Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2020 Jul 2;14(7):e0008468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008468

The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis vaccines on population incidence

Epke A Le Rutte 1,2,3,*, Luc E Coffeng 1, Stefano Malvolti 4, Paul M Kaye 5, Sake J de Vlas 1
Editor: Angamuthu Selvapandiyan6
PMCID: PMC7363103  PMID: 32614857

Abstract

Human visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vaccines are currently under development and there is a need to understand their potential impact on population wide VL incidence. We implement four characteristics from different human VL vaccine candidates into two published VL transmission model variants to estimate the potential impact of these vaccine characteristics on population-wide anthroponotic VL incidence on the Indian subcontinent (ISC). The vaccines that are simulated in this study 1) reduce the infectiousness of infected individuals towards sand flies, 2) reduce risk of developing symptoms after infection, 3) reduce the risk of developing post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL), or 4) lead to the development of transient immunity. We also compare and combine a vaccine strategy with current interventions to identify their potential role in elimination of VL as a public health problem. We show that the first two simulated vaccine characteristics can greatly reduce VL incidence. For these vaccines, an approximate 60% vaccine efficacy would lead to achieving the ISC elimination target (<1 VL case per 10,000 population per year) within 10 years’ time in a moderately endemic setting when vaccinating 100% of the population. Vaccinating VL cases to prevent the development of PKDL is a promising tool to sustain the low incidence elimination target after regular interventions are halted. Vaccines triggering the development of transient immunity protecting against infection lead to the biggest reduction in VL incidence, but booster doses are required to achieve perduring impact. Even though vaccines are not yet available for implementation, their development should be pursued as their potential impact on transmission can be substantial, both in decreasing incidence at the population level as well as in sustaining the ISC elimination target when other interventions are halted.

Author summary

Vaccines for human visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are currently under development. In this study, we simulate VL transmission dynamics using mathematical models to explore the potential impact of vaccines on population-wide incidence. We show that some vaccines have high potential to reduce VL incidence, namely those that reduce the infectiousness of infected individuals to sand flies and those that reduce the chance of developing symptoms once infected. The effect of vaccines that lead to protection from infection is potentially the greatest, but depending on the duration of immunity, individuals would require booster doses to guarantee lifelong impact. Vaccines that prevent the development of post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis are a promising tool to sustain low VL incidence and prevent recrudescence of infection when regular interventions are halted. Our results strongly support the continued development of VL vaccines, as their potential impact on population incidence can be substantial.

Introduction

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL), also known as kala-azar, is a vector-borne neglected tropical disease. Infection occurs after successful transmission of the Leishmania protozoa through the bite of an infected female sand fly [1]. Most infected humans remain asymptomatic, and only a small proportion of about 1–10% develop clinical symptoms, resulting in death when left untreated [2,3]. Between 5% and 20% of treated VL cases develop a long-lasting skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). Recent studies have identified that individuals with PKDL are equally infectious towards sand flies as VL cases, making them an important reservoir of infection [4,5]. However, the contribution of asymptomatic individuals to transmission has not yet been defined [4,6]. After infection, a period of immunity follows, of which the duration remains debated.

Currently around 33,000–66,000 individuals develop symptomatic VL each year, mainly on the Indian subcontinent (ISC), Eastern Africa, the Mediterranean region, and Brazil, affecting the poorest of the poor [7,8]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and affected countries target for ‘elimination of VL as a public health problem by 2020’ on the ISC, where VL is considered to be solely anthroponotic. This target is defined as maintaining less than 1 VL case per 10,000 individuals per year at district level in Nepal, at subdistrict/block level in India, and at upazila level in Bangladesh [9]. In the rest of the world (e.g Africa, Europe, Brazil), where VL can also be zoonotic with the main reservoir of infection in dogs, the target is 100% detection and treatment of symptomatic cases [10]. Current strategies consist of diagnosis and treatment of VL cases, and vector control.

Vaccines already play an important role in the control of canine leishmaniasis, at the individual level they reduce the development of symptoms, reduce the parasite load in the blood, and reduce the risk of death [1113]. These vaccines have also proven to be effective at the population level by reducing Leishmania transmission, resulting in lower incidence in both dogs and humans [14,15]. The development of human VL vaccines has been on-going for decades and there are different vaccine candidates currently in trial, but none are yet available for implementation [16,17]. The promising results from experimental human VL vaccine trials, and by the practice of “leishmanization”, in which a healthy individual is artificially exposed to tissue scrapings derived from a cutaneous leishmaniasis patient, leading to disease prevention [6,16,1820], provide strong evidence for the scientific feasibility of an effective vaccine against human VL. Should an effective vaccine become available, it has been estimated to be cost-effective when used at large scale and in addition to ongoing diagnosis and treatment, without even accounting for its impact on transmission [19].

Mathematical transmission models are useful tools to gain insight into the effect of current and future interventions on VL incidence and the underlying transmission dynamics. Previous modelling studies that focused on VL transmission on the ISC presented two model variants; one in which only VL and PKDL cases contribute to transmission, and another in which also asymptomatic individuals contribute to transmission (~1% relative to VL cases). The models estimated that in most situations on the ISC, the target is likely to be met with current strategies but in high endemic settings and at a lower geographical scale, additional efforts are required. They also highlighted the risk of recrudescence of infection after achieving the low incidence target, when halting interventions. This is mainly due to individuals with PKDL and/or asymptomatic infection. Therefore, the studies emphasized the need for further research on the potential impact of preventive VL and PKDL strategies as a tool in reaching and sustaining VL elimination as a public health problem on the ISC [5,21,22]. Other studies stressed that 100% detection and treatment of cases in the rest of the world remains challenging and that prevention could be much more effective than case detection and treatment [23].

In this study, we implement multiple characteristics of potential human VL vaccines using the two variants of a deterministic VL transmission model [21] to estimate the potential impact of these vaccine characteristics on VL incidence and transmission dynamics during and after the achievement of the current elimination target. The vaccines that are simulated in this study 1) reduce the infectiousness of infected individuals towards the sand fly, 2) reduce the risk of developing symptoms after infection, 3) reduce the risk of development of PKDL, or 4) lead to the development of transient immunity to infection [2426]. We also compare and combine vaccine characteristics with current interventions to identify which vaccines could be most impactful in fighting this neglected tropical disease.

Methods

Overview of VL vaccine candidates and characteristics

Currently there are various VL vaccine candidates under study [27]: LEISH-F3+GLA-SE [28,29], and ChAd63-KH (ISRCTN07766359) [30] are currently in clinical development; Ad5-A2/rA2 Prime / Boost [31], genetically modified live attenuated whole parasites [25,26,32], and a LmCen-/- vaccine [33] are being developed for the clinic [34].

These vaccines have different physical and immunological properties, and could be used in either prophylactic or therapeutic settings, but their impact following infected sand fly bite in humans has yet to be evaluated. Table 1 summarizes different potential vaccine outcome measures (herein called characteristics) that were selected for simulation in this study. Vaccine characteristic 1 is separated into 1a) asymptomatic individuals and 1b) all infected individuals, because it is suggested that only individuals with asymptomatic infection may be affected by the vaccine and that once an individual develops symptoms there are no differences in infectiveness (1a). However, since this is not yet well established, we also include the option where all infected individuals become less infective, as a result of the vaccine (1b).

Table 1. Human VL vaccine characteristics.

Number Vaccine characteristic
1a Reduced infectivity of asymptomatic individuals
1b Reduced infectivity of all infected individuals
2 Reduced risk of developing symptoms
3 Reduced risk of developing PKDL
4 Development of transient immunity protecting against infection

Transmission models and simulation of existing interventions

Fig 1 illustrates the basic structure of the VL transmission model, which is a deterministic age-structured model. There are two model variants, that only differ based on assumptions about where the main reservoir of infection lies; namely, solely in symptomatic individuals (VL and PKDL), or mainly in asymptomatic individuals [21,35,36]. The models were parameterized with age-structured data on approximately 21,000 individuals included in the KalaNet bednet trial in India and Nepal [37] and have undergone geographical cross-validation against data on >5000 VL cases from 8 endemic districts in Bihar collected by CARE India [38] (see [36] for full model code and descriptions, and sensitivity analyses). Recent outcomes from xenodiagnosis studies have been incorporated, indicating that those with PKDL are on average nearly as infectious as those with VL (0.9:1.0) [4,5].

Fig 1. Schematic presentation of the model variant in which asymptomatic individuals contribute to transmission, with numbers related to different types of vaccine characteristics that are implemented in the models.

Fig 1

In the alternative model variant, asymptomatic individuals are assumed not to be infectious towards to sand fly, with infection pressure only coming from symptomatic individuals with VL (with and without treatment) and PKDL. Once a susceptible individual is infected by an infectious sand fly, they become early asymptomatic for an average duration of about 200 days, which is followed by the late asymptomatic stage (average duration of 69 days). The average infectivity of both asymptomatic stages together is 0 in the model in which they do not contribute and ~1.5% relative to VL in the model in which they contribute to transmission. 1.4% of late asymptomatic individuals develops VL, and without active case detection, the duration between onset of symptoms and start of treatment lasts on average 40 days, followed by 1-day treatment 1 and potentially 28-day treatment 2 or death if left untreated. The average duration of the putatively recovered stage is 21 months and 5% of these individuals develop PKDL which lasts 5 years on average. The infectivity of PKDL is 90%, relative to VL. The rest recovers to the early recovered stage (average duration of 74 days), followed by the late recovered stage (average duration of 2 years), which can be interpreted as the duration of immunity. The numbers in the red boxes relate to the numbers in the first column of Table 1 and represent the following vaccine characteristics; 1a) early and late asymptomatic individuals become half as infectious, 1b) all infection states become half as infectious, 2) vaccinated individuals are 50% less likely to develop symptoms, 3) vaccinated individuals are 50% less likely to develop PKDL, and 4) vaccinated individuals develop transient immunity against infection.

Interventions of which the effects have previously been modelled are vector control through indoor-residual spraying of insecticide (IRS) and active case detection (ACD). The guidelines, as developed by WHO, recommend a 5-year attack phase (intense IRS and ACD) followed by 5 years of consolidation phase (IRS and intense ACD). In our models, IRS leads to a decrease in sand fly density and ACD shortens the duration of the symptomatic untreated stage.

Implementation and simulation of four vaccine characteristics

Vaccine characteristic 1 is simulated by a reduction in infectiousness of infectious states towards the sand fly. For vaccine characteristics 2 and 3, the respective flow towards clinical VL and PKDL is reduced. With vaccine characteristic 4, we selected 100% development of transient immunity after having received the vaccine and experimented with vaccinating 100% and 50% of the population. The duration of immunity after vaccination is assumed to be to 2 years, which is similar to the assumed duration of immunity after natural infection in our model of which sensitivity analyses are presented in previous work [36].

For the simulations of vaccine characteristics, we assume that they apply to everyone involved, i.e. all ages and sexes. No specific target populations are simulated, besides for vaccine characteristic 3, which is only administered to those that have developed VL. For vaccine characteristics 1–3, we assume an arbitrary 50% reduction of the infectiousness as well as a 50% reduction of the proportions of individuals that develop VL and PKDL, all in combination with a 100% vaccination coverage. We also calculate the percentage of vaccine effectiveness required to achieve the VL elimination target incidence of 1/10,000/year within 10 years of starting the intervention, which could aid in defining a vaccine target product profile (TPP). We assume that the vaccine characteristics are in place constantly from the start of the intervention, except for vaccine characteristic 4, where we experiment with simulating a single vaccination round and repeated yearly vaccination rounds. For all four vaccine characteristics, we separately simulate and compare their impact on VL incidence over time, even though it is likely that one vaccine will possess multiple characteristics. The cumulative effects of some vaccine characteristics are simulated indirectly, as reducing the development of VL will lead to a decrease in the overall development of PKDL. Previous work has shown that when current existing interventions have led to the 1/10,000/year target, there are many susceptible individuals and the infection pressure comes mainly from PKDL cases (when assuming the infection pressure originates from symptomatic individuals only) [21]. To address this, we also combine vaccine characteristic 3, vaccination of VL cases to prevent the development of PKDL, with the current interventions recommended by WHO.

Results

The impact of each of the four vaccine characteristics on VL incidence is illustrated in Fig 2. A vaccine that reduces infectivity of asymptomatic individuals by 50% (1a) leads to achievement of the target of less than 1 VL case per 10,000 population per year in about 11 years. When all infected individuals have a reduced infectiousness of 50% (1b), the decline is steeper, achieving elimination in around 4 years if asymptomatics are the main reservoir of infection and 11 years when infection is only coming from those with VL and PKDL. Halving the chance of developing symptoms (2) also has a considerable impact on transmission, especially if only symptomatic individuals are infective after which elimination takes about 10 years. However, if most infection pressure arises from asymptomatic individuals, the impact of halving the development of symptoms will lead to achieving the elimination target only after about 19 years, when used as a stand-alone tool. A 50% reduction in the development of PKDL (3), after which not 5% (default) but only 2.5% of past VL cases develop PKDL, has the smallest impact on transmission. As expected with this characteristic, the relatively larger impact is seen when only those with VL and PKDL contribute to transmission, and thus when PKDL plays a more prominent role in the transmission dynamics. Of all vaccine characteristics, the development of immunity that protects against infection (as seen in late recovered cases) of the population causes the most rapid decrease in incidence (4), since the pool of susceptible individuals is completely removed at once (with the assumption of 100% coverage as used in the model). We additionally explored the effect of vaccinating half the population and repeating this yearly for 5 years in a row (5 x 50%), showing that regular vaccinations are required to sustain the impact and move towards the low incidence elimination target.

Fig 2. The impact of different vaccine characteristics on VL incidence using model variants with and without asymptomatics contributing to transmission in a setting with a pre-control endemicity of 5/10,000/year.

Fig 2

Vaccine characteristics are in place continuously from year 0 onwards, unless for vaccine characteristic 4, which is administered once (1 x 100%), or yearly for five years in a row (5 x 50%). The different vaccine characteristics that are also explained in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig 1, are; 1a) early and late asymptomatic individuals become half as infectious, 1b) all infection states become half as infectious, 2) vaccinated individuals are 50% less likely to develop symptoms, 3) vaccinated individuals are 50% less likely to develop PKDL, and 4) vaccinated individuals become immediately immune. The black dashed line represents the WHO elimination target of 1/10,000/year. The oscillations in VL incidence are a result of seasonality in the sand fly density.

The minimum vaccine effect required for each vaccine characteristic to achieve the VL elimination target incidence of 1/10,000/year within 10 years of starting the intervention is presented in Table 2. The vaccine characteristics that impact the development of VL and PKDL (2 and 3) obviously have a bigger impact in the model in which only VL and PKDL contribute to transmission.

Table 2. Minimum required effect of the vaccine characteristics to reach a VL elimination target incidence of 1/10,000/year within 10 years’ time after starting the intervention, when vaccinating 100% of the population in a setting with a 5/10,000/year pre-control incidence.

Model variant
Vaccine characteristic Only VL and PKDL contribute to transmission Asymptomatics are main contributors to transmission
1a) required reduction in infectivity of asymptomatic individuals N/A 35%
1b) required reduction in infectivity of all infected individuals 60% 37%
2) required reduction in the development of symptoms 56% 68%
3) required amount of time to reach the elimination target when preventing the development of PKDL completely 11 years >20 years
4) required minimum number of rounds when vaccinating 50% of the susceptible individuals yearly with 100% vaccine efficacy 14 rounds 5 rounds

Vaccine characteristic 3, after which vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop PKDL, displayed the least impact when used as a stand-alone tool. Fig 3 shows the impact on VL incidence of a decrease in the development of PKDL of 50% and 100%, combined with the current interventions for a setting with a pre-control endemicity level of 5/10,000/year. The red line represents the default scenario in which the current interventions (active case detection and vector control) are in place during the WHO attack phase (year 0–5) and the WHO consolidation phase (year 5–10), without the presence of a vaccine. Further details on the impact of current interventions on VL incidence on the ISC as predicted by these models can be found in Le Rutte et al., 2018 [21]. After halting all interventions at year 10, the situation will slowly return to the pre-control equilibrium of 5/10,000/year, because of the remaining VL incidence in year 10 in all scenarios. In the two scenarios with the PKDL vaccine (green and blue lines) a new, much lower, equilibrium will be reached after regular interventions are halted. For the vaccine with a 50% efficacy (50% decrease in PKDL development of vaccinated VL cases) the target of 1/10,000/year will be reached as simulated by the model in which only VL and PKDL contribute to transmission. When assuming an effect of 100% protection from developing PKDL, this model suggests that using only vaccine 3 could keep the incidence below 1/10,000/year, after all regular interventions have brought incidence down and are halted. However, in settings with a higher pre-control endemicity of 10/10,000/year, only the vaccine with 100% protection against development of PKDL will lead to the elimination target of VL after 15–20 years depending on the start year of the PKDL vaccine.

Fig 3. Strategies of combining vaccine effect 3 with the WHO attack and consolidation phase for a setting with a pre-control endemicity level of 5/10,000/year.

Fig 3

Top panels: vaccine effect with 100% protection against the development of PKDL, bottom panels: vaccine effect with 50% protection against the development of PKDL. The default strategy is visualized with the red line (top and bottom row identical), in which 5 years of attack phase are followed by 5 years of consolidation phase, after which interventions are halted in year 10. For the green line, the PKDL vaccine is introduced during the consolidation phase (year 5), which continues after the consolidation phase has ended at year 10. For the blue line, the PKDL vaccine is already introduced at the start of the attack phase (year 0), continues during the consolidation phase and is continued when regular interventions are halted in year 10. Left figures show the simulations for the model variant where solely symptomatic individuals contribute to transmission, whereas for the right figures asymptomatic individuals constitute the main reservoir of infection. The black dashed line represents the WHO VL incidence target of 1/10,000/year. The oscillations in VL incidence are a result of seasonality in the sand fly density.

Discussion

In this study, we present for the first time the potential impact of VL vaccines on transmission dynamics and population incidence on the Indian subcontinent (ISC). This impact looks very promising. We found that all simulated vaccine characteristics show potential in reducing population VL incidence, particularly those that reduce the infected individual’s infectiousness or reduce the chance of developing symptoms once infected. For these vaccines, an approximate 60% vaccine efficacy would lead to achieving the ISC elimination target (<1 VL case per 10,000 population per year) within 10 years’ time in a moderately endemic setting, assuming that the entire population is vaccinated and only VL and PKDL cases contribute to transmission. For the model variant in which asymptomatics are the main contributors to transmission, much lower vaccine efficacies of around 37% would be required when reducing the infectiousness; however, for the required reduction in the development of symptoms, a vaccine efficacy of nearly 70% was estimated. The vaccine that leads to immunity akin to that of late recovered cases shows the highest impact, but individuals would require regular booster vaccines to achieve and sustain the low incidence elimination target. Vaccinating VL cases to prevent the development of PKDL shows to be a promising tool to sustain the elimination target once reached, and prevent recrudescence of infection when regular interventions are halted. Those findings are of great importance in providing a factual base to the ongoing effort aimed at establishing a TPP for a VL vaccine.

A limitation to our study is the fact that we simulated vaccine characteristics rather simplistically by instantaneously altering the transition rates and applying this simultaneously to all individuals in the population. Ideally, vaccinated individuals should move to different, additional, compartments in the model, where they experience a different history of infection. In such a model, vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals would be living beside each other, both influencing the transmission dynamics differently, although the outcomes would likely only differ quantitatively with ours. Another limitation of our study is that we only present the results for a setting with a pre-control endemicity of 5 VL cases per 10,000 population per year, which we considered representative for endemic situations where vaccines would be most useful. In settings with a lower pre-control endemicity the elimination target would be achieved earlier; in settings with a higher pre-control endemicity, the vaccine characteristics would require a higher efficacy to achieve the same effect on VL incidence in the same amount of time.

We further decided to simulate the vaccine characteristics separately, while in reality most vaccines are expected to possess multiple characteristics. For example lowering the parasite load will likely lead to both decreased infectiousness as well as reduced development of symptoms, as is also seen in canine VL vaccines [12,13]. However, by combining them it would be less clear to what extent different characteristics would drive the total impact of a vaccine. For the vaccine that causes vaccinated individuals to develop transient immunity against infection, it is important to note that the impact on VL incidence, as well as the required number of booster vaccines, highly depends on the duration of acquired immunity, which was assumed to be two years on average in our models similar to what we used in previous work [36]. The longer the duration of acquired immunity, the bigger the impact on VL incidence and the lower the frequency of required booster vaccines. We also assume that for all vaccine characteristics the efficacy is 50%. Even though this is a generalization and in reality it is likely different for each characteristic, this approach allows us to compare the impact of the different vaccine characteristics. In this study we simulate transmission between humans and sand flies, which is currently considered to reflect the transmission dynamics of VL on the ISC. However, would a considerable contribution to transmission come from an animal reservoir, vertical transmission as seen in dogs, and/or the presence of those with HIV-VL co-infection, the potential impact of vaccines could increase [13,3941].

A typical aspect of the deterministic model that we use is that all durations of states are exponentially distributed, which often does not reflect the actual distributions of durations as found in nature. The slow recrudescence of infection between year 10 and 20 is another phenomenon of the deterministic model, where prevalences can never become completely zero, but in reality the disease will either die out or come back, and if it comes back, most likely it will progress somewhat faster. Around the elimination target when numbers of infected cases become very low, the role of chance increases and a stochastic transmission model would be required to analyse the risks of recrudescence or the chance of achieving (local) elimination of transmission.

We acknowledge that some of the assumptions chosen for the simulation are not fully reflective of the reality of implemented immunization programs. Firstly, our choice of 100% coverage certainly is an overestimation of what can be realistically achieved. For example, coverage for the 1st dose of measles-containing vaccines was on average 73% in the AFRO region, and the human papilloma virus vaccination had an average coverage of 88% when pooling regions and income levels [42,43]. However, this assumption allowed us to evaluate the maximum impact and to do such an evaluation independently from the constraints of delivery strategy. Also, having chosen another coverage level would not alter our outcomes when comparing the impact of the different characteristics. With a lower coverage, the durations until elimination as a public health problem would be longer and the minimum required efficacies would be higher. Secondly, and in particular at the start of vaccination programs, a catch up campaign is usually implemented to quickly reduce the susceptible population, focusing on the population that is at highest risk (i.e. for leishmaniasis, children and young adults or migrant workers [44]). Such programmatic design considerations are not considered in the current model and will need to be investigated with more complex individual-based transmission models. Lastly, 5-year protection is most likely going to be the minimum requirement to allow for a widespread roll-out in routine immunization. Shorter durations requiring a very frequent administration of booster doses might prove programmatically and financially unsustainable. Nevertheless, from an impact assessment standpoint the results generated with the more conservative assumptions of the current model have clear significance for understanding the relative importance of different vaccine characteristics.

Vaccines have proven to be vital tools in the control and prevention of diseases [45,46]. This study reveals that a VL vaccine strategy could also prove an important tool in the fight against this neglected tropical disease. We focussed on the anthroponotic transmission dynamics of VL on the Indian subcontinent, but also in the rest of the world VL vaccines are likely to surpass their impact at the patient level by reducing the infection pressure, positively impacting the estimated 6 million people at risk of VL globally [47].

In conclusion, even though VL vaccines are not yet available for implementation, our results strongly support their continued development, given the potentially substantive impact on transmission, decreasing incidence at the population level, and sustaining the low incidence elimination target on the ISC when other interventions are relaxed. More details of the impact of different vaccines characteristics on the history of infection are awaited to further our understanding and modelling of the impact of VL vaccines on VL transmission dynamics and disease incidence.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for having had the opportunity to learn from the insights and tremendous expertise of Professor Farrokh Modabber while discussing this work. We would also like to thank the organizers and attendees of the VL vaccine expert meeting in Rockville, USA, in September 2015 at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where the idea for this study sparked.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

EALR, LEC, and SJDV gratefully acknowledge funding of the NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1184344). LEC further acknowledges funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO, grant 016.Veni.178.023). PMK and SM are supported by The Welcome Trust (grant numbers WT108518 and WT1063203). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO SEARO. WHO | Leishmaniasis fact sheet. 2019 [cited 1 Oct 2019]. Available: http://www.searo.who.int/entity/vector_borne_tropical_diseases/data/FactSheetVL.pdf
  • 2.Ostyn B, Gidwani K, Khanal B, Picado A, Chappuis F, Singh SP, et al. Incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic Leishmania donovani infections in High-Endemic foci in India and Nepal: A prospective study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5: 1–7. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Le Rutte EA, Coffeng LE, Bontje DM, Hasker EC, Ruiz Postigo JA, Argaw D, et al. Feasibility of eliminating visceral leishmaniasis from the Indian subcontinent: Explorations with a set of deterministic age-structured transmission models Quantitative analysis of strategies to achieve the 2020 goals for neglected tropical diseases: Wher. Parasites and Vectors. 2016;9 10.1186/s13071-016-1292-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mondal D, Bern C, Ghosh D, Rashid M, Molina R, Chowdhury R, et al. Quantifying the Infectiousness of Post-Kala-Azar Dermal Leishmaniasis Toward Sand Flies. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69: 251–258. 10.1093/cid/ciy891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Le Rutte EA, Zijlstra EE, de Vlas SJ. Post-Kala-Azar Dermal Leishmaniasis as a Reservoir for Visceral Leishmaniasis Transmission. Trends Parasitol. 2019;35: 590–592. 10.1016/j.pt.2019.06.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nagill R, Kaur S. Vaccine candidates for leishmaniasis: A review. Int Immunopharmacol. 2011. 10.1016/j.intimp.2011.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. Leishmaniasis Fact sheet. 2018. [cited 20 Dec 2018]. Available: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/leishmaniasis [Google Scholar]
  • 8.James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392: 1789–1858. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia. Process of validation of elimination of kala-azar SEARO. 2016. Available: https://www.who.int/leishmaniasis/resources/Process_of_validation_of_VL_elimination_SEA_CD_321.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
  • 10.World Health Organisation. Integrating Neglected Tropical Diseases into global health and development. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Trigo J, Abbehusen M, Netto EM, Nakatani M, Pedral G, Jesus RS De, et al. Treatment of canine visceral leishmaniasis by the vaccine Leish-111f+MPL-SE Joelma. 2011;28: 3333–3340. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.089.Treatment [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Palatnik-de-Sousa CB. Vaccines for Canine Leishmaniasis. Front Immunol. 2012;3 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Toepp A, Larson M, Wilson G, Grinnage-Pulley T, Bennett C, Leal-Lima A, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blinded field trial to assess Leishmania vaccine effectiveness as immunotherapy for canine leishmaniosis. Vaccine. 2018;36: 6433–6441. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kumar R, Engwerda C. Vaccines to prevent leishmaniasis. Clin Transl Immunol. 2014;3: e13 10.1038/cti.2014.4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jain K, Jain NK. Vaccines for visceral leishmaniasis: A review. J Immunol Methods. 2015;422: 1–12. 10.1016/j.jim.2015.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jain K, Jain NK. Vaccines for visceral leishmaniasis: A review. J Immunol Methods. 2015. 10.1016/j.jim.2015.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Modabber F. Leishmaniasis vaccines: past, present and future. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;36: S58–S61. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2010.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chappuis F, Sundar S, Hailu A, Ghalib H, Rijal S, Peeling RW, et al. Visceral leishmaniasis: what are the needs for diagnosis, treatment and control? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007/10/17. 2007;5: 873–882. 10.1038/nrmicro1748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lee BY, Bacon KM, Shah M, Kitchen SB, Connor DL, Slayton RB. The Economic Value of a Visceral Leishmaniasis Vaccine in Bihar State, India. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.10-0415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Khamesipour A, Dowlati Y, Asilian A, Hashemi-Fesharki R, Javadi A, Noazin S, et al. Leishmanization: Use of an old method for evaluation of candidate vaccines against leishmaniasis. Vaccine. 2005. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.02.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Le Rutte EA, Chapman LAC, Coffeng LE, Ruiz-Postigo JA, Olliaro PL, Adams ER, et al. Policy Recommendations From Transmission Modeling for the Elimination of Visceral Leishmaniasis in the Indian Subcontinent. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66: S301–S308. 10.1093/cid/ciy007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sundar S, Singh OP, Chakravarty J. Visceral leishmaniasis elimination targets in India, strategies for preventing resurgence. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16: 805–812. 10.1080/14787210.2018.1532790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Boelaert M, Criel B, Leeuwenburg J, Van Damme W, Le Ray D, Van der Stuyft P. Visceral leishmaniasis control: a public health perspective. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000;94: 465–471. 10.1016/s0035-9203(00)90055-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oliveira F, Rowton E, Aslan H, Gomes R, Castrovinci PA, Alvarenga PH, et al. A sand fly salivary protein vaccine shows efficacy against vector-transmitted cutaneous leishmaniasis in nonhuman primates. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7: 290ra90 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa3043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zahedifard F, Gholami E, Taheri T, Taslimi Y, Doustdari F, Seyed N, et al. Enhanced Protective Efficacy of Nonpathogenic Recombinant Leishmania tarentolae Expressing Cysteine Proteinases Combined with a Sand Fly Salivary Antigen. McMahon-Pratt D, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2751 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dey R, Natarajan G, Bhattacharya P, Cummings H, Dagur PK, Terrazas C, et al. Characterization of Cross-Protection by Genetically Modified Live-Attenuated Leishmania donovani Parasites against Leishmania mexicana. J Immunol. 2014;193: 3513–3527. 10.4049/jimmunol.1303145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mo AX, Pesce J, Fenton Hall B. Meeting report: Visceral leishmaniasis control and elimination: Is there a role for vaccines in achieving regional and global goals? Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95: 514–521. 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Coler RN, Duthie MS, Hofmeyer KA, Guderian J, Jayashankar L, Vergara J, et al. From mouse to man: safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of a candidate leishmaniasis vaccine LEISH-F3+GLA-SE. Clin Transl Immunol. 2015. 10.1038/cti.2015.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Duthie MS, Pereira L, Favila M, Hofmeyer KA, Reed SJ, Metangmo S, et al. A defined subunit vaccine that protects against vector-borne visceral leishmaniasis. NPJ vaccines. 2017;2: 23 10.1038/s41541-017-0025-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Osman M, Mistry A, Keding A, Gabe R, Cook E, Forrester S, et al. A third generation vaccine for human visceral leishmaniasis and post kala azar dermal leishmaniasis: First-in-human trial of ChAd63-KH. McDowell MA, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005527 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Grimaldi G, Teva A, Porrozzi R, Pinto M a, Marchevsky RS, Rocha MGL, et al. Clinical and Parasitological Protection in a Leishmania infantum-Macaque Model Vaccinated with Adenovirus and the Recombinant A2 Antigen. Nakhasi HL, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2853 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ismail N, Kaul A, Bhattacharya P, Gannavaram S, Nakhasi HL. Immunization with Live Attenuated Leishmania donovani Centrin−/− Parasites Is Efficacious in Asymptomatic Infection. Front Immunol. 2017;8 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ismail N, Karmakar S, Bhattacharya P, Dey R, Nakhasi HL. Immunization with Leishmania major centrin knock-out (LmCen−/−) parasites induces skin resident memory T cells that plays a role in protection against wild type infection (LmWT). J Immunol. 2019;202: 196.29 LP–196.29. Available: http://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/1_Supplement/196.29.abstract [Google Scholar]
  • 34.G lobal Health Innovative Technology Fund. Live attenuated prophylactic vaccine for leishmaniasis—Investment Details. 2018. [cited 11 Nov 2019]. Available: https://www.ghitfund.org/investment/portfoliodetail/detail/135 10.3390/fishes3010005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Le Rutte EA, Coffeng LE, Bontje DM, Hasker EC, Ruiz Postigo JA, Argaw D, et al. Feasibility of eliminating visceral leishmaniasis from the Indian subcontinent: explorations with a set of deterministic age-structured transmission models. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9: 24 10.1186/s13071-016-1292-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Le Rutte EA, Chapman LAC, Coffeng LE, Jervis S, Hasker EC, Dwivedi S, et al. Elimination of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent: a comparison of predictions from three transmission models. Epidemics. 2017;18: 67–80. 10.1016/j.epidem.2017.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Picado A, Singh SP, Rijal S, Sundar S, Ostyn B, Chappuis F, et al. Longlasting insecticidal nets for prevention of Leishmania donovani infection in India and Nepal: paired cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2010;341: c6760 10.1136/bmj.c6760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jervis S, Chapman LAC, Dwivedi S, Karthick M, Das A, Le Rutte EA, et al. Variations in visceral leishmaniasis burden, mortality and the pathway to care within Bihar, India. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 601 10.1186/s13071-017-2530-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Burza S, Mahajan R, Sanz MG, Sunyoto T, Kumar R, Mitra G, et al. HIV and Visceral Leishmaniasis Coinfection in Bihar, India: An Underrecognized and Underdiagnosed Threat Against Elimination. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59: 552–555. 10.1093/cid/ciu333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Singh N, Mishra J, Singh R, Singh S. Animal reservoirs of visceral leishmaniasis in India. J Parasitol. 2012/07/07. 2013;99: 64–67. 10.1645/GE-3085.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Meinecke CK, Schottelius J, Oskam L, Fleischer B. Congenital Transmission of Visceral Leishmaniasis (Kala Azar) From an Asymptomatic Mother to Her Child. Pediatrics. 1999;104: e65–e65. 10.1542/peds.104.5.e65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bruni L, Diaz M, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Herrero R, Bray F, Bosch FX, et al. Global estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level: a pooled analysis. Lancet Glob Heal. 2016;4: e453–e463. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30099-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.WHO/UNICEF. Coverage estimates for AFRO region. 2018. Available: www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/en/
  • 44.Leta S, Dao THT, Mesele F, Alemayehu G. Visceral Leishmaniasis in Ethiopia: An Evolving Disease. Ghedin E, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e3131 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. In: 2008. 10.2471/blt.07.040089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Muller CP, Kremer JR, Best JM, Dourado I, Triki H, Reef S. Reducing global disease burden of measles and rubella: Report of the WHO Steering Committee on research related to measles and rubella vaccines and vaccination, 2005. Vaccine. 2007;25: 1–9. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.07.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.WHO Leishmaniasis in high-burden countries: an epidemiological update based on data reported in 2014. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2016; 285–296. 10.1186/1750-9378-2-15.Voir [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008468.r001

Decision Letter 0

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano, Angamuthu Selvapandiyan

5 May 2020

Dear Dr Le Rutte,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis vaccines on population incidence" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The article, entitled “The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vaccines on population incidence” by the authors Rutte et al brings courtesy to the ongoing VL elimination and the employment of VL transmission model to estimate the potential impact of vaccine characteristics on VL incidence and transmission dynamics during and after the achievement of the current elimination target. Overall, this is a well written manuscript and examines the current progress in vaccine against VL and its impact on VL incidence. There are still minor shortcoming brought out by the reviewers that the authors need to take care in the revised manuscript during their re-submission.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Angamuthu Selvapandiyan, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The article, entitled “The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis (VL) vaccines on population incidence” by the authors Rutte et al brings courtesy to the ongoing VL elimination and the employment of VL transmission model to estimate the potential impact of vaccine characteristics on VL incidence and transmission dynamics during and after the achievement of the current elimination target. Overall, this is a well written manuscript and examines the current progress in vaccine against VL and its impact on VL incidence. There are still minor shortcoming brought out by the reviewers that the authors need to take care in the revised manuscript during their re-submission.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: objectives well defined. Study design not applicatble as it is matehmetical simulation. Popluation cleraly defined to Indian endemic population. Sample size is not applicable. Authors have honestly described limiations in their moddeling assumptions so that helps readers. There are not ethical conserns in the study

Reviewer #3: The objectives of this paper are to explore the utility of vaccines with various characteristics for visceral leishmaniasis through mathematical compartmental model-based simulations. The results are applicable to areas where the disease is anthroponotic. Since this is simulation-based, a number of reasonable (yet restrictive, as noted by the authors) assumptions are made about the hypothetical population and the performance of the vaccine. This is an appropriate approach to study this problem to evaluate the potential effects of a vaccine.

The authors discuss the role that canine vaccines have played in lowering VL incidence in humans and canines. Although not cited, additional canine VL vaccine studies have been conducted in the United States, where the disease is enzootic in hunting hounds but not present in humans (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.087). The primary mode of transmission here is vertical, so this would be an interesting addition to the discussion on the importance of vaccines.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Results are clearly presented as per the typical simulation exercisise.

Reviewer #3: The results for the planned analysis are clearly presented; figures are helpful in communicating results.

It wasn't obvious to me if the code for running these simulations was available. If it is not, it would be helpful to some readers to have the code available. If it is available, perhaps its location can be made more obvious.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Conlusions support data presented as authors do show different implication in out put as per different assumptions and authors do discuss well the implications of their study to public health and and its public health impact.

Reviewer #3: All conclusions are supported by the simulations, and the limitations of the analysis are articulated clearly. The authors communicate the applicability of the simulation results and make a strong case for the utility of a VL vaccine on the Indian subcontinent.

In the limitations (line 339), the authors state, "...the role of chance increases and a stochastic IBM would be required..." While the need for a stochastic model, particularly in this setting, is apparent, it is not clear why it needs to be an individual based model. It would be helpful to clarify this point.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: authors can be requested to share their primary data so that other peers interesrted in mathematical moddeling.

Reviewer #3: 1. Pg. 2 Line 28: “… elimination of VL as a public health problem.”

2. Pg. 5 Line 91: “Should an effective vaccine…”

3. Pg. 15 Line 319: “… decided to simulate the vaccine…”

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The article by Rutte et al. entitled “The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis vaccines on population incidence” draws attention to the ongoing VL elimination program in India and implementation of VL transmission model to estimate the potential impact of vaccine characteristics on VL incidence and transmission dynamics during and after the achievement of the current elimination target. Overall, this manuscript is well written and discusses the current progress in VL vaccine and its impact on VL incidence. However, there are some issues that need to be revised in this current version of the manuscript, to justify the publication in this journal, as follows:

1) I am in complete agreement with the author's interpretation of the challenges and actions needed for sustainable VL elimination. They rightly point out the huge gap in knowledge concerning transmission and the reservoir and without this information it will be very difficult to go the last mile and reach sustainable elimination. Importantly, I am not sure about availability of any human vaccine in coming near future. Therefore, it would be interesting if mathematical modelling people provide some information about expected deadline of elimination using current tools (without vaccine).

2) The elimination of VL in South Asia has been qualified as elimination to a level where it is not a public health problem. Therefore this definition of elimination is quite different to the classical definition of elimination where there is no local transmission. This point should be made clear in the text as the approach after the elimination would be quite different in the 2 situations. In several places it seems they have not been able to keep this in mind.

3) Authors have clearly mentioned in the manuscript that contribution of asymptomatics to disease transmission has yet not been identified (line 68-69), however, they consider asymptomatic subjects as major contributor to transmission in the model variant (Table-2). It is therefore important here to justify the data with evidence.

4) Figure-1 is missing HIV-VL co infection subjects as reservoirs.

Reviewer #2: Some of the assumptions are too simplisting however authors can not be faulted as there biology and infectious epidemiology of VL is still have lots of gaps in current understanding. Overall as a reviewver i feels that authros have done good job in carryin out this work inspite of limited and scanty knowledge available.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rajan R Patil

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Attachment

Submitted filename: epke review.docx

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008468.r002

Decision Letter 1

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano, Angamuthu Selvapandiyan

10 Jun 2020

Dear Dr Le Rutte,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis vaccines on population incidence' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Angamuthu Selvapandiyan, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

The authors have addressed very well to the comments/suggestions raised by the reviewers and edited the manuscript accordingly.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008468.r003

Acceptance letter

Alvaro Acosta-Serrano, Angamuthu Selvapandiyan

24 Jun 2020

Dear Dr Le Rutte,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "The potential impact of human visceral leishmaniasis vaccines on population incidence," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: epke review.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES