microarray patches for vaccine delivery in low- and middle- income countries. Vaccine. 2019;37(32):4427-34. PubMed | Google Scholar


68. Butler D. Vaccine offers meningitis hope. Nature. 2010;468(7321):143. PubMed | Google Scholar


69. World Health Organization. Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.


70. Goodson JL, Alexander JP, Linkins RW, Orenstein WA. Measles and rubella elimination: learning from polio eradication and moving forward with a diagonal approach. Expert Review of Vaccines. 2017;16(12):1203-16. PubMed | Google Scholar


71. Orenstein W, Seib K. Beyond vertical and horizontal programs: a diagonal approach to building national immunization programs through measles elimination. Expert review of vaccines. 2016;15(7):791-3. PubMed | Google Scholar


72. Heymann D, Chen L, Takemi K, Fidler D, Tappero J, Thomas M et al. Global health security: the wider lessons from the west African Ebola virus disease epidemic. The Lancet. 2015;385(9980):1884-901. PubMed | Google Scholar


73. Frieden T, Tappero J, Dowell S, Hien N, Guillaume F, Aceng J. Safer countries through global health security. The Lancet. 2014;383(9919):764-6.. PubMed | Google Scholar


74. Ghebreyesus TA. All roads lead to universal health coverage. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(9):e839-e40. PubMed | Google Scholar


75. Erondu NA, Martin J, Marten R, Ooms G, Yates R, Heymann DL. Building the case for embedding global health security into universal health coverage: a proposal for a unified health system that includes public health. The Lancet. 2018;392(10156):1482-6. PubMed | Google Scholar