Medical countermeasures against henipaviruses: a review and public health perspective.

Introduction

Nipah and other henipaviral diseases are listed among the WHO research and development blueprint priority diseases that pose a substantial public health risk because of their epidemic or pandemic potential and the absence of specific medical countermeasures to control and mitigate them. 1 Like other viruses of the henipavirus genus, Nipah virus (NiV) and Hendra virus (HeV) are zoonotic viruses that can spillover from Pteropus spp bats—their natural hosts and reservoir—to other mammals including humans. 2 , 3 Transmission occurs via exposure to animal or human secretions or respiratory droplets. 2 , 3 Human infections with NiV were originally described as a syndrome of fever and rapid neurological decline (ie, encephalitis) following contact with pigs. Since 2001, outbreaks (of Nipah virus Bangladesh strain [NiV-B]) report prominent respiratory symptoms (eg, atypical pneumonia and severe respiratory problems, including acute respiratory distress) and human-to-human transmission. 4 Since 1994, henipavirus spillover events have caused human outbreaks in several countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. 5 Although these outbreaks have thus far involved fewer than 1000 confirmed cases in total, the case–fatality rate for henipavirus infections can be as high as 100% depending on the context and constraints of the health-care systems where outbreaks occur. The geographical range where the various Pteropus bat species thrive is extensive 6 , 7 (encompassing Indo-Pacific territories across the southeast Asia and western Pacific regions) and covers half of the global population. 8 In addition to the tragic loss of human lives, henipavirus outbreaks can generate fear, stigma, loss of livestock (pigs and horses), and have a negative economic effect on affected communities. 5 Although the reproduction number ( R 0 ) for HeV has not been calculated, the R 0 for NiV ranges from 0·19 to 0·59 in nosocomial settings or in the community, including corpse-to-person transmission. 9 , 10

In an outbreak situation, use of widespread sensitive rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) 11 combined with appropriate prevention and non-pharmaceutical intervention control measures, can rapidly lower the R 0 , buying precious time to deploy medical countermeasures. Vaccines, antivirals, and other medical countermeasures must be developed and made available for use worldwide, especially to populations at the highest risk of henipavirus infection.

Key messages • The pipeline for henipavirus countermeasures in development with clinical or preclinical data in the public domain includes at least eight small molecules, four monoclonal antibodies, and more than 15 vaccine candidates. • Several of these potential henipavirus medical countermeasures employ molecules, concepts, or technologies that are being used, where available, to treat or prevent COVID-19. • Access to henipavirus countermeasures will depend on various factors including cost and whether or not their use is authorised by the national regulatory authorities in henipavirus-affected countries. • Given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of current henipavirus outbreaks, traditional phase 3 clinical trial regulatory pathways might not be feasible for vaccines; thus, national regulatory authorities might have to rely on alternative regulatory pathways such as conditional market authorisation, authorisation under exceptional circumstances, or the animal rule. • To prepare for future henipavirus outbreaks, funding agencies, sponsors, and manufacturers of henipavirus medical countermeasures must jointly understand the regulatory requirements to apply for emergency use or relevant authorisation of henipavirus medical countermeasures in the affected countries where these measures are ultimately needed. • Lessons learned from the current COVID-19 pandemic provide a platform to connect with several stakeholders and to better prepare for future virus threats, including those posed by henipaviruses.

Internationally coordinated development of medical countermeasures against henipaviruses has mainly focused on NiV, but important progress has also been made in the development of such measures against HeV. Medical countermeasures against other henipaviruses have not been described. This Review will focus on publicly available evidence of potential medical countermeasures at any stage of development against both of these viruses. The aim is to provide a synthesis of available knowledge to aid epidemic preparedness. Potential costs and equitable access by all henipavirus-affected countries, including low-income and middle-income countries, are considered.

Scope and search strategy

We reviewed information available in the public domain on therapeutics, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccine candidates evaluated for prophylaxis or protection, primarily against NiV and HeV infection, with a small amount of information found for other henipaviruses such as Cedar henipavirus, Ghanaian bat henipavirus, and Mojiang henipavirus. A targeted literature search was done in the English language following PRISMA guidelines and using “Nipah” OR “Hendra” OR “henipaviruses” as keywords with additional MeSH terms and selection criteria described in detail in the appendix p 1 . Our search strategy did not include diagnostics. Although diagnostics are classified as medical countermeasures, they are mentioned here only in the context of other medical countermeasures. A detailed landscape analysis of the henipavirus diagnostic pipeline has been published elsewhere. 12

Evidence for medical countermeasures

Small molecules and antivirals

No approved therapy exists for henipavirus encephalitis, and a target product profile for potential NiV therapeutics is currently being developed by WHO. 13 Where available, intensive supportive therapy for severe respiratory and neurological complications is the current standard of care for individuals infected with henipavirus. 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 Further evidence is required to generate substantive guidance protocols for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis against henipavirus encephalitis. Available evidence regarding potential therapeutics against henipavirus encephalitis is displayed in table 1 . Most of these compounds are broadly active antiviral therapeutics targeting a range of RNA and DNA viruses, rather than specifically developed as henipavirus medical countermeasures. Table 1 Available evidence on potential small molecules against henipavirus encephalitis Classification Available evidence so far (route of therapeutic administration) Target Mode of action Finding Development or licensure status and indication Ribavirin 18 Antiviral Open-label clinical trial in humans (oral and intravenous) NiV Viral replication inhibition Reduced mortality of treated patients compared with non-treated patients (by 36%) * in Malaysian outbreak (1998) Approved for hepatis C virus and respiratory syncytial virus in several countries Remdesivir 19 Antiviral African green monkeys (intravenous) NiV Nucleotide analogue prodrug, inhibits viral replication Protection against viral challenge Approved for COVID-19 by the US FDA. Emergency use authorisation for COVID-19 in Australia, Bangladesh, India, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, and the European Union 20 Favipiravir 21 Antiviral Syrian golden hamsters (oral and subcutaneous) NiV, HeV Viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor Protection against viral challenge Approved for influenza A in japan, and for COVID-19 in several countries. Emergency use authorisation for COVID-19 in India 22 Chloroquine 23 , 24 Antimalarial Syrian golden hamsters (intraperitoneal) and ferrets (route not stated) NiV, HeV Inhibition of F protein maturation Inhibition of viral replication in vitro. No conclusive evidence in vivo challenge—in combination with ribavirin Approved for malaria in several countries Heparin 25 Anticoagulant Syrian golden hamsters (subcutaneous) NiV, HeV Inhibits cell-mediated viral trans-infection by binding to heparan sulfate Inhibition of viral trans-infection in vitro. Heparin treatment restricts NiV infection in Syrian golden hamsters Approved for coagulopathies in several countries. Experimental: preclinical (Syrian golden hamster study) Rintatolimid 26 Interferon inducer Syrian golden hamsters (subcutaneous and intraperitoneal) NiV Induces IFN-α and IFN-β production, inhibition of viral replication Inhibition of viral replication and protection against viral challenge Approved for chronic fatigue syndrome in Argentina. Experimental (phase 1 and 2 trials) for HIV and chronic fatigue syndrome 27 Griffithsin 28 Antiviral lectin Syrian golden hamsters (intranasal) NiV Inhibits viral entry, replication and syncytia formation Reduced viral replication in vitro and provides partial protection against viral challenge Experimental: phase 1 trials for HIV 29 VIKI-dPEG4-Toco, VIKI-PEG4-chol 30 , 31 Viral fusion inhibitory peptide African green monkeys and Syrian golden hamsters (intratracheal and intranasal) NiV Inhibition of F protein fusion and cell entry Partial protection against viral challenge Experimental: preclinical Gliotoxin 32 Mycotoxin In vitro NiV, HeV Viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor Inhibition of infection and replication; Cytotoxic but possible topical applications Experimental: exploratory Bortezomib 33 Anticancer In vitro NiV Proteasome inhibitor Inhibition of viral budding Approved for multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma by the US FDA Balapiravir, R1479 34 Antiviral In vitro NiV, HeV Viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor Inhibition of viral replication Experimental, discontinued in phase 1 trials for dengue virus and hepatitis C virus 35 Lumicitabine, ALS-8112 36 Antiviral In vitro NiV Nucleotide analogue prodrug, inhibits viral replication Inhibition of recombinant and wild-type NiV replication, and reduced NiV infectious virus titre Experimental: phase 1 and phase 2 trials for respiratory syncytial virus 37 CH25H 38 Antiviral In vitro NiV Intravenous-stimulated genes: catalyses oxidation of cholesterol to 25-hydroxycholesterol Inhibition of viral membrane fusion and NiV replication Experimental: exploratory KIN1408 39 Antiviral In vitro NiV Immunomodulation of interferon regulatory factor 3 Inhibition of viral replication and decreased viral load in vitro Experimental: exploratory AB00991123, AB00992391, and AB00993210 40 Antivirals In vitro NiV Sulfonamide compounds, unknown Inhibition of NiV-induced cytopathic effect and virus replication Experimental: exploratory HeV=Hendra virus. NiV=Nipah virus. * Patients also received intensive supportive treatment, and comparators were historical control patients.

Although some of the compounds listed in table 1 are approved for other indications, none are yet WHO-prequalified for global procurement. Although a few of these have been shown to inhibit viral replication of henipaviruses in vitro and in vivo, there is still a paucity of evidence in animal models, partly due to the restricted access to biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratories required to do experiments. Thus, several research groups are doing in-silico analyses 41 or biosafety level 2 pseudotyped virus assays 42 to design and screen compounds for the potential treatment of henipavirus encephalitis before animal and clinical testing. Although animal challenge studies have mainly been against NiV, the evidence available for remdesivir, favipiravir, ribavirin, and griffithsin suggests that these agents could also offer broad protection against other henipaviruses ( table 1 ). Only remdesivir and VIKI-dPEG-Toco are supported by non-human primate challenge data in African green monkeys, whereas all other experiments have been done in smaller animals such as mice, ferrets, or Syrian golden hamsters. Remdesivir has been shown to be protective against NiV challenge in African green monkeys when daily, intravenous treatment was initiated within 24 h of exposure to NiV and continued for 12 days. 19 Favipiravir has been shown to be protective in Syrian golden hamsters when given immediately after NiV infection. 21 Although these compounds have shown protection against challenge or post-exposure in animal models, demonstration of a therapeutic effect following symptom onset is still missing and merits further research.

For further development of these drugs as potential henipavirus medical countermeasures, additional pre-clinical and clinical studies are needed to determine the protective efficacy of the treatment regimen when initiated more than 24 h post-virus challenge, or even after symptom onset. Such studies will help define scenarios for prophylactic medical countermeasure use, as well as use of medical countermeasures as a post-infection intervention. The potentially narrow treatment window (within 24 h of exposure), timing of deployment, administration, and appropriate volumes of these products need to be considered for stockpiling. Notably, NiV can present with relapsing encephalitis, 43 and such cases might also benefit from antiviral prophylaxis.

Ribavirin (approved for hepatitis C virus) remains the only therapeutic with supportive evidence from a human outbreak; 18 mortality was reduced by 36% when ribavirin was used empirically in Malaysia during the outbreak of Nipah there in September, 1998–June, 1999. 18 However, this evidence is limited due to the open-label nature of the study, the use of data from historical control patients who declined treatment or received standard treatment before ribavirin was available, and the simultaneous provision of intensive supportive care to patients. Ribavirin has since been used on a compassionate basis during the 2018 Indian outbreak of Nipah encephalitis 16 , 44 in which its use led to a possible reduction in viral load. 45 Soluble Ephrin-B2 receptors (EFBN2) have been shown to inhibit binding of NiV and HeV to target cells in vitro , 46 but to our knowledge no EFBN2 analogues have been developed and specifically tested as potential therapeutics against henipaviruses.

A major bottleneck in moving promising compounds to clinical development is access to BSL4 facilities to conduct proof-of-concept challenge studies. Other key aspects for repurposed therapeutics include the need for further evidence on oral, intravenous, or intranasal routes of administration, the associated costs of intravenous administration, and the need for hospital infrastructure and supportive treatment. Regulatory requirements for repurposing approved medications, such as additional clinical trials for novel indications and reformulation of the product, must also be taken into account.

Monoclonal antibodies

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) could be a viable medical countermeasure option for deployment under compassionate use for prophylaxis, and this might remain the case until a vaccine is available for emergency use or licensed. Similar to small molecules and antivirals, mAbs can potentially be used for both pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis and fill in a critical gap before vaccine availability. mAbs may even be deployed in an emergency situation even after a vaccine becomes available, given that many of the vaccines follow a two-dose regimen and would require several days to elicit protective immunity. Four main mAb projects constitute the current landscape of mAbs under development against henipaviruses ( table 2 ). These mAbs have also been used as reagents to characterise antigens and inform vaccine design strategies. Table 2 Preclinical and clinical evidence for candidate monoclonal antibodies against henipaviruses Evidence available Current development stage Target Developer mAb 102·4 Human (phase 1 trial), ferrets, and African green monkeys 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 Phase 1 HeV or NiV G glycoprotein Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (Bethesda, MD, USA) mAb 5B3, mAb h5B3·1 Mice and ferrets 51 , 52 Preclinical HeV or NiV pre-fusion F glycoprotein University of Washington (Seattle, WA, USA) and Uniformed Services University (Bethesda, MD, USA) mAb HENV-26, mAb HENV-32 Ferrets 53 Preclinical HeV or NiV G glycoprotein (receptor-binding protein) Vanderbilt Vaccine Center (Nashville, TN, USA) Anti-G mAb, anti-F mAb Hamsters 54 Preclinical NiV G and F glycoprotein INSERM (Paris, France), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (Lyon, France), and Institut Pasteur (Paris, France) HeV=Hendra virus. mAb=monocolonal antibody. NiV=Nipah virus.

mAb m102·4 is the furthest in development and is the only NiV mAb with published phase 1 data. It has been shown to protect African green monkeys against challenge with both Malaysia and Bangladesh NiV strains. 47 , 48 , 49 m102·4 has been administered under compassionate use as post-exposure prophylaxis for HeV to 14 individuals in Australia and the USA. 50 The phase 1 trial in Australia included 40 healthy adults, who received escalating single doses from 1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg, or two 20 mg/kg infusions, 72 h apart, or placebo. 50 No serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation were observed in this study. The most commonly reported adverse events included mild to moderate infections and infestations and headaches, occurring at a similar frequency in active treatment and placebo recipients. Another mAb, h5B3·1 (ie, the humanised version of mAb 5B3 originally derived from mouse hybridoma 5B3), neutralises HeV and NiV Bangladesh and Malaysia strains and inhibits viral fusion in vitro . 51 In NiV and HeV post-exposure prophylaxis models in ferrets, mAb h5B3·1 protected animals against disseminated disease when administered intraperitoneally on days 3 and 5 post-infection. 52 In 2020, mAb HENV-26 and mAb HENV-32, two naturally occurring human mAbs, were isolated from a donor immunised with a veterinary HeV protein subunit vaccine (Equivac; Zoetis, Rhodes, NSW, Australia) administered under compassionate use. These mAbs were shown to neutralise both HeV and NiV Bangladesh and Malaysia strains. 53 In a NiV post-exposure prophylaxis model in ferrets, these mAbs also protected animals against disseminated disease when administered intraperitoneally on days 3 and 5 post-infection. Although their different epitope specificity would suggest that these mAbs could have synergistic properties if administered as a mAb cocktail, the mAbs were only tested separately in virus neutralisation assays and protective efficacy experiments. Furthermore, despite binding to NiV and HeV G proteins, the mAbs did not bind to G proteins from other henipaviruses such as Ghanaian bat henipavirus or Cedar henipavirus. 53

The current engagement from academic, public, and biotechnology product developers is important for progression of the existing mAb pipeline. However, to further accelerate the development process and ensure that final products reach the target population, a clear strategy is required on the following four areas: scenario planning for product development and regulatory pathways in relation to disease epidemiology; further participation from industry, especially product developers with experience in the development of medical countermeasures against other pathogens, to lead and support henipavirus medical countermeasure development efforts; technical transfer and engagement of local manufacturers in endemic countries; and further progression of mAb development to clinical trials and potential licensure.

Vaccines

A draft Nipah vaccine target product profile published by WHO 55 stipulates that a NiV vaccine be used for reactive immunisation (ie, active immunisation of at-risk individuals in the area of an ongoing outbreak) and “in conjunction with other control measures to curtail or end an outbreak”. 55 In an outbreak scenario, key preferred characteristics of a NiV vaccine include an ability to elicit protective immunity rapidly (preferably within 2 weeks) after a single dose, acceptable safety profile, high efficacy (>90%), thermostability (2–8°C), and an ability to confer immunity and protection against Malaysia and Bangladesh strains of NiV.

Table 3 shows the current landscape of the henipavirus vaccine pipeline. There are more than 40 candidates in development with data available in the public domain; however, eight of these are intended primarily for veterinary use. 68 , 73 , 77 Nearly half (n=19) of henipavirus vaccine candidates are based on viral vector platforms, 17 are protein subunits or virus-like particles formulated in various adjuvants, and two are based on mRNA technology. The main targets of henipavirus vaccines in development are the surface G glycoprotein or the fusion F protein. All listed vaccines are highly immunogenic and elicit henipavirus binding antibodies, neutralising antibodies, or both, with at least 15 candidates conferring various levels of protection against challenge with homologous or heterologous henipavirus strains in African green monkeys, Syrian golden hamsters, or ferrets ( table 3 ). Table 3 Chronological overview of henipavirus vaccines in development, by platform Vaccine regimen and administration route Animal models used Henipavirus challenge strain Reference Viral vectors Recombinant vaccinia viruses (modified vaccinia virus Ankara) expressing NiV-M or HeV F, G, or N Single dose (intraperitoneal) Mice None 56 Vaccinia virus vector (NYVAC) expressing NiV-M G or F 2 doses, 1 month apart (subcutaneous) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 57 Canarypox vector (ALVAC) expressing NiV-M G or F 2 doses, 14 days apart (intramuscular) Pigs * NiV-M 58 , 59 Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus expressing HeV or NiV-M G or F 3 doses on weeks 0, 5, and 18 (footpad inoculation) Mice None 60 Replication-defective VSV-DG vector expressing NiV-M G or F Single dose (intranasal or intramuscular) Mice None 61 Newcastle disease virus vector expressing NiV-M F or G 2 doses, 4 weeks apart (intramuscular) Mice, pigs * None 62 Single-cycle replication VSV-DG vector expressing NiV-B G and/or F Single dose (intramuscular) Ferrets NiV-M 63 † Adeno-associated virus vector expressing NiV-M G Single dose (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M and HeV 64 Measles virus vaccine vectors (HL and Ed strains) expressing NiV-M G 2 doses, 21 or 28 days apart (intraperitoneal [Syrian golden hamsters] or subcutaneous [African green monkeys]) Syrian golden hamsters, African green monkeys NiV-M 65 Live-attenuated rVSV-ZEBOV-GP vector expressing NiV-M G, F, or N Single dose (intraperitoneal) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 66 ‡ Single-cycle replication VSV-DG vector expressing NiV-M G or F Single dose (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 67 Live-attenuated and beta-propiolactone-inactivated VSV or rabies virus vaccine vectors expressing codon-optimised HeV G Single dose (live) or three doses (beta-propiolactone), on weeks 0, 2, and 3 (intramuscular) Mice * None 68 Live-attenuated rVSV-ZEBOV-GP vector expressing NiV-M G Single dose (intramuscular) African green monkeys NiV-M 69 ‡ Live-attenuated rVSV-ZEBOV-GP vector expressing NiV-M G Single dose (intraperitoneal) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 70 ‡ Canarypox vector (ALVAC) expressing HeV G or F 2 doses, 21 days apart (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters and ponies (horses) None 71 Non-replicating VSV-DG vectors expressing NiV-M G and/or F Single dose (intranasal or intracranial) Mice None 72 Live-attenuated and beta-propiolactone-inactivated rabies virus vaccine vector expressing NiV-B G Single dose (live) or 2 doses (beta-propiolactone), 28 days apart (intramuscular) Mice None 73 Single-cycle replication VSV-DG vector expressing NiV-B G and/or F Single dose (intramuscular) African green monkeys NiV-B 74 † Chimpanzee adenovirus vector expressing NiV-B G Single or two doses, 28 days apart (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M, NiV-B, and HeV 75 Modified vaccinia virus Ankara expressing NiV-M sG or G Single or 2 doses, 21 days apart (intraperitoneal or intramuscular) IFNAR −/− mice None 76 Recombinant rabies viruses Evelyn-Rokitnicki-Abelseth strain, rERAG 333E expressing NiV-M G or F 2 doses, 8 weeks apart (oral) Mice and pigs * None 77 Bovine herpes virus 4 or canarypox vectors (ALVAC) expressing NiV-M G or F 2 doses, 3 weeks apart (intramuscular) Pigs * None 5 , 78 Protein subunits § sG NiV-M or sG HeV in CSIRO triple adjuvant (Montanide/QuilA/DEAE-dextran) 3 doses, 2 weeks apart (subcutaneous) Cats NiV-M 79 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in CpG plus Alhydrogel adjuvant 2 doses, 21 days apart (intramuscular) Cats NiV-M 80 Soluble trimeric forms of HeV and NiV-M F proteins (sF GCNt ) in Sigma Adjuvant System adjuvant 4 doses, each 30 days apart (intraperitoneal or subcutaneous) Mice None 81 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in CpG and Alhydrogel adjuvant 2 doses, 21 days apart (intramuscular) African green monkeys NiV M 82 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in Alhydrogel and CpG adjuvant 2 doses, 20 days apart (subcutaneous) Ferrets NiV B 83 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in Alhydrogel with or without CpG adjuvant 2 doses, 21 days apart (intramuscular) African green monkeys HeV 84 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein (produced in 293 or Chinese hamster ovary cells) in a proprietary adjuvant (Zoetis, Inc) 2–5 doses, weeks 0 and 3, then at 6 months and then yearly (intramuscular) Horses * HeV 85 , 86 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in a proprietary adjuvant (Zoetis, Inc) 2 doses, 21 days apart (intramuscular) Pigs * NiV-M and HeV 87 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein in alhydrogel + CpG adjuvant 2 doses, 20 days apart (subcutaneous) Ferrets HeV 88 Molecular clamp-stabilised F protein (mcsF) 2 doses, 3 weeks apart (intramuscular) Pigs * NiV-M 5 Multiple pre-fusion-stabilised F and oligomeric G proteins derived from NiV-M and formulated in aluminum hydroxide 2 doses, 3 weeks apart (intramuscular) Mice None 89 Monovalent, bivalent, and tetravalent Fc-linked G proteins from NiV-M, HeV, GhV, and MojV formulated in CpG and Alhydrogel 2 doses, 3 weeks apart (intramuscular) Mice None 90 Recombinant soluble HeV G glycoprotein, produced in HEK-293 cells, formulated in Alhydrogel Single dose or 2 doses, 4 weeks apart (intramuscular) African green monkeys HeV (Brisbane) and NiV B 91 Virus-like particles Virus-like particles containing NiV-M M, G, and F ¶ 3 doses on days 0, 15, and 29 (subcutaneous) Mice None 92 Virus-like particles containing NiV-M M, F, and G, formulated in various adjuvants (alum, monophosphoryl lipid A, and CpG) ¶ Single dose or 3 doses on days 0, 21, and 42 (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 93 Virus-like particles containing NiV-M M and F or G in Sigma Adjuvant System 3 doses on weeks 0, 3, and 5 (intramuscular) Rabbits None 94 Virus-like particles containing NiV-M F and G and HeV M 3 doses on weeks 0, 3, and 6 (intraperitoneal) Mice None 95 Cellular debris Pellets and supernatants from sF9 cells expressing recombinant NiV-M F and G proteins in a baculovirus system 2 doses, 3 weeks apart (intramuscular and intraperitoneal) Mice None 96 DNA Plasmids encoding codon-optimised NiV-M F and/or G 2 doses, 4 weeks apart (intramuscular) Mice None 97 Plasmids encoding NiV-M F and/or G Single dose (intramuscular) followed by electroporation Mice NiV-M pseudovirus 98 mRNA HeV G codon-optimised mRNA in liquid nanoparticles Single dose (intramuscular) Syrian golden hamsters NiV-M 99 mRNA-1215, mRNA encoding NiV-M F and G in liquid nanoparticles To be determined Undisclosed preclinical development To be determined 100 GhV=Ghanaian bat henipavirus. GP=glycoprotein. HeV=Hendra virus. MojV=Mojiang henipavirus. NiV=Nipah virus. NiV-B=Nipah virus Bangladesh. NiV-M=Nipah virus Malaysia. rVSV=recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus. VSV=vesicular stomatitis virus. ZEBOV=Zaire Ebola virus. * These vaccines are intended primarily for veterinary use. † The single-cycle replication VSV-DG vector expressing NiV-B G and/or F is identical in these studies. ‡ The live-attenuated rVSV-ZEBOV-GP vector expressing NiV-M G is identical in these studies. § The soluble HeV G protein is identical in all studies using different adjuvant formulations. ¶ The virus-like particles are identical in these studies using different formulations.

The recombinant, soluble HeV G glycoprotein candidate is the only vaccine candidate that has progressed to phase 1 clinical trials. 91 , 101 This candidate builds on existing knowledge gained from using the same soluble protein in several pre-clinical and veterinary studies, 79 , 80 , 82 , 83 , 85 including pivotal data used to develop the Equivac HeV vaccine approved for veterinary use in horses. 85 In addition to good manufacturing practices and good clinical practices required to develop the soluble HeV G product for human use, a key difference between the vaccine intended for humans and its previous versions is the adjuvant formulation in Alhydrogel (Croda, USA) at a 1:10 ratio. 91

It is too early to ascertain whether any of these candidate vaccines will achieve licensure and meet the preferred product characteristics described in the draft WHO target product profile for a NiV vaccine. 55 The low temperature requirement could create challenges for some vaccine candidates; however, this problem is currently being addressed with COVID-19 vaccines and is not necessarily a barrier, as even a small amount of ultracold chain capacity can be established rapidly during vaccine deployment in response to an outbreak. 102 The single-dose vaccine regimen and cross-protection characteristics as described in the WHO target product profile might be possible to achieve. For example, a single dose of the ChAdOx-NiV Bangladesh vaccine candidate cross-protects Syrian golden hamsters against challenge with HeV and the NiV-Malaysia strain. 75

The global effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines might pose a substantial risk to henipavirus vaccine development capacity, including delays in animal studies and reduced manufacturing capacity and funding. However, COVID-19 vaccine development has also accelerated many of the vaccine platform technologies that could be applied to henipavirus vaccine development and rapid response. Among these, the henipavirus mRNA vaccine candidates are likely to benefit from the experience in COVID vaccine development, scale-up manufacturing, regulatory approval, and deployment.

Projected costs of henipavirus medical countermeasures in a post-COVID-19 era

The current henipavirus medical countermeasure pre-clinical and clinical landscape includes nine small molecules, four mAbs, and 15 vaccine candidates. Included candidates are those with clinical data in humans or proof-of-concept data in ferrets, Syrian golden hamsters, or African green monkeys. This list of candidates excludes those with only exploratory in-vitro data, or pre-clinical data without a known henipavirus challenge study. The development pipeline is heavily shifted towards vaccines because these are potentially the most effective public health intervention. The main funders of currently active henipavirus vaccine development projects are listed in appendix p 3 . In addition to these, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has supported and continues to fund the development of henipavirus mAbs and other medical countermeasures. 103 , 104 , 105 Furthermore, as part of its new strategic priorities, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) aims to support the development of a fully licensed vaccine or prophylactic mAb against Nipah by 2027. 106

Despite this progress, the development of vaccines and treatments against infectious diseases is a lengthy, costly, and risky process. The development of medical countermeasures against COVID-19 has proved that at least the speed of product development can be partially overcome with broad mobilisation of public and philanthropic funding, and engagement of scientists, policymakers, epidemiologists, public and private vaccine developers, manufacturers, and regulators involved in emergency use processes. However, this advanced speed comes with additional costs due to a greater number of projects entering the pipeline, and at-risk costs needed for large-scale manufacturing of various leading products in parallel before conclusion of the clinical testing. 107 COVID-19 medical countermeasure investments will probably increase the speed of product development and the number of medical countermeasure platform technologies against other pathogens, including those against henipavirus. Table 4 estimates the costs of potential henipavirus medical countermeasures in a post-COVID-19 era. Vaccines and small molecule regimens will continue to be more affordable per person than mAbs. However, vaccine impact at large, including vaccine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of potential medical countermeasures, will need to be determined in a post-authorisation and post-licensure era. Table 4 Projected costs of henipavirus medical countermeasures Reference price * (US$) Reference cost unit Potential dose regimen Estimated cost of regimen per person (US$) Small molecules or therapeutics † Remdesivir 53 per vial (Cipla Limited, Mumbai, India) 100 μg vial Ebola regimen; intravenous: 200 mg (loading dose) + 10 mg for 10 days $640 Favipiravir <0·50 per tablet (Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad, India) 200 mg tablet Influenza regimen: oral: 1800 mg twice daily (loading dose) + 800 mg twice daily for 14 days $31 Ribavirin <1 per tablet 200 mg tablet (oral) or 10 mg vial (intravenous) Chong et al 18 Nipah regimen; oral: 2 g (loading dose) + 1 g for 10 daysIntravenous: 30 mg/kg (loading dose) + 16 mg/kg every 6 h for 4 days + 8 mg/kg every 8 h for 3 days $20–60 (oral); $14–26 (intravenous) Monoclonal antibodies ‡ Monoclonal antibodies produced in mammalian cell lines 1250–2100 per vial 700 mg–2·4 g per dose COVID-19-like regimens; single intravenous infusion $1250–2100 (intravenous) 108 , 109 , 110 Vaccines § Viral vectors, protein subunits in adjuvant, and mRNA in liquid nanoparticles 4–37 per dose Variable concentration per dose Single or two-dose regimen $8–74 111 * Prices based on publicly available information of generic product costs, or products developed using similar platforms. † Costs exclude expenses related to hospital care infrastructure and administration, supportive therapy, and disposables, etc. ‡ Reference data for monoclonal antibodies are based on data available in the public domain for bamlanimivab (Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA) and casirivimab plus imdevimab (REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail [Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, USA]). 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 § Costs exclude expenses related to vaccine delivery, transport, refrigeration, and administration.

Small molecules

For small molecules, we project costs ranging from US$14 to $600 per person per regimen ( table 4 ). Advantages are associated with repurposing commercially available products for new indications, including the cost benefits of limited additional investments needed to ramp up supply, or in the cases of remdesivir and favipiravir, the leverage scale from demand generated by the current COVID-19 indication. Furthermore, commercialised drugs are likely to have a reliable supply chain of generic versions at substantially reduced costs, with the potential for a good investment case for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis for high-risk populations in affected areas. An example of a prophylaxis campaign during an outbreak would be the use of oseltamivir (Tamiflu; F Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. 112 For henipavirus outbreaks, however, further supportive evidence in animal models and clinical trials will be needed in support of a mass prophylaxis concept. The route of administration will be especially relevant in an outbreak scenario—for example, daily intravenous administration of remdesivir would be limited by cost, infrastructure, and the need for hospital stays.

mAbs

For mAbs, we project costs of more than $1000 per person per regimen ( table 4 ). Further funding will be required to advance henipavirus mAb programmes into early-stage and late-stage clinical development. Delivery of mAbs, especially via intravenous infusion, requires capacity and infrastructure, which could prove challenging in some outbreak settings. Subcutaneous administration of mAbs against COVID-19 is being tested and submitted for licensure. 113 If successful, this concept will fundamentally improve access to mAb treaments. Casirivimab and imdevimab (Regeneron [Tarrytown, NY, USA]) and bamlanivimab (Eli Lily [Indianapolis, IN, USA) COVID-19 mAbs have rapidly completed phase 1 trials and received emergency use listings as treatment against mild and moderate COVID-19, 114 setting the precedent for future emulation in a henipavirus outbreak. However, further data are needed regarding the added benefit to children and adolescents, and the prophylactic indication for mAbs. 114 , 115

Vaccines

The cost of henipavirus vaccines in an epidemic or pandemic setting remains unclear; however, experience from COVID-19 vaccines using similar platforms suggests the price of vaccines could range between $4 per dose for viral vector vaccines to $37 per dose for mRNA vaccines. 111 These figures do not include delivery costs, which could add substantially to the immunisation costs depending on vaccine logistics, infrastructure, and regimens. 116 The cost per dose of a henipavirus vaccine in the scenario of a small number of outbreaks and a modest stockpile could also be higher as a result of the lower market potential. Although this price estimate is a wide range, vaccines might still be reasonably priced by comparison with other medical countermeasures such as mAbs. Public funding for research and development and advance purchase agreements could keep the cost affordable.

Further investments in diagnostics and virological surveillance

Laboratory-based diagnostic testing, contact tracing, and proactive quarantine and treatment of suspected cases, often collectively referred to as “test, track/trace, and treat” strategies, are indicated at the onset of an outbreak and can quickly isolate and treat patients to halt further spread of henipaviruses. 117 , 118 Currently, however, no near-patient or point-of-care tests are currently used for Nipah or Hendra viruses, which is likely to be a major limitation for the development of other medical countermeasures. Incentivisation is therefore needed to commercialise diagnostic assays and to adapt them for early detection of henipavirus encephalitis in suspected epidemic or pandemic settings.

Although numerous in-house serological methods (ELISA) and nucleic acid amplification techniques (PCR) for NiV detection exist globally, 12 harmonisation of validation methods, standards, and reagents to facilitate development of commercial PCR kits is needed. A reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the NiV N gene has recently been developed and is significantly more sensitive than RT-PCR, demonstrating potential for a quicker and simple rapid diagnostic test for use in outbreak settings. 119 Key barriers to the development of henipavirus diagnostic tests include: the scarcity of widely available sera from henipavirus survivors, which might be necessary to accelerate the evaluation, validation, and licensure of serologic diagnostics for human use; and the BSL4 laboratory requirements for diagnostics dependent on virus isolation and wild-type virus neutralisation assays.

Notably, all experimental knowledge on Nipah virus acquired over the past two decades is derived from only two virus strains (199902916 Malaysia and 200401066 Bangladesh). 120 Investments in surveillance, virus isolation, and sequencing can further our understanding of the impact of Nipah virus strain variation on medical countermeasure efficacy.

Regulatory considerations

Modelling to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a phase 3 NiV vaccine trial in Bangladesh suggests that under the present low incidence scenario, traditional randomised, controlled efficacy trials are not feasible. 121 Alternative licensure pathways in lieu of a traditional phase 3 vaccine efficacy trial, as described in the following paragraphs, should be considered.

Regulatory pathways

Various pathways exist for the licensure of new medical countermeasures or medical countermeasures for life-threatening diseases ( table 5 ). These options include accelerated approval (by the Food and Drugs Administration [FDA] 122 or the animal efficacy rule 126 in the USA), and conditional approval or exceptional circumstances in the European Union (EU). 123 These regulatory pathways might be suitable for the licensure of medical countermeasures against viruses that have unpredictable outbreak patterns and are not conducive to phase 3 human clinical efficacy trials. 135 However, NiV outbreaks are very unlikely to occur where the US FDA or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have jurisdiction. Therefore, further development of the regulatory procedures in potentially affected countries is paramount. In the absence of specific regulatory mechanisms in affected countries, this article will reference the US FDA and the EMA regulatory procedures. The US accelerated approval pathway allows for surrogate or clinical intermediate endpoints and is used for therapies for serious conditions “as soon as it can be concluded that [their] benefits justify their risks”. 136 For henipaviruses, an example of a surrogate endpoint could be a protective titre of virus-neutralising antibodies. Accelerated approval would only be granted with a post-marketing commitment to demonstrate efficacy in a well-controlled clinical trial at the time of an outbreak. Given the epidemiology of NiV, timely fulfilment of this commitment would be problematic. Table 5 Potential regulatory pathways to pursue henipavirus vaccine authorisation Data package could include Examples of approved vaccines for other indications Current scenario: R o <1 Accelerated approval (US FDA), 122 conditional marketing authorisation or exceptional circumstances approval (EMA), 123 or similar mechanisms Phase 1 data, phase 2 data * , phase 3 trial feasibility assessment (results from mathematical modelling), assay validation data, surrogate endpoint or correlates of protection data, passive transfer or adoptive transfer studies, bridging data for licensure, and post-approval confirmatory studies to demonstrate clinical benefit Approvals based on surrogate endpoints; 124 conditional marketing authorisation for Ervebo (recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–Zaire Ebola virus) 125 Animal rule (US FDA) 126 and exceptional circumstances (EMA) 123 Natural history study data and challenge data, additional requirements requested by national regulatory authorities for licensure, and post-approval confirmatory studies to demonstrate clinical benefit (if possible to conduct) Approvals based on the animal rule; 127 exceptional circumstances: Zabdeno (Ad26.ZEBOV [adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine, expressing a Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein]) 128 and Mvabea (MVA-BN-Filo [modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Zaire Ebola virus]) 129 Other, depending on specific national regulatory authority legislation. See Directorate General of Drug Administration, (Bangladesh) 130 and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (India) 131 as examples To be defined by each national regulatory authority Vary by different national regulatory authority Alert phase: R o ~1 Rapid response: potential shift to PHEIC and pandemic scenarios .. .. Higher incidence scenarios: R o >1 Accelerated approval (US FDA), 122 conditional marketing authorisation (EMA), 123 national regulatory authority emergency use authorisation, WHO EUL, 132 , 133 and other Phase 1 data, phase 2 data, and assay validation data † Ebola vaccines: Ervebo 125 , 134 EMA=European Medicines Agency. EUL=emergency use listing. PHEIC=public health emergency of international concern. US FDA=US Food and Drug Administration. * Phase 2 clinical trial material can become so-called “outbreak-ready” for an investigational stockpile. † Investigational stockpile deployed.

The animal efficacy rule (US FDA) entails using animal efficacy data instead of human clinical data. 126 To support licensure through this route, the efficacy of a medical countermeasure can be demonstrated using a disease endpoint in a relevant animal model that enables the selection of an effective dose and regimen in humans. The animal efficacy rule approval pathway is only available in a situation where licensure through the traditional or accelerated approval pathway is not feasible. Generating the data required for approval via this pathway is challenging. So far, there has been only one precedent for a vaccine approval using the animal rule (BioThrax [Emergent BioSolutions, Rockville, MD, USA ] for post-exposure prophylaxis following suspected or confirmed anthrax exposure). The process and data requirements were substantial, taking at least 5 years from conception of the regulatory pathway to approval. 137 , 138 To gain approval via the animal rule, data must be generated to demonstrate a reasonably good understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease in a chosen animal model, and preferably in more than one animal species. 139 Well-designed natural history studies must be done, with solid evidence that the models can recapitulate key aspects of human disease. There have been relatively few human cases of henipavirus encephalitis to enable description of the full human clinical and pathological basis of the disease; therefore, animal disease comparisons might not reveal all features of human disease. Finally, whether or not the available strains of henipavirus encephalitis (as well as the challenge dose and method of administration) used in the animal challenge studies are epidemiologically relevant remains unclear. Hence, using the the animal rule to obtain approval for a vaccine against NiV may be challenging.

In the European Union (EU), the conditional marketing authorisation 123 has some similarities to the US accelerated approval procedure. The following criteria must be met: the benefit–risk balance must be positive; the product must fulfil an unmet medical need; the benefit of making the product immediately available must be greater than the risk of additional data still being required; and comprehensive data post-authorisation must be provided in a timely manner. As is the case for the accelerated approval pathway, fulfilment of the latter is problematic given the epidemiology of NiV.

EU legislation also allows marketing authorisation to be granted in the absence of comprehensive data under exceptional circumstances. 123 Unlike conditional marketing authorisation, where marketing approval is granted in the likelihood that the sponsor will provide such data post-approval within an agreed timeframe, the EMA can grant authorisation under exceptional circumstances when comprehensive data cannot be obtained even after authorisation. For example, approval under exceptional circumstances was granted in July, 2020, for Zabdeno 128 and Mvabea 129 (both Janssen-Cilag International NV, Beerse, Belgium) against Ebola virus in individuals 1 year of age or older. The fact that Zabdebo and Mvabea received approval under exceptional circumstances in the EU but is yet to be approved in the USA implies that the EU exceptional circumstances regulatory route may be less challenging than the animal rule in the USA.

Early discussions with the US FDA and EMA are critical to establish specific data requirements and map the most appropriate route to approval for the developer. Importantly, the aforementioned US and EU regulatory routes are defined within specific legislation and require robust technical capabilities, especially with regard to the review and acceptance of animal efficacy data. Further work will be needed to evaluate the extent to which existing legislation in henipavirus-affected countries provides an appropriate level of flexibility to allow the use of animal efficacy data as the basis for regulatory approval. If such mechanisms are not available, the development of similar legislation should be considered by those countries where future henipavirus outbreaks could occur.

Pre-licensure mechanisms: emergency use of vaccines

National regulatory authorities might consider the authorisation of vaccines in their jurisdiction by allowing the use of an investigational product in emergency situations (R 0 >1 ), such as in the event of a henipavirus pandemic, or if a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) is declared by WHO. Preparedness efforts can speed up the time from the declaration of a PHEIC to the licensure of vaccines for emergency use. The WHO emergency use listing procedure 132 , 133 , 140 has enabled rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines to a broad range of countries.

All countries with potential for a henipavirus outbreak must have emergency legislation to enable the rapid deployment of vaccines in the event an emergency use listing is granted by WHO. Since there might be a delay between the emergence of a henipavirus outbreak and declaration of a PHEIC, national regulatory authorities should also have legislation to enable the deployment of vaccines under their own emergency measures.

Data packages for vaccine candidates with some clinical data could be formally submitted to regulators in those countries where future outbreaks might occur and an authorisation could be requested based on existing clinical and non-clinical data, supplemented by data from the vaccine platform technology. These data could undergo a regulatory assessment based on anticipating the local benefit–risk in the country of deployment in the event of an outbreak. This would allow research to continue and additional data to be generated to support licensure. Such a licensed vaccine could be rapidly deployed in an attempt to control the emerging outbreak. Effectiveness and pharmacovigilance data could be collected in the real-world setting to confirm vaccine efficacy and safety. Although there is no current regulatory mechanism to support this, we advocate for an open debate on the feasibility of this approach. Case studies from the deployment of COVID-19 vaccines licensed in China, India, and Russia before the availability of phase 3 efficacy data, as well as learnings from undertaking clinical vaccine trials during the 2014–16 west African Ebola outbreak, could contribute to the framing of innovative regulatory frameworks in response to future pandemics.

A minimal dataset will be reviewed by regulatory authorities to enable rapid access and deployment of a vaccine during an emergency, irrespective of the regulatory mechanism used. As such, the ultimate objective of early deployment should be to continue to generate and collect the appropriate level of data to confirm effectiveness and achieve full licensure of the vaccine.

In the event that vaccines against NiV, HeV, or both do achieve licensure, it will also be important to advocate for implementation of accelerated regulatory approaches to enable the use of so-called core dossiers based on the pre-pandemic strains 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 and manufacturing technology platform experience to rapidly enable a strain change in the event that the henipavirus outbreak contains mutations that make the licensed vaccines less efficacious due to insufficient cross-reactivity.

Ensuring equitable access

Crucially, affected populations must be able to access medical countermeasures irrespective of cost. Four countries (Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, and the Philippines) historically affected by henipaviruses are low-income or middle-income countries 145 whereas two (Australia and Singapore) are high-income countries. Australia is the first country with a HeV vaccine and a documented, in-country stockpile of a henipavirus mAb, m102·4, which has been administered for compassionate use. 50 With scientific expertise in HeV, BSL4 capacity, and a renowned medical countermeasure consortia, 146 Australia could be a leading stakeholder in ensuring access through large-scale manufacturing and technology transfer of mAbs in the western Pacific region. In countries like Bangladesh, where Nipah outbreaks have predominantly affected poor populations in rural areas and health-care expenditures are generally out-of-pocket expenses, 147 central and local governments can prepare for future outbreaks by adapting strategies to reduce out-of-pocket expenses 148 or by devising mechanisms to share the costs of medical countermeasure procurement, deployment, and delivery, avoiding any undue delays to populations in need, regardless of their ability to pay for treatment.

Strategies to reduce the cost of medical countermeasure production while increasing the number of market players would help to increase access to medical countermeasures for low-income and middle-income countries; however, this approach is challenging in the face of a somewhat small henipavirus medical countermeasure portfolio. There might be little financial incentive perceived by multinational pharmaceutical companies, which have the most competitive resources and manufacturing capacity to invest in medical countermeasures. 149 , 150 Several initiatives have been set up to address this gap—for example, CEPI has invested more than $100 million in the pre-clinical and clinical development of four NiV vaccine candidates, including a protein subunit vaccine, 91 a measles vector-based vaccine, 64 a vesicular stomatitis virus vector-based vaccine, 66 , 69 , 70 and a chimpanzee adenovirus vector vaccine. 75 NiV investigational vaccine stockpiles and other medical countermeasures, together with operations for intervention in the field, should be in place before a major epidemic or pandemic. 151 However, more financial investment and continued participation from governments and the pharmaceutical private sector will be required to achieve this goal. The public, philanthropic, and private funding of active henipavirus vaccine development projects ( appendix p 3 ) could help to decouple the price of the product from the cost of research and development, making it potentially more affordable. Efforts to increase supply and local manufacturing are also needed to potentially reduce prices and spur innovation. Funders must therefore include low-income and middle-income countries and strengthen their capacities in the crucial stages of vaccine development such as manufacturing, for example by establishing mechanisms to transfer technology and know-how to emerging developers in low-income and middle-income countries. 152

Compared with vaccines, small molecules and antivirals are easier to generically produce. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that in some cases, prices can be set fairly low by overcoming intellectual property issues. 153 Therefore, both upstream and downstream strategies that address such issues across all the medical countermeasures will be vital for accessibility.

Funding agencies, sponsors, and manufacturers of henipavirus medical countermeasures must share the responsibility of understanding regulatory requirements to apply for emergency use or relevant authorisation of henipavirus medical countermeasures in affected countries. Poor knowledge of country-specific regulatory pathways can potentially create authorisation delays and an access roadblock for affected countries. Communication between product developers and the appropriate national regulatory authorities is essential to obtain clarity and guidance on local clinical trial requirements, regulatory legislation, and import requirements. Regulatory pathways and national regulatory authority capabilities vary between henipavirus-affected countries; thus, early engagement with regulators, preferably as soon as a target product profile is conceived with defined target populations, is essential to identify country-specific considerations. 13

Coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders is crucial to ensure equitable access to henipavirus medical countermeasures. Although the price of the various measures could be reduced, supply might still be low in the case of a large outbreak or pandemic, as is the case with COVID-19. 154 Improved mechanisms to facilitate mobilisation, coordination, and cooperation across all the stakeholders are required.

Conclusion

In this Review we have presented an overview of several medical countermeasures under development that have the potential to control henipavirus outbreaks. The pipeline of such measures is diverse (and mostly in the pre-clinical stage), with vaccines leading both in the number of candidates and the lowest anticipated cost per person per regimen. Investment in a combined portfolio of several medical countermeasures, including surveillance systems, should be part of a coordinated, multilateral strategy for epidemic and pandemic preparedness given the unpredictability of outbreaks and the high case–fatality rate. Given such risk, ethical considerations must feature prominently when planning clinical trials and establishing the trial design before the outbreak. Active exchange of data between developers of human and animal medical countermeasures should be encouraged. Regulatory agencies across different nations will require convincing data packages to approve the start of human clinical testing. Animal efficacy data collected in well-designed, high-quality studies could enable the start of these clinical studies and the collection of further data to support licensure via non-traditional regulatory pathways. For these efforts to be effective, multilateralism will be necessary. Multilateral strategies should be based on scenario planning and include an outbreak response plan that clearly delineates responsibilities for the coordinated, sequential deployment of medical countermeasures in the event of a henipavirus outbreak. The current COVID-19 pandemic opens a timely and unique opportunity to implement lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 and apply them to preparedness efforts against henipaviruses and other pathogens of pandemic potential.

Declaration of interests

NT is an independent consultant to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). All other authors are employees of CEPI. CEPI is supporting the research and development of a diverse portfolio of vaccine candidates (including vaccines against Nipah virus) based on a range of vaccine approaches.

References

1 WHO Prioritizing diseases for research and development in emergency contexts https://www.who.int/activities/prioritizing-diseases-for-research-and-development-in-emergency-contexts 2021

2 Lee B Rota PA Henipavirus: ecology, molecular virology, and pathogenesis 2012 Springer New York, NY

3 Halpin K Rota P A review of Hendra virus and Nipah virus infections in man and other animals Sing A Zoonoses – infections affecting humans and animals: focus on public health aspects 2015 Springer Dordrecht 997 1012

4 Hauser N Gushiken AC Narayanan S Kottilil S Chua JV Evolution of Nipah virus infection: past, present, and future considerations Trop Med Infect Dis 6 2021 24 33672796 10.3390/tropicalmed6010024 PMC8005932

5 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations Nipah@20. Proceedings from Nipah Virus International Conference, Singapore, 9 to 11 December 2019 https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019-CEPI-Duke-WHO-NIAID-Nipah-Conference_FINAL.pdf 2019

6 WHO Nipah virus: risk of importation to the countries of EMR Wkly Epidemiol Monitor 11 2018 23

7 Enchery F Horvat B Understanding the interaction between henipaviruses and their natural host, fruit bats: paving the way toward control of highly lethal infection in humans Int Rev Immunol 36 2017 108 121 28060559 10.1080/08830185.2016.1255883

8 WHO Population data by WHO region. Global health observatory repository data https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.POP2020?lang=en 2016

9 Nikolay B Salje H Hossain MJ Transmission of Nipah virus—14 years of investigations in Bangladesh N Engl J Med 380 2019 1804 1814 31067370 10.1056/NEJMoa1805376 PMC6547369

10 Sazzad HMS Hossain MJ Gurley ES Nipah virus infection outbreak with nosocomial and corpse-to-human transmission, Bangladesh Emerg Infect Dis 19 2013 210 217 23347678 10.3201/eid1902.120971 PMC3559054

11 Koczula KM Gallotta A Lateral flow assays Essays Biochem 60 2016 111 120 27365041 10.1042/EBC20150012 PMC4986465

12 Mazzola LT Kelly-Cirino C Diagnostics for Nipah virus: a zoonotic pathogen endemic to Southeast Asia BMJ Glob Health 4 suppl 2 2019 e001118 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001118 PMC6361328 30815286

13 WHO Nipah research & development (R&D) roadmap https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/nipah-research-and-development-(r-d)-roadmap 2018

14 BMJ BMJ best practice. Henipaviruses https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/1607/management-approach 2021

15 Institute of Epidemiology Disease Control And Research National Guideline for management, prevention and control of Nipah virus infection https://iedcr.gov.bd/publication/guidelines/10adb7d5-b36b-4e87-a37c-7fc981f4f888 2020

16 Central team Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Goverment of India Clinical management protocol for Nipah virus disease http://cghealth.nic.in/cghealth17/Information/content/NipahVirus/Treatment.pdf 2018

17 Indian Medical Association–Tamil Nadu State Branch Surveillance, prevention and control of Nipah virus infection: a practical handbook https://imatn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/surveillance-prevention-and-control-of-nipah-virus-infection-a-practical-handbook.pdf 2014

18 Chong HT Kamarulzman A Tan CT Treatment of acute Nipah encephalitis with ribavirin Ann Neurol 49 2001 810 813 11409437 10.1002/ana.1062

19 Lo MK Feldmann F Gary JM Remdesivir (GS-5734) protects African green monkeys from Nipah virus challenge Sci Transl Med 11 2019 eaau9242 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau9242 PMC6732787 31142680

20 Reuters FACTBOX–Countries where remdesivir is approved or supported for treating COVID-19 https://www.reuters.com/article/healthcoronavirus-gilead-remdesivir-idUSL1N2HD1UX 2021

21 Dawes BE Kalveram B Ikegami T Favipiravir (T-705) protects against Nipah virus infection in the hamster model Sci Rep 8 2018 7604 10.1038/s41598-018-25780-3 PMC5954062 29765101

22 Agrawal U Raju R Udwadia ZF Favipiravir: a new and emerging antiviral option in COVID-19 Med J Armed Forces India 76 2020 370 436 32895599 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.004 PMC7467067

23 Freiberg AN Worthy MN Lee B Holbrook MR Combined chloroquine and ribavirin treatment does not prevent death in a hamster model of Nipah and Hendra virus infection J Gen Virol 91 Pt 3 2010 765 772 19889926 10.1099/vir.0.017269-0 PMC2888097

24 Pallister J Middleton D Crameri G Chloroquine administration does not prevent Nipah virus infection and disease in ferrets J Virol 83 2009 11979 11982 19759137 10.1128/JVI.01847-09 PMC2772715

25 Mathieu C Dhondt KP Chalons M Heparan sulfate-dependent enhancement of henipavirus infection mBio 6 2015 e02427 10.1128/mBio.02427-14 PMC4453572 25759505

26 Georges-Courbot MC Contamin H Faure C Poly(I)-poly(C12U) but not ribavirin prevents death in a hamster model of Nipah virus infection Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50 2006 1768 1772 16641448 10.1128/AAC.50.5.1768-1772.2006 PMC1472238

27 Hemispherx Biopharma Executive informational overview https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/150154/docs/Hemispherx-Executive-Informational-Overview-11-27-16.pdf Nov 27, 2016

28 Lo MK Spengler JR Krumpe LRH Griffithsin inhibits Nipah virus entry and fusion and can protect Syrian golden hamsters from lethal Nipah virus challenge J Infect Dis 221 suppl 4 2020 S480 S492 32037447 10.1093/infdis/jiz630 PMC7199786

29 ClinicalTrials.gov Studies found for griffithsin https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?recrs=&cond=&term=griffithsin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist 2021

30 Mathieu C Porotto M Figueira TN Horvat B Moscona A Fusion inhibitory lipopeptides engineered for prophylaxis of Nipah virus in primates J Infect Dis 218 2018 218 227 29566184 10.1093/infdis/jiy152 PMC6009590

31 Porotto M Rockx B Yokoyama CC Inhibition of Nipah virus infection in vivo: targeting an early stage of paramyxovirus fusion activation during viral entry PLoS Pathog 6 2010 e1001168 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001168 PMC2965769 21060819

32 Aljofan M Sganga ML Lo MK Antiviral activity of gliotoxin, gentian violet and brilliant green against Nipah and Hendra virus in vitro Virol J 6 2009 187 19889218 10.1186/1743-422X-6-187 PMC2781006

33 Wang YE Park A Lake M Ubiquitin-regulated nuclear-cytoplasmic trafficking of the Nipah virus matrix protein is important for viral budding PLoS Pathog 6 2010 e1001186 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001186 PMC2978725 21085610

34 Hotard AL He B Nichol ST Spiropoulou CF Lo MK 4′-azidocytidine (R1479) inhibits henipaviruses and other paramyxoviruses with high potency Antiviral Res 144 2017 147 152 28629988 10.1016/j.antiviral.2017.06.011 PMC5648002

35 ClinicalTrials.gov A study of balapiravir in patients with dengue virus infection https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01096576 2021

36 Lo MK Amblard F Flint M Potent in vitro activity of beta-D-4′-chloromethyl-2′-deoxy-2′-fluorocytidine against Nipah virus Antiviral Res 175 2020 104712 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104712 PMC7054849 31935422

37 ClinicalTrials.gov 7 studies found for lumicitabine https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?recrs=&cond=&term=lumicitabine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist 2021

38 Liu SY Aliyari R Chikere K Interferon-inducible cholesterol-25-hydroxylase broadly inhibits viral entry by production of 25-hydroxycholesterol Immunity 38 2013 92 105 23273844 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.11.005 PMC3698975

39 Pattabhi S Wilkins CR Dong R Targeting innate immunity for antiviral therapy through small molecule agonists of the RLR pathway J Virol 90 2015 2372 2387 26676770 10.1128/JVI.02202-15 PMC4810700

40 Tigabu B Rasmussen L White EL A BSL-4 high-throughput screen identifies sulfonamide inhibitors of Nipah virus Assay Drug Dev Technol 12 2014 155 161 24735442 10.1089/adt.2013.567 PMC3994909

41 Sen N Kanitkar TR Roy AA Predicting and designing therapeutics against the Nipah virus PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13 2019 e0007419 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007419 PMC6907750 31830030

42 Porotto M Orefice G Yokoyama CC Simulating henipavirus multicycle replication in a screening assay leads to identification of a promising candidate for therapy J Virol 83 2009 5148 5155 19264786 10.1128/JVI.00164-09 PMC2682105

43 Tan CT Goh KJ Wong KT Relapsed and late-onset Nipah encephalitis Ann Neurol 51 2002 703 708 12112075 10.1002/ana.10212

44 Banerjee S Niyas VKM Soneja M First experience of ribavirin postexposure prophylaxis for Nipah virus, tried during the 2018 outbreak in Kerala, India J Infect 78 2019 491 503 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.03.005 30851290

45 Times of India Ribavirin effective in treating Nipah, say Pune scientists https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ribavirin-effective-in-treating-nipah-say-pune-scientists/articleshow/64456461.cms 2018

46 Bonaparte MI Dimitrov AS Bossart KN Ephrin-B2 ligand is a functional receptor for Hendra virus and Nipah virus Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 2005 10652 10657 15998730 10.1073/pnas.0504887102 PMC1169237

47 Bossart KN Geisbert TW Feldmann H A neutralizing human monoclonal antibody protects african green monkeys from hendra virus challenge Sci Transl Med 3 2011 105ra3 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002901 PMC3313625 22013123

48 Bossart KN Zhu Z Middleton D A neutralizing human monoclonal antibody protects against lethal disease in a new ferret model of acute nipah virus infection PLoS Pathog 5 2009 e1000642 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000642 PMC2765826 19888339

49 Geisbert TW Mire CE Geisbert JB Therapeutic treatment of Nipah virus infection in nonhuman primates with a neutralizing human monoclonal antibody Sci Transl Med 6 2014 242ra82 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008929 PMC4467163 24964990

50 Playford EG Munro T Mahler SM Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a human monoclonal antibody targeting the G glycoprotein of henipaviruses in healthy adults: a first-in-human, randomised, controlled, phase 1 study Lancet Infect Dis 20 2020 445 454 32027842 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30634-6

51 Dang HV Chan YP Park YJ An antibody against the F glycoprotein inhibits Nipah and Hendra virus infections Nat Struct Mol Biol 26 2019 980 987 31570878 10.1038/s41594-019-0308-9 PMC6858553

52 Mire CE Chan YP Borisevich V A cross-reactive humanized monoclonal antibody targeting fusion glycoprotein function protects ferrets against lethal Nipah virus and Hendra virus infection J Infect Dis 221 suppl 4 2020 S471 S479 31686101 10.1093/infdis/jiz515 PMC7199785

53 Dong J Cross RW Doyle MP Potent henipavirus neutralization by antibodies recognizing diverse sites on Hendra and Nipah virus receptor binding protein Cell 183 2020 1536 50.e17 33306954 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.023 PMC7771633

54 Guillaume V Contamin H Loth P Antibody prophylaxis and therapy against Nipah virus infection in hamsters J Virol 80 2006 1972 1978 16439553 10.1128/JVI.80.4.1972-1978.2006 PMC1367164

55 WHO WHO target product profile for Nipah virus vaccine https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/Nipah_virus_vaccineTPP.pdf?ua=1 2017

56 Tamin A Harcourt BH Ksiazek TG Rollin PE Bellini WJ Rota PA Functional properties of the fusion and attachment glycoproteins of Nipah virus Virology 296 2002 190 200 12036330 10.1006/viro.2002.1418

57 Guillaume V Contamin H Loth P Nipah virus: vaccination and passive protection studies in a hamster model J Virol 78 2004 834 840 14694115 10.1128/JVI.78.2.834-840.2004 PMC368848

58 Weingartl HM Berhane Y Caswell JL Recombinant Nipah virus vaccines protect pigs against challenge J Virol 80 2006 7929 7938 16873250 10.1128/JVI.00263-06 PMC1563797

59 Tamin A Harcourt BH Lo MK Development of a neutralization assay for Nipah virus using pseudotype particles J Virol Methods 160 2009 1 6 19559943 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.02.025 PMC2704486

60 Defang GN Khetawat D Broder CC Quinnan GV Jr Induction of neutralizing antibodies to Hendra and Nipah glycoproteins using a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus in vivo expression system Vaccine 29 2010 212 220 21050901 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.10.053 PMC3032421

61 Chattopadhyay A Rose JK Complementing defective viruses that express separate paramyxovirus glycoproteins provide a new vaccine vector approach J Virol 85 2011 2004 2011 21177820 10.1128/JVI.01852-10 PMC3067786

62 Kong D Wen Z Su H Newcastle disease virus-vectored Nipah encephalitis vaccines induce B and T cell responses in mice and long-lasting neutralizing antibodies in pigs Virology 432 2012 327 335 22726244 10.1016/j.virol.2012.06.001

63 Mire CE Versteeg KM Cross RW Single injection recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccines protect ferrets against lethal Nipah virus disease Virol J 10 2013 e353 10.1186/1743-422X-10-353 PMC3878732 24330654

64 Ploquin A Szecsi J Mathieu C Protection against henipavirus infection by use of recombinant adeno-associated virus–vector vaccines J Infect Dis 207 2013 469 478 23175762 10.1093/infdis/jis699 PMC7107322

65 Yoneda M Georges-Courbot MC Ikeda F Recombinant measles virus vaccine expressing the Nipah virus glycoprotein protects against lethal Nipah virus challenge PLoS One 8 2013 e58414 10.1371/journal.pone.0058414 PMC3597623 23516477

66 DeBuysscher BL Scott D Marzi A Prescott J Feldmann H Single-dose live-attenuated Nipah virus vaccines confer complete protection by eliciting antibodies directed against surface glycoproteins Vaccine 32 2014 2637 2644 24631094 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.02.087 PMC4829066

67 Lo MK Bird BH Chattopadhyay A Single-dose replication-defective VSV-based Nipah virus vaccines provide protection from lethal challenge in Syrian hamsters Antiviral Res 101 2014 26 29 24184127 10.1016/j.antiviral.2013.10.012 PMC3874889

68 Kurup D Wirblich C Feldmann H Marzi A Schnell MJ Rhabdovirus-based vaccine platforms against henipaviruses J Virol 89 2015 144 154 25320306 10.1128/JVI.02308-14 PMC4301098

69 Prescott J DeBuysscher BL Feldmann F Single-dose live-attenuated vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine protects African green monkeys from Nipah virus disease Vaccine 33 2015 2823 2829 25865472 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.089 PMC4433813

70 DeBuysscher BL Scott D Thomas T Feldmann H Prescott J Peri-exposure protection against Nipah virus disease using a single-dose recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine NPJ Vaccines 1 2016 16002 10.1038/npjvaccines.2016.2 PMC5505655 28706736

71 Guillaume-Vasselin V Lemaitre L Dhondt KP Protection from Hendra virus infection with canarypox recombinant vaccine NPJ Vaccines 1 2016 16003 10.1038/npjvaccines.2016.3 PMC5707888 29263849

72 van den Pol AN Mao G Chattopadhyay A Rose JK Davis JN Chikungunya, influenza, Nipah, and Semliki Forest chimeric viruses with vesicular stomatitis virus: actions in the brain J Virol 91 2017 e02154 e02160 28077641 10.1128/JVI.02154-16 PMC5331823

73 Keshwara R Shiels T Postnikova E Rabies-based vaccine induces potent immune responses against Nipah virus NPJ Vaccines 4 2019 15 31016033 10.1038/s41541-019-0109-5 PMC6465360

74 Mire CE Geisbert JB Agans KN Use of single-injection recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine to protect nonhuman primates against lethal Nipah virus disease Emerg Infect Dis 25 2019 1144 1152 31107231 10.3201/eid2506.181620 PMC6537706

75 van Doremalen N Lambe T Sebastian S A single-dose ChAdOx1-vectored vaccine provides complete protection against Nipah Bangladesh and Malaysia in Syrian golden hamsters PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13 2019 e0007462 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007462 PMC6581282 31170144

76 Kalodimou G Veit S Jany S A soluble version of Nipah virus glycoprotein G delivered by vaccinia virus MVA activates specific CD8 and CD4 T Cells in mice Viruses 12 2019 26 31878180 10.3390/v12010026 PMC7019319

77 Shuai L Ge J Wen Z Wang J Wang X Bu Z Immune responses in mice and pigs after oral vaccination with rabies virus vectored Nipah disease vaccines Vet Microbiol 241 2020 108549 10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108549 31928698

78 Pedrera M Macchi F McLean RK Bovine herpesvirus-4-vectored delivery of Nipah virus glycoproteins enhances T cell immunogenicity in pigs Vaccines 8 2020 115 32131403 10.3390/vaccines8010115 PMC7157636

79 Mungall BA Middleton D Crameri G Feline model of acute Nipah virus infection and protection with a soluble glycoprotein-based subunit vaccine J Virol 80 2006 12293 12302 17005664 10.1128/JVI.01619-06 PMC1676295

80 McEachern JA Bingham J Crameri G A recombinant subunit vaccine formulation protects against lethal Nipah virus challenge in cats Vaccine 26 2008 3842 3852 18556094 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.05.016 PMC6186147

81 Chan YP Lu M Dutta S Biochemical, conformational, and immunogenic analysis of soluble trimeric forms of henipavirus fusion glycoproteins J Virol 86 2012 11457 11471 22915804 10.1128/JVI.01318-12 PMC3486283

82 Bossart KN Rockx B Feldmann F A Hendra virus G glycoprotein subunit vaccine protects African green monkeys from Nipah virus challenge Sci Transl Med 4 2012 146ra07 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004241 PMC3516289 22875827

83 Pallister JA Klein R Arkinstall R Vaccination of ferrets with a recombinant G glycoprotein subunit vaccine provides protection against Nipah virus disease for over 12 months Virol J 10 2013 e237 10.1186/1743-422X-10-237 PMC3718761 23867060

84 Mire CE Geisbert JB Agans KN A recombinant Hendra virus G glycoprotein subunit vaccine protects nonhuman primates against Hendra virus challenge J Virol 88 2014 4624 4631 24522928 10.1128/JVI.00005-14 PMC3993805

85 Middleton D Pallister J Klein R Hendra virus vaccine, a one health approach to protecting horse, human, and environmental health Emerg Infect Dis 20 2014 372 379 24572697 10.3201/eid2003.131159 PMC3944873

86 Tan R Hodge A Klein R Virus-neutralising antibody responses in horses following vaccination with Equivac(R) HeV: a field study Aust Vet J 96 2018 161 166 29691855 10.1111/avj.12694

87 Pickering BS Hardham JM Smith G Protection against henipaviruses in swine requires both, cell-mediated and humoral immune response Vaccine 34 2016 4777 4786 27544586 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.08.028 PMC6161494

88 Pallister J Middleton D Wang LF A recombinant Hendra virus G glycoprotein-based subunit vaccine protects ferrets from lethal Hendra virus challenge Vaccine 29 2011 5623 5630 21689706 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.015 PMC3153950

89 Loomis RJ Stewart-Jones GBE Tsybovsky Y Structure-based design of Nipah virus vaccines: a generalizable approach to paramyxovirus immunogen development Front Immunol 11 2020 842 32595632 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00842 PMC7300195

90 Li Y Li R Wang M Fc-based recombinant henipavirus vaccines elicit broad neutralizing antibody responses in mice Viruses 12 2020 480 32340278 10.3390/v12040480 PMC7232446

91 Geisbert TW Bobb K Borisevich V A single dose investigational subunit vaccine for human use against Nipah virus and Hendra virus NPJ Vaccines 6 2021 23 33558494 10.1038/s41541-021-00284-w PMC7870971

92 Walpita P Barr J Sherman M Basler CF Wang L Vaccine potential of Nipah virus-like particles PLoS One 6 2011 e18437 10.1371/journal.pone.0018437 PMC3071823 21494680

93 Walpita P Cong Y Jahrling PB A VLP-based vaccine provides complete protection against Nipah virus challenge following multiple-dose or single-dose vaccination schedules in a hamster model NPJ Vaccines 2 2017 21 29263876 10.1038/s41541-017-0023-7 PMC5627259

94 Schmidt R Beltzig LC Sawatsky B Generation of therapeutic antisera for emerging viral infections NPJ Vaccines 3 2018 42 30323953 10.1038/s41541-018-0082-4 PMC6173733

95 Stroh E Fischer K Schwaiger T Henipavirus-like particles induce a CD8 T cell response in C57BL/6 mice Vet Microbiol 237 2019 108405 10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108405 31561922

96 Wang XJ Hu S Ge JY Wang QH Qin LT Bu ZG [Study of fusion protein and attachment glycoprotein of Nipah virus expressed in recombinant baculovirus] Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao 22 2006 418 424 16755921 10.1016/S1872-2075(06)60038-1 PMC7148955

97 Wang X Ge J Hu S Efficacy of DNA immunization with F and G protein genes of Nipah virus Ann N Y Acad Sci 1081 2006 243 245 17135518 10.1196/annals.1373.029

98 Nie J Liu L Wang Q Nipah pseudovirus system enables evaluation of vaccines in vitro and in vivo using non-BSL-4 facilities Emerg Microbes Infect 8 2019 272 281 30866781 10.1080/22221751.2019.1571871 PMC6455126

99 Lo MK Spengler JR Welch SR Evaluation of a single-dose nucleoside-modified messenger RNA vaccine encoding Hendra virus-soluble glycoprotein against lethal Nipah virus challenge in Syrian hamsters J Infect Dis 221 suppl 4 2020 S493 S498 31751453 10.1093/infdis/jiz553 PMC7368163

100 Moderna Press releases. Moderna provides business update and announces three new development programs in infectious disease vaccines https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-provides-business-update-and-announces-three-new 2021

101 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations CEPI-funded Nipah virus vaccine candidate first to reach phase 1 clinical trial https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-funded-nipah-virus-vaccine-candidate-first-to-reach-phase-1-clinical-trial/ 2020

102 Jusu MO Glauser G Seward JF Rapid establishment of a cold chain capacity of –60°C or colder for the STRIVE Ebola vaccine trial during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone J Infect Dis 217 suppl 1 2018 S48 S55 29788339 10.1093/infdis/jix336 PMC6927859

103 NIH NIH RePORTER. Project details. Project 2 – Vanderbilt University https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9897483 2021

104 NIH NIH RePORTER. Project details. Advancement of vaccines and therapies for henipaviruses https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9897467 2021

105 NIH NIH RePORTER. Project details. Rapid development of vaccines for emerging viruses https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10273019 2021

106 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) The urgency of now https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CEPI_3.5_billion_investment_case_10032021.pdf 2021 10.1017/jme.2023.85 PMC10881267 37655558

107 Lurie N Saville M Hatchett R Halton J Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed N Engl J Med 382 2020 1969 1973 32227757 10.1056/NEJMp2005630

108 Clinical Trials Arena Eli Lilly's monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab value allows payer grace for Covid-19 https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/eli-lillys-monoclonal-antibody-bamlanivimab/#:~:text=Lilly%20will%20be%20supplying%20300%2C000,press%20release%20and%20CEO%20note 2020

109 Eli Lilly News release. Lilly announces 650,000 additional doses of neutralizing antibody bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) purchased by U.S. Government to treat COVID-19 https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lilly-announces-650000-additional-doses-neutralizing-antibody 2020

110 Johnson CY McGinley L Experimental drug given to Trump to treat covid-19 wins FDA clearance 2020 The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/experimental-drug-given-to-trump-to-treat-covid-19-wins-fda-clearance/

111 Statista The cost per jab of Covid-19 vaccine candidates https://www.statista.com/chart/23658/reported-cost-per-dose-of-covid-19-vaccines/ 2020

112 Lee VJ Yap J Cook AR Oseltamivir ring prophylaxis for containment of 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreaks N Engl J Med 362 2010 2166 2174 20558367 10.1056/NEJMoa0908482

113 Regeneron Press Release. Phase 3 prevention trial showed 81% reduced risk of symptomatic Sars-cov-2 infections with subcutaneous administration of Regen-cov™ (casirivimab with imdevimab) https://investor.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/phase-3-prevention-trial-showed-81-reduced-risk-symptomatic-sars 2021

114 Cohen MS Monoclonal antibodies to disrupt progression of early Covid-19 infection N Engl J Med 384 2021 289 291 33471984 10.1056/NEJMe2034495 PMC7844860

115 Wolf J Abzug MJ Wattier RL Initial guidance on use of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children and adolescents J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 10 2021 629 634 33388760 10.1093/jpids/piaa175 PMC7799019

116 Vaughan K Ozaltin A Mallow M The costs of delivering vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: findings from a systematic review Vaccine X 2 2019 100034 10.1016/j.jvacx.2019.100034 PMC6697256 31428741

117 Arunkumar G Chandni R Mourya DT Outbreak investigation of Nipah virus disease in Kerala, India, 2018 J Infect Dis 219 2019 1867 1878 30364984 10.1093/infdis/jiy612

118 Sahay RR Yadav PD Gupta N Experiential learnings from the Nipah virus outbreaks in Kerala towards containment of infectious public health emergencies in India Epidemiol Infect 148 2020 e90 32321607 10.1017/S0950268820000825 PMC7253795

119 Ma L Chen Z Guan W Chen Q Liu D Rapid and specific detection of all known Nipah virus strains' sequences with reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification Front Microbiol 10 2019 418 30915049 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00418 PMC6421284

120 Gurley ES Spiropoulou CF de Wit E Twenty years of Nipah virus research: where do we go from here? J Infect Dis 221 suppl 4 2020 S359 S362 32392321 10.1093/infdis/jiaa078 PMC7213572

121 Nikolay B Lipsitch M Rahman M Assessing the feasibility of Nipah vaccine efficacy trials based on previous outbreaks in Bangladesh medRxiv 2020 published online Dec 8. 10.1101/2020.12.06.20244871 (preprint). 34426025

122 US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated approval https://www.fda.gov/patients/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review/accelerated-approval 2018

123 European Medicines Agency Conditional marketing authorisation https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation 2021

124 US Food and Drug Administartion CDER drug and biologic accelerated approvals based on a surrogate endpoint. As of December 31, 2020 https://www.fda.gov/media/88907/download 2020

125 European Medicines Agency Ervebo https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/ervebo 2021

126 US Food and Drug Administration Animal rule approvals https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/animal-rule-approvals 2021

127 US Food and Drug Administration CDER drug and biologic animal rule approvals https://www.fda.gov/media/145827/download 2021

128 European Medicines Agency Zabdeno https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/zabdeno 2021

129 EMA Mvabea https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/mvabea 2021

130 Directorate General of Drug Administration (DGDA) https://www.dgda.gov.bd/ 2013

131 Central Drugs Standard Control Organization https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Home/ 2021

132 WHO Regulation and prequalification. Emergency use listing https://www.who.int/teams/regulation-prequalification/eul 2021

133 WHO WHO publishes emergency use listing procedure and roadmap to make new medical products more readily available during health emergencies https://www.who.int/news/item/09-01-2020-emergency-use-listing-procedure-and-roadmap-health-emergencies 2021

134 Wolf J Bruno S Eichberg M Applying lessons from the Ebola vaccine experience for SARS-CoV-2 and other epidemic pathogens NPJ Vaccines 5 2020 51 32566261 10.1038/s41541-020-0204-7 PMC7295741

135 Schrauf S Tschismarov R Tauber E Ramsauer K Current efforts in the development of vaccines for the prevention of Zika and Chikungunya virus infections Front Immunol 11 2020 592 32373111 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00592 PMC7179680

136 FDA Guidance for Industry Expedited programs for serious conditions – drugs and biologics https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Expedited-Programs-for-Serious-Conditions-Drugs-and-Biologics.pdf

137 Beasley DWC Brasel TL Comer JE First vaccine approval under the FDA Animal Rule NPJ vaccines 1 2016 16013 10.1038/npjvaccines.2016.13 PMC5707879 29263855

138 US Food and Drug Administartion Summary basis for regulatory action template for BioThrax https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170723023407/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM474886.pdf 2015

139 Snoy PJ Establishing efficacy of human products using animals: the US food and drug administration's “animal rule” Vet Pathol 47 2010 774 778 20551476 10.1177/0300985810372506

140 WHO Emergency use listing procedure. Version 13 https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/EUL-FINAL-13_12_2020.pdf December 2020

141 Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Guidance on strain changes in authorised COVID-19 vaccines https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-consortium-guidance-on-strain-changes-in-authorised-covid-19-vaccines/guidance-on-strain-changes-in-authorised-covid-19-vaccines 2021

142 US Food and Drug Administration Emergency use authorization for vaccines to prevent COVID-19. Guidance for industry. Document issued on Feb 22, 2021 https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download

143 European Medicines Agency Reflection paper on the regulatory requirements for vaccines intended to provide protection against variant strain(s) of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-regulatory-requirements-vaccines-intended-provide-protection-against-variant_en.pdf 2021

144 WHO Addenum to considerations for evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines for prequalification or emergency use listing considerations for evaluation of modified COVID-19 vaccines. Points to consider for manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines. Version 12. March, 2021 https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/Addendum_Evaluation_Modified_Covid-19%20Vaccine.pdf 2021

145 Wellcome Trust Low- and middle-income countries https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/low-and-middle-income-countries 2021

146 DMTC DMTC Annual Report 2020. MCM segment https://dmtc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MCM-Segment-DMTC_Annual-Report_2020.pdf 2020

147 Mahumud RA Sarker AR Sultana M Islam Z Khan J Morton A Distribution and determinants of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures in Bangladesh J Prev Med Public Health 50 2017 91 99 28372353 10.3961/jpmph.16.089 PMC5398340

148 WHO Out-of-pocket payments, user fees and catastrophic expenditure https://www.who.int/health_financing/topics/financial-protection/out-of-pocket-payments/en/

149 Crager SE Improving global access to new vaccines: intellectual property, technology transfer, and regulatory pathways Am J Public Health 108 2018 S414 S420 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302236 PMC4202949 25211753

150 Medecins Sans Frontieres Access Campaign Giving developing countries the best shot: an overview of vaccine access and R&D https://msfaccess.org/giving-developing-countries-best-shot-overview-vaccine-access-and-rd 2020

151 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations Why we exist https://cepi.net/about/whyweexist/ 2021

152 PATH The Meningitis Vaccine Project: a groundbreaking partnership https://www.path.org/articles/about-meningitis-vaccine-project/ 2015

153 Gilead Voluntary licensing agreements for remdesivir https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/voluntary-licensing-agreements-for-remdesivir 2021

154 WHO In the COVID-19 vaccine race, we either win together or lose together https://www.who.int/news/item/10-02-2021-in-the-covid-19-vaccine-race-we-either-win-together-or-lose-together Feb 10, 2021

Supplementary Material

Supplementary appendix

Acknowledgments

We thank Amol Chaudhari, Gabrielle Breugelmans, and Georges Thiry for reviewing the manuscript, and Julia Granerod for providing scientific writing support.

Contributors

RGR, NT, NGC, ACS, MLJ, DY, EM, and TTL contributed to conceptualidation of the study. RGR did the literature search for the vaccines section, NGC did the search for the small molecules section, and TTL did the search for the monoclonal antibodies section. RGR verified the data in the small molecules section, NGC verified the data in the monoclonal antibodies section, and TTL verified the data in the vaccines section. RGR, NGC, ACS, MLJ, DY, AH, EM, and TTL contributed to drafting of the manuscript. NT, MLJ, DY, and AH critically reviewed the scientific content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.