As of February 2022, mRNA-based vaccine Comirnaty, developed by Pfizer/Biontech, was the leading COVID-19 vaccine by efficacy rate, showing around 95 percent of efficacy against COVID-19. This statistic illustrates the comparison of select COVID-19 vaccines worldwide, by efficacy.

Note: This dataset is no longer being updated due to the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is identifying vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by analyzing the state immunization registry and registry of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Post-vaccination cases are individuals who have a positive SARS-Cov-2 molecular test (e.g. PCR) at least 14 days after they have completed their primary vaccination series.

Tracking cases of COVID-19 that occur after vaccination is important for monitoring the impact of immunization campaigns. While COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, some cases are still expected in persons who have been vaccinated, as no vaccine is 100% effective. For more information, please see https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Post-Vaccine-COVID19-Cases.aspx

Post-vaccination infection data is updated monthly and includes data on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. Partially vaccinated individuals are excluded. To account for reporting and processing delays, there is at least a one-month lag in provided data (for example data published on 9/9/22 will include data through 7/31/22).

Notes:

• On September 9, 2022, the post-vaccination data has been changed to compare unvaccinated with those with at least a primary series completed for persons age 5+. These data will be updated monthly (first Thursday of the month) and include at least a one month lag.

• On February 2, 2022, the post-vaccination data has been changed to distinguish between vaccination with a primary series only versus vaccinated and boosted. The previous dataset has been uploaded as an archived table. Additionally, the lag on this data has been extended to 14 days.

• On November 29, 2021, the denominator for calculating vaccine coverage has been changed from age 16+ to age 12+ to reflect new vaccine eligibility criteria. The previous dataset based on age 16+ denominators has been uploaded as an archived table.

BackgroundRotavirus infection, the most common cause of infant infectious diarrhoea and related deaths worldwide, has imposed a high disease burden in China, especially in Zhejiang Province. This study described the overall epidemiological characteristics and trends of reported rotavirus infections in Zhejiang Province from 2005 to 2022 and evaluated the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines on the incidence of rotavirus infection.Materials and methodsData on reported cases of rotavirus infection from 2005 to 2022 were extracted from the China Disease Prevention and Control Information System. Information on rotavirus vaccination was obtained from the Zhejiang Provincial Viral Diarrhoea Surveillance Site in 2022. Join-point regression, spatial and temporal aggregation analysis, and an age-period-cohort model were used to explore the epidemiological trends of rotavirus infection. Interrupted time series analysis and an overdispersed Poisson model were used to quantify the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines.ResultsThe average age-standardized reporting incidence rate (ASRIR) of rotavirus infection in Zhejiang Province was 38.58/100,000, particularly in children aged 0–2 years, who had the highest average annual incidence of 951.63/100,000. The annual ASRIR of all ages showed a significant upward trend before 2017 (average percentage change [APC] = 21.64%) and then decreased significantly (APC = −23.02%). However, in children aged 6–19 years, the annual incidence presented a sustained and significant upward trend over time. The rotavirus infection peak showed a seasonal drift in Zhejiang Province, shifting from November before 2014 to January after 2014. Spatiotemporal aggregation revealed two clusters. The spatio-temporal scanning found two spatio-temporal aggregation areas, the first level spatio-temporal aggregation area was distributed in Hangzhou, Jiaxing and Huzhou, and the second level spatio-temporal aggregation area was Lishui. The age-period-cohort model indicated that the risk of rotavirus infection was primarily concentrated in children aged 0–4 years. The vaccine effectiveness (VE) of rotavirus vaccines was 71.62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.21–86.05%) in children aged 2–59 months, in which the VE of the human-bovine reassortant pentavalent vaccine (RV5) was 91.31% (95% CI: 74.39–97.97%). Since the implementation of RV5 vaccination in September 2018, the number of cases of rotavirus infection per month has decreased by 3,061 (65.27%) in Zhejiang Province.ConclusionThe disease burden of rotavirus infection in Zhejiang Province was high, especially in children. Rotavirus vaccination have significantly reduced the incidence rate of rotavirus infection. Therefore, the prevention of infectious diarrhoea should be further strengthened, especially through increased coverage with the rotavirus vaccine.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Vaccine effectiveness against viral variants. Studies of vaccine effectiveness against viral variants. Related to Table 2.

This dataset reports the daily reported number of the 7-day moving average rates of Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status and by age group. Learn how the Government of Ontario is helping to keep Ontarians safe during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. Effective November 14, 2024 this page will no longer be updated. Information about COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses is available on Public Health Ontario’s interactive respiratory virus tool: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Infectious-Disease/Respiratory-Virus-Tool Data includes: * Date on which the death occurred * Age group * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those not fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those vaccinated with at least one booster ##Additional notes As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2pm. As of January 12, 2024, data from the date of January 1, 2024 onwards reflect updated population estimates. This update specifically impacts data for the 'not fully vaccinated' category. On November 30, 2023 the count of COVID-19 deaths was updated to include missing historical deaths from January 15, 2020 to March 31, 2023. CCM is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing update to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from CCM represents a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent results. Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19 data, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes and current totals being different from previously reported cases and deaths. Observed trends over time should be interpreted with caution for the most recent period due to reporting and/or data entry lags. The data does not include vaccination data for people who did not provide consent for vaccination records to be entered into the provincial COVaxON system. This includes individual records as well as records from some Indigenous communities where those communities have not consented to including vaccination information in COVaxON. “Not fully vaccinated” category includes people with no vaccine and one dose of double-dose vaccine. “People with one dose of double-dose vaccine” category has a small and constantly changing number. The combination will stabilize the results. Spikes, negative numbers and other data anomalies: Due to ongoing data entry and data quality assurance activities in Case and Contact Management system (CCM) file, Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes, negative numbers and current totals being different from previously reported case and death counts. Public Health Units report cause of death in the CCM based on information available to them at the time of reporting and in accordance with definitions provided by Public Health Ontario. The medical certificate of death is the official record and the cause of death could be different. Deaths are defined per the outcome field in CCM marked as “Fatal”. Deaths in COVID-19 cases identified as unrelated to COVID-19 are not included in the Deaths involving COVID-19 reported. Rates for the most recent days are subject to reporting lags All data reflects totals from 8 p.m. the previous day. This dataset is subject to change.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases

In the United States, influenza vaccination rates differ greatly by age. For example, during the 2022-2023 flu season, around 70 percent of those aged 65 years and older received an influenza vaccination, compared to just 35 percent of those aged 18 to 49 years. The CDC recommends that everyone six months and older in the United States should get vaccinated against influenza every year, with a few exceptions. Although influenza is mild for most people it can lead to hospitalization and even death, especially among the young, the old, and those with certain preexisting conditions.

The impact of flu vaccinations Flu vaccinations are safe and effective, preventing thousands of illnesses, medical visits, and deaths every year. However, the effectiveness of flu vaccines varies each year depending on what flu viruses are circulating that season and the age and health status of the person receiving the vaccination. During the 2022-2023 flu season it was estimated that influenza vaccination prevented almost 31 thousand hospitalizations among those aged 65 years and older. In addition, flu vaccinations prevented 2,479 deaths among those aged 65 years and older as well as 63 deaths among children six months to four years.

The burden of influenza The impact of influenza is different from season to season. However, during the 2022-2023 flu season there were around 31 million cases of influenza in the United States. Furthermore, there were around 21,000 deaths due to influenza, an increase from the previous year but significantly fewer than in 2017-2018 when influenza contributed to 51,000 deaths. Most of these deaths are among the elderly. In 2022-2023 the death rate due to influenza among those aged 65 years and older was around 26.6 per 100,000 population. In comparison, those aged 18 to 49 years had an influenza death rate of just .7 per 100,000 population.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is identifying vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by analyzing the state immunization registry and registry of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Post-vaccination cases are individuals who have a positive SARS-Cov-2 molecular test (e.g. PCR) at least 14 days after they have completed their primary vaccination series or 14 days after they have completed their booster or additional dose.

Tracking cases of COVID-19 that occur after vaccination and/or boosters is important for monitoring the impact of immunization campaigns. While COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, some cases are still expected in persons who have been vaccinated, as no vaccine is 100% effective. For more information, please see https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Post-Vaccine-COVID19-Cases.aspx

Post-vaccination infection data is updated weekly and includes data on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the unvaccinated, those vaccinated with a primary series only, and those with an additional or booster dose. Partially vaccinated individuals are excluded. To account for reporting and processing delays, there is a 14 day lag in provided data (for example, for data through 1/23/2022, only data through 1/9/2022 will be made available). For deaths, there is an even greater lag in reporting, so more recent data should be used with caution. For display on the public dashboard, there is an additional 7-day lag for death data (21 days total). Note that this lag is separate from the difference in dates between data processing and updates to the website (in the above example, data through 1/9/2022 would be updated on the website on 2/2/2022).

Notes:

• On February 2, 2022, the post-vaccination data has been changed to distinguish between vaccination with a primary series only versus vaccinated and boosted. The previous dataset has been uploaded as an archived table. Additionally, the lag on this data has been extended to 14 days.

• On November 29, 2021, the denominator for calculating vaccine coverage has been changed from age 16+ to age 12+ to reflect new vaccine eligibility criteria. The previous dataset based on age 16+ denominators has been uploaded as an archived table.

Tabulated individual data points for data reported in the associated publication: Spackman E, Suarez DL, Lee CW, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Lee SA, Youk S, Ibrahim S. Efficacy of inactivated and RNA particle vaccines against a North American Clade 2.3.4.4b H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in chickens. Vaccine. 2023 Nov 30;41(49):7369-7376. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.10.070. Epub 2023 Nov 4. PMID: 37932132.Description of methodsVirusesThe highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) isolate A/turkey/Indiana/22-003707-003/2022 H5N1 (TK/IN/22) and A/Gyrfalcon/Washington/41088/2014 H5N8 (GF/WA/14) isolate were each propagated and titrated in embryonating specific pathogen free (SPF) chicken eggs using standard procedures and titers were determined using the Reed-Muench method.VaccinesAn in-house vaccine was produced by de novo synthesizing the HA gene of TK/IN/22 that was modified to be low pathogenic (LP) and placing it in a PR8 backbone using rg methods as described . The vaccine (SEP-22-N9) contained 6 genes from PR8 and a de novo synthesized N9 NA from A/blue winged teal/Wyoming/AH0099021/2016 (H7N9). The rg virus was inactivated by treatment with 0.1% beta-propiolactone. Vaccines were produced with Montanide ISA 71 VG (Seppic Inc., Fairfield, NJ) adjuvant at ambient temperature in a L5M-A high shear mixer (Silverson Machines, Inc., East Longmeadow, MA) for 30sec at 1,000rpm, then for 3min at 4,000rpm using an emulsifying screen in accordance with the adjuvant manufacturer’s instructions.Sham vaccine was prepared in-house using sterile phosphate buffered saline as described above.Commercial vaccines were supplied by the manufacturers. The commercial inactivated vaccine (1057.R1 serial 590088) (rgH5N1) (Zoetis Inc., Parsippany, NJ) was produced with the GF/WA/14 (clade 2.3.4.4c HA gene) and the remaining 7 gene segments including the NA from PR8 (1). The Sequivity vaccine (serial V040122NCF) (RP) (Merck and Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ) is an updated version of their replication restricted alphavirus vector vaccine that expresses the TK/IN/22 H5 HA (modified to be low pathogenic LP).Challenge study designThree-week-old, mixed sex, SPF white leghorn chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were obtained from in-house flocks and were randomly assigned to vaccine groups.All vaccines were administered by the subcutaneous route at the nape of the neck. Commercial vaccines were given at the volumes instructed by the manufacturer (0.5ml each). In-house vaccine was given at a dose of 512 hemagglutination units per bird in 0.5ml. Three weeks post vaccination chickens were challenged with 6.7 log10 50% egg infectious doses (EID50) of TK/IN/22 in 0.1ml by the intrachoanal route.Oropharyngeal (OP) and cloacal (CL) swabs were collected from all birds at 2-, 4-, and 7-days post challenge (DPC). Swabs were also collected from dead and euthanized sham vaccinates at 1DPC.To evaluate antibody-based DIVA-VI tests, blood for serum was collected from the RP and SEP-22-N9 vaccinated groups at 7, 10 and 14DPC because the SEP-22-N9 vaccine does not elicit antibodies to N1 and the RP vaccine does not elicit antibodies to the N1 or NP proteins.Mortality and morbidity were recorded for 14DPC after which time the remaining birds were euthanized. If birds were severely lethargic or had neurological signs they were euthanized and were counted as mortality at the next observation time for mean death time calculations.Evaluation of antibody titers based on prime-boost order with the RP and inactivated vaccinesTo determine if there was a difference in antibody levels based on the order of vaccination with the RP vaccine and an inactivated vaccine, groups of 20 chickens (hatch-mates of the chickens in the challenge study) were given one dose of each vaccine three weeks apart (Supplementary Table 1). The first dose was administered at three weeks of age using the RP or SEP-22-N9 vaccine as described above. Then a second dose of either the same vaccine or the other vaccine was administered three weeks later (six weeks of age). All birds were bled for serum three weeks after the second vaccination (nine weeks of age). Antibody was quantified by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay as described below using the homologous antigen (TK/IN/22).Quantitative rRT-PCR (qRRT-PCR)RNA was extracted from OP and CL swabs using the MagMax (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) magnetic bead extraction kit with the modifications described by Das et al., (2). Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was conducted as described previously (3) on a QuantStudio 5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). A standard curve was generated from a titrated stock of TK/IN/22 and was used to calculate titer equivalents using the real time PCR instrument’s software.Hemagglutination inhibition assayHemagglutination inhibition assays were run in accordance with standard procedures. All pre-challenge sera were tested against the challenge virus. Sera from birds vaccinated with the rgH5N1 vaccine were also tested against the vaccine antigen, GF/WA/14. Titers of 8 or below were considered non-specific binding, therefore negative.Commercial ELISAPre-vaccination sera from 30 chickens were tested to confirm the absence of antibodies to AIV with a commercial AIV antibody ELISA (IDEXX laboratories, Westbrook, ME) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Pre- and post-challenge sera from the RP vaccine group (the only vaccine utilized here that does not induce antibodies to the NP) were also tested with this ELISA to characterize the detection of anti-NP antibodies post-challenge.Enzyme-linked lectin assay (ELLA) and neuraminidase inhibition (NI) to detect N1 antibody in serum from challenged chickensThe ELLA assay was performed in accordance with a previously published protocol with minor modifications (4). Absorbance data were fit to a non-linear regression curve with Prism 9.5 (GraphPad Software LLC, Boston, MA) to determine the effective concentration, and the 98% effective concentration (EC98) of the N1 source virus was subsequently used for NI assays.To detect N1 antibody with the optimized N1 NA concentrations, serum samples from the sham, SEP-22-N9, and RP vaccinated groups collected pre-challenge, 7, 10 and 14DPC, were heat inactivated at 56°C for one hour and diluted 1:20 and 1:40 using sample dilution buffer. Equal volumes of the N1 NA source virus at a concentration of 2X EC98 was added to each of the diluted serum samples. Then 100µl of the serum-virus mixture was added to the fetuin coated plates after the fetuin plates were washed as described above for the NA assay. Fetuin plates with the serum-virus mixture were then incubated overnight (approximately 17-19hr) at 37°C. The NA assay protocol described above was followed for the remaining NI assay steps.The percent NI activity of individual serum samples was determined by subtracting percent NA activity from 100. To calculate the percent NA activity, the average background absorbance value was subtracted from the sample absorbance value. The result was then divided by the average value of the NA source virus only (no serum) wells then multiplying by 100. A cut-off value for NI activity for positive detection of N1 antibody from chickens post-challenge was calculated by adding three standard deviations to the mean value obtained from pre-challenge sera of corresponding vaccine group for each dilution tested (1:20 and 1:40).References1. Kapczynski DR, Sylte MJ, Killian ML, Torchetti MK, Chrzastek K, Suarez DL. Protection of commercial turkeys following inactivated or recombinant H5 vaccine application against the 2015U.S. H5N2 clade 2.3.4.4 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2017;191:74-9. Epub 2017/09/13. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2017.08.001.2. Das A, Spackman E, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Suarez DL. Removal of real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) inhibitors associated with cloacal swab samples and tissues for improved diagnosis of Avian influenza virus by RT-PCR. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2009;21(6):771-8.3. Spackman E, Senne DA, Myers TJ, Bulaga LL, Garber LP, Perdue ML, et al. Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza virus and the avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2002;40(9):3256-60.4. Bernard MC, Waldock J, Commandeur S, Strauss L, Trombetta CM, Marchi S, et al. Validation of a Harmonized Enzyme-Linked-Lectin-Assay (ELLA-NI) Based Neuraminidase Inhibition Assay Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Quantification of N1 Influenza Antibodies and the Use of a Calibrator to Improve the Reproducibility of the ELLA-NI With Reverse Genetics Viral and Recombinant Neuraminidase Antigens: A FLUCOP Collaborative Study. Front Immunol. 2022;13:909297. Epub 2022/07/06.

Hazard ratio (HRs) were obtained using Cox models taking into account all the variables described in Table 1.

Two commercially available vaccines based on the recombinant herpes virus of turkeys (rHVT) vector were tested against a recent North American clade 2.3.4.4b HPAI virus isolate: A/turkey/Indiana/22-003707-003/2022 H5N1 in specific pathogen free white leghorn (WL) chickens and commercial broiler chickens. One rHVT-H5 vaccine encodes a hemagglutinin (HA) gene designed by the computationally optimized broadly reactive antigen method (COBRA-HVT vaccine). The other encodes an HA gene of a clade 2.2 virus (2.2-HVT vaccine). There was 100% survival of both breeds in the COBRA-HVT vaccinated groups and in the 2.2-HVT vaccinated groups there was 94.8% and 90% survival of the WL and broilers respectively. Compared to the 2.2-HVT vaccinated groups, WL in the COBRA-HVT vaccinated group shed significantly lower mean viral titers by the cloacal route and broilers shed significantly lower titers by the oropharyngeal route than broilers. Virus titers detected in oral and cloacal swabs were otherwise similar among both vaccine groups and chicken breeds. To assess antibody-based tests to identify birds that have been infected after vaccination (DIVA-VI), sera collected after the challenge were tested with enzyme-linked lectin assay-neuraminidase inhibition (ELLA-NI) for N1 neuraminidase antibody detection and by commercial ELISA for detection of antibodies to the NP protein. As early as 7 days post challenge (DPC) 100% of the chickens were positive by ELLA-NI. ELISA was less sensitive with a maximum of 75% positive at 10DPC in broilers vaccinated with 2.2-HVT. Both vaccines provided protection from challenge to both breeds of chickens and ELLA-NI was sensitive at identifying antibodies to the challenge virus therefore should be evaluated further for DIVA-VI.MethodsViruses. All procedures using infectious material were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee of US National Poultry Research Center (USNPRC), US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Athens, GA. The HPAI virus isolate A/turkey/Indiana/22-003707-003/2022 H5N1 (TK/IN/22) was provided by Dr. Mia Torchetti, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Ames, IA. The A/Vietnam/1203/2004 H5N1 HPAI virus (Viet/04), A/Whooper Swan/Mongolia/244/2005 H5N1 (WS/Mongolia/05) HPAI virus, and A/Flycatcher/CA/14875-1/1994 H7N1 low pathogenic avian influenza virus isolates were provided by the repository at the USNPRC. Virus isolates were propagated and titrated in SPF embryonating chicken eggs using standard procedures [1]. Titers were determined using the Reed-Muench method [2].Vaccines. Two commercial rHVT-H5 vaccines were selected because they are licensed in the US (and may be licensed elsewhere) and were supplied by the manufacturers: 2.2-HVT (Vectormune HVT AIV, Ceva Animal Health LLC, Lenexa, KS) (serial 395-134); and COBRA-HVT (Vaxxitek HVT+IBD+H5, Boehringer-Ingelheim Animal Health USA, Ridgefield, CT) (serial EW003). The amino acid similarity between the vaccine antigens and the challenge virus HA1 was 91.7% (COBRA-HVT) and 91.2% (2.2-HVT).Challenge study design. All animal work was reviewed and approved by the USNPRC Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Mixed sex, SPF WL chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were obtained at hatch from in-house flocks. Broiler chicken eggs were obtained from a commercial hatchery at 18 days of incubation prior to administration of any in ovo vaccines and were hatched on-site. All birds were randomly assigned to vaccine groups based on breed. Vaccine groups are shown in Table 1. All vaccines were prepared and administered on the day of hatch by the subcutaneous route at the nape of the neck in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (0.2ml per chicken). Serum was collected from all chickens 25 days post vaccination to evaluate the antibody response to the vaccines.Four weeks post vaccination (four weeks of age) chickens were challenged with a target dose 6.0log10 50% egg infectious doses (EID50) per bird of TK/IN/22 in 0.1ml by the intrachoanal route (titration of the challenge virus after dilution confirmed the challenge dose to be 6.7log10 EID50 per bird). Oropharyngeal and CL swabs were collected from all birds at 2-, 4-, and 7-days post challenge (DPC). Swabs were also collected from dead and euthanized birds.To evaluate antibody-based DIVA-VI tests, serum was collected at 7-, 10- and 14DPC. Mortality and morbidity were recorded for 14DPC. Surviving birds were euthanized at 14DPC. If birds were severely lethargic or presented with neurological signs, they were euthanized and were counted as mortality at the next observation time for mean death time calculations. Euthanasia was performed by cervical dislocation in accordance with American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines.Quantitative rRT-PCR (qRRT-PCR). RNA was extracted from OP and CL swabs using the MagMax magnetic bead extraction kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) with the wash modifications as described by Das et al., [3]. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was conducted as described previously [4] on a QuantStudio 5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) instrument. A standard curve was generated from a titrated stock of TK/IN/22 and was used to calculate titer equivalents using the real time PCR instrument’s software.Hemagglutination inhibition assay. Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assays were run in accordance with standard procedures [5]. All pre-challenge sera collected at 25 days post vaccination were tested against the challenge virus and the closest isolates available to the vaccine antigens. The serum from the 2.2-HVT group was tested against WS/Mongolia/05 (99.3% similarity) and the serum from the COBRA-HVT group was tested against Viet/04 (98.2% similarity). Titers of eight or below were considered negative.Commercial ELISA. A commercial AIV antibody ELISA (AI Ab Test, IDEXX laboratories, Westbrook, ME) was used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Sera were tested to detect anti-NP antibodies pre-challenge (25days pos-vaccination) and at 7-, 10- and 14DPC.Enzyme-linked lectin assay (ELLA) for detection of neuraminidase inhibition (NI) antibody. The ELLA was performed as previously described with minor modifications [6, 7]. Briefly, the NA activity of a beta-propiolactone inactivated H7N1 virus (A/Flycatcher/CA/14875-1/1994) was quantified to determine the effective concentration (EC) of antigen. The 98% EC (EC98) of antigen was subsequently used for the ELLA-NI assays. For ELLA-NI assay, the antigen and serum mixture was incubated overnight (approximately18hr) at 37°C and the NA activity was determined following the procedure as described in Spackman et al. [7]. The average background absorbance value was subtracted from the sample absorbance value then that value was divided by the average values of wells with only NA antigen. This value was multiplied by a factor of 100 to calculate the percent NA activity. The percent NI activity of individual serum samples was determined by subtracting the percent NA activity from 100%. A cut-off value for positive NI activity was determined by adding three standard deviations to the mean NI activity of pre-challenge sera (i.e., NA antibody negative sera) of each corresponding group of chickens at 7-, 10- and 14DPC. Each serum was tested at dilutions of 1:20 and 1:40.References.1. Spackman E, Killian ML. Avian Influenza Virus Isolation, Propagation, and Titration in Embryonated Chicken Eggs. Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2123:149-64. Epub 2020/03/15.2. Reed LJ, Muench H. A simple method for estimating fifty percent endpoints. American Journal of Hygiene. 1938;27:493-7.3. Das A, Spackman E, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Suarez DL. Removal of real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) inhibitors associated with cloacal swab samples and tissues for improved diagnosis of Avian influenza virus by RT-PCR. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2009;21(6):771-8.4. Spackman E, Senne DA, Myers TJ, Bulaga LL, Garber LP, Perdue ML, et al. Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza virus and the avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2002;40(9):3256-60.5. Spackman E, Sitaras I. Hemagglutination Inhibition Assay. Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2123:11-28. Epub 2020/03/15.6. Bernard MC, Waldock J, Commandeur S, Strauss L, Trombetta CM, Marchi S, et al. Validation of a Harmonized Enzyme-Linked-Lectin-Assay (ELLA-NI) Based Neuraminidase Inhibition Assay Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Quantification of N1 Influenza Antibodies and the Use of a Calibrator to Improve the Reproducibility of the ELLA-NI With Reverse Genetics Viral and Recombinant Neuraminidase Antigens: A FLUCOP Collaborative Study. Front Immunol. 2022;13:909297. Epub 20220617.7. Spackman E, Suarez DL, Lee CW, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Lee SA, Youk S, Ibrahim S. Efficacy of inactivated and RNA particle vaccines against a North American Clade 2.3.4.4b H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in chickens. Vaccine. 2023. Epub 20231104.

This table illustrates the effectiveness of vaccination by comparing the number of cases of six vaccine-preventable diseases in Canada before and after the introduction of each vaccine.

Marek's Disease Vaccine Market Outlook

The global market size for Marek's Disease Vaccine was valued at USD 1.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 2.5 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.5% during the forecast period. The substantial growth in the market is primarily driven by the rising prevalence of Marek's Disease in poultry farms, which has spurred the demand for effective vaccines to control the outbreak.

One of the critical growth factors fueling the Marek's Disease Vaccine market is the increasing awareness about the economic impact of Marek's Disease on poultry farming. As the global poultry industry continues to expand, especially in developing regions, the threat posed by infectious diseases like Marek's Disease becomes more significant. This has led to increased investments in vaccination programs and biosecurity measures to safeguard poultry health, thereby driving the market growth. Furthermore, advancements in vaccine technology, such as the development of recombinant vaccines and vector vaccines, have enhanced the efficacy and safety profiles of Marek's Disease vaccines, further propelling market growth.

Another significant growth driver is the robust support from government and non-governmental organizations to eradicate Marek's Disease. Many countries have initiated mandatory vaccination protocols for poultry, which has significantly contributed to the demand for Marek's Disease vaccines. Additionally, funding for research and development in veterinary vaccines has surged, leading to the introduction of innovative vaccine solutions that cater to the evolving needs of the poultry industry. The focus on improving vaccine coverage and ensuring the availability of vaccines in remote areas is also playing a crucial role in market expansion.

The globalization of the poultry trade has also played a pivotal role in the growth of the Marek's Disease Vaccine market. As poultry products are traded across borders, maintaining the health and quality of poultry flocks becomes imperative for countries to meet international standards and avoid trade restrictions. This has led to increased adoption of vaccination programs as a preventive measure against Marek's Disease. Moreover, the rise in consumer demand for high-quality poultry products has driven poultry farmers to invest in comprehensive health management practices, including vaccination, to ensure the safety and productivity of their flocks.

Vaccine Type Analysis

The Marek's Disease Vaccine market is segmented by vaccine type into Bivalent, Monovalent, and Others. The Bivalent segment holds a significant share in the market, driven by its ability to offer protection against multiple strains of the Marek's Disease virus. Bivalent vaccines are preferred for their broader spectrum of immunity, which makes them highly effective in preventing Marek's Disease outbreaks. The increasing incidents of multiple strains affecting poultry flocks have necessitated the use of Bivalent vaccines, thereby driving their demand.

Monovalent vaccines, on the other hand, are tailored to target specific strains of the Marek's Disease virus. These vaccines are particularly useful in regions where a particular strain is predominant. The specificity of Monovalent vaccines ensures targeted and efficient immunization, which is crucial for controlling the disease in areas with a high prevalence of a single strain. Despite their limited spectrum, Monovalent vaccines are extensively used due to their precision and effectiveness in certain scenarios.

The 'Others' category in the vaccine type segment includes recombinant vaccines, vector vaccines, and other innovative vaccine solutions. This category is witnessing significant growth due to ongoing research and development efforts aimed at improving vaccine efficacy and safety. Recombinant vaccines, for instance, use advanced genetic engineering techniques to offer robust immunity with minimal side effects. The continuous innovation in vaccine technology is expected to drive the growth of this segment, catering to the evolving needs of the poultry industry.

Report Scope

The Standing Group of Experts on lumpy skin disease (LSD) for South-East Europe under the GF-TADs umbrella recommended that all countries in South-East Europe, affected or at risk for LSD, should collaborate within the GF-TADs to draft a regional roadmap on an LSD exit strategy from 2018 onwards. This recommendation has triggered a mandate to EFSA in which it is asked to assess the effectiveness of different surveillance systems with different objectives, i.e. early detection or demonstration of freedom from disease, in the following contexts:

(a) in areas or countries at risk of LSD, where no LSD outbreaks have occurred and LSD vaccination was never carried out;

(b) in areas or countries at risk of LSD, where no LSD outbreaks have occurred and where LSD vaccination is carried out;

(c) in areas where no LSD outbreaks have occurred and LSD preventive vaccination was carried out, and then stopped;

(d) in areas where LSD outbreaks have been confirmed, and vaccination is stopped.

For planning surveillance several elements should be considered: the objectives and related design prevalence, the epidemiological situation, the immunological status of the host population, the geographical area and the season, the type of surveillance (active or passive), the diagnostic methods including clinical detection (considered the most effective method for early detection of LSD), the target population, the sample size and frequency. Here a synoptic table is presented where each of these elements are discussed for each of the four scenarios given above.

Parameter settings for simulations. This table contains the different values tested, resulting in a total of 64,000 simulations. The percent of the population vaccinated daily is an upper limit since only S, E, and R individuals could be vaccinated. Maximum efficacy refers to the probability that a vaccinated person is protected from getting infected 21 days after receiving the vaccine.

This dataset is no longer updated, find vaccination data here From 24 March 2022, Public Health Scotland (PHS) began reporting the number of people who have received a fourth dose of Covid-19 vaccination. Vaccine uptake statistics among care home residents and those who are severely immunosuppressed will be reported initially. PHS will include further updates as the Spring/Summer vaccination programme rolls out. In addition, as part of our continuous review of reporting, PHS made some changes to vaccine uptake statistics. From 24 March 2022, the deceased and those who no longer live in Scotland are no longer be included in vaccine uptake statistics. Historic trend data have been updated to take into account this new methodology for all apart from the Daily Trends by JCVI Priority Group table (more details about the data in this table are below). Scotland level data for all vaccinations administered (i.e. including those who have since died or moved from Scotland) are still available in the Daily Trend of All Vaccinations Delivered in Scotland table. Also from 24 March 2022, Dose 3/Booster doses are termed "Dose 3". To allow new data to be fully processed and available at 14:00, the Daily COVID-19 in Scotland and COVID-19 Vaccination in Scotland datasets will be temporarily unavailable from 12:45 to 14:00. During this window, the datasets will not be visible and any queries made to these datasets will return a 404 - Not found error. At all other times the datasets will be available in full as usual. PHS reviewed the JCVI priority group uptake figures from 18 November 2021, specifically how we derive the numerator and the denominator. The rational for the change is to ensure we report on most up to date living population for each group. For this, the list of individuals in each cohort has been refreshed to be more current. We have also removed individuals who have since died to reflect the current living population. From the 24 March 2022 those who are no longer living in Scotland have also been removed from the numerator and denominator for JCVI priority group uptake figures. This means all the JCVI cohorts and populations have changed for both numerator and denominators on these two dates and care should be taken when interpreting trends. On 08 December 2020, a Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty) was first used in the UK as part of national immunisation programmes. The AstraZeneca (Spikevax) vaccine was also approved for use in the national programme, and rollout of this vaccine began on 04 January 2021. Moderna (Vaxzevria) vaccine was approved for use on 8 January 2021 and rollout of this vaccine began on 07 April 2021. These vaccines have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Those giving the vaccine to others were the first to receive the vaccination. In the first phase of the programme, NHS Scotland followed the independent advice received from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and prioritised delivery of the vaccine to those with the greatest clinical need, in line with the recommended order of prioritisation. For booster vaccinations a similar approach has been adopted. Definitions used in the vaccine uptake by JCVI priority group resource can be found in the JCVI Priority Group Definitions table. Individuals can appear in more than one JCVI priority group. This dataset provides information on daily number of COVID vaccinations in Scotland. Data on the total number of vaccinations in Scotland is presented by day administered and vaccine type, by age group, by sex, by non-age cohorts and by geographies (NHS Board and Local Authority). As the population in the cohorts can change with time, these will be refined when updated data are available. Additional data sources relating to this topic area are provided in the Links section of the Metadata below. Data visualisation and additional notes are available on the Public Health Scotland - Covid 19 Scotland dashboard.

BackgroundThe rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to a global health crisis, necessitating swift responses in medical science, mainly through vaccination strategies. While short-term vaccine effectiveness is evident, immune protection’s long-term effects and duration remain incompletely understood. Systematic monitoring of these responses is essential for optimizing vaccination strategies.AimsThis study aimed to explore the durability of antigen-specific T and B cell responses and antibody levels up to 8 months post-immunization with the inactivated TURKOVAC vaccine in volunteers. Additionally, the impact of two versus three doses of vaccination on these parameters was analyzed.MethodsVolunteers (n = 80) received two or three doses of TURKOVAC. Spike-specific B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and antibody levels were measured at multiple time points post-immunization.ResultsSpike-specific B cells remained elevated up to 8 months post-immunization. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells peaked at 4 months but declined thereafter. TURKOVAC resulted in durable antigen-specific humoral and cellular immune memory with distinct kinetics. Still, most assessments observed no significant differences between two and three doses, except for antigen specific-IL-2 and CD4+ LAMP1 responses.ConclusionTURKOVAC vaccination induces durable immune responses, with spike-specific B cells persisting up to 8 months and T cell responses peaking at 4 months before declining. These findings suggest that TURKOVAC contributes to long-term immune protection against SARS-CoV-2.

DNA Vaccines Market Outlook

In 2023, the global DNA vaccines market size was valued at approximately USD 4.5 billion, with a projected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.8%, reaching an estimated USD 11.2 billion by 2032. The market growth is driven by increasing investments in biotechnology and growing prevalence of infectious diseases and cancer. As the demand for innovative and efficient vaccines continues to rise, the DNA vaccines market is expected to witness substantial growth over the forecast period.

A significant growth factor in the DNA vaccines market is the continuous advancements in molecular biology and genetic engineering. These advancements have enabled the development of novel DNA vaccine platforms that offer several advantages over traditional vaccines, such as stability at room temperature, ease of manufacturing, and the ability to induce both humoral and cellular immune responses. Moreover, the increasing understanding of the human genome and the ability to manipulate DNA sequences have opened new avenues for the development of targeted and personalized vaccines, further driving the market growth.

The increasing prevalence of infectious diseases and cancer is another major factor propelling the growth of the DNA vaccines market. Infectious diseases such as HIV, influenza, and Zika virus pose significant public health challenges, and there is a constant need for effective vaccines. Additionally, the rising incidence of cancer has led to an increased focus on developing therapeutic DNA vaccines that can stimulate the immune system to recognize and destroy cancer cells. The growing burden of these diseases is driving the demand for innovative vaccination solutions, thereby boosting the DNA vaccines market.

Government initiatives and funding for vaccine development are also contributing to the market growth. Governments and health organizations worldwide are investing heavily in vaccine research and development to combat emerging infectious diseases and bioterrorism threats. Various funding programs and grants are being provided to research institutes and biotechnology companies to support the development of DNA vaccines. These initiatives are expected to accelerate the commercialization of DNA vaccines, thereby driving market growth over the forecast period.

Type Analysis

The DNA vaccines market is segmented by type into plasmid DNA vaccines and recombinant DNA vaccines. Plasmid DNA vaccines are gaining significant traction due to their ease of production and ability to induce robust immune responses. These vaccines use a small, circular piece of DNA (plasmid) that carries the genetic information of the target antigen. When introduced into the body, the plasmid DNA is taken up by cells, which then produce the antigen and stimulate an immune response. The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of plasmid DNA vaccines make them an attractive option for both researchers and manufacturers.

Recombinant DNA vaccines, on the other hand, involve the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce specific antigens in a host organism, such as bacteria or yeast. These vaccines offer the advantage of being able to produce large quantities of highly purified antigens, which can lead to stronger and more specific immune responses. Recombinant DNA vaccines have shown promise in preclinical and clinical studies for various infectious diseases and cancer. The growing adoption of recombinant DNA technology in vaccine development is expected to drive the market growth in this segment.

Both plasmid DNA vaccines and recombinant DNA vaccines have shown potential in addressing unmet medical needs, particularly for diseases where traditional vaccines have been less effective. This has led to increased research and development activities in the field of DNA vaccines, with several candidates currently undergoing clinical trials. The success of these trials will play a crucial role in determining the future growth of the DNA vaccines market.

Report Scope