Three of the awardees pose for a commemorative photo with key participants during the 2023 IVI – SK bioscience Park MahnHoon Award at IVI headquarters in Seoul, Korea on April 23. From left: SK bioscience CEO Jaeyong Ahn, H.E. FAILLA Federico, Italian Ambassador to Korea, IVI Director General Dr. Jerome Kim, Dr. Mariagrazia Pizza, Prof. Sarah Gilbert, Dr. Rino RAPPUOLI, Prof. Hong-lim Ryu, President of Seoul National University, Mr. WEIR Gareth, Head of the UK Mission to Korea.
Three of the awardees pose for a commemorative photo with key participants during the 2023 IVI – SK bioscience Park MahnHoon Award at IVI headquarters in Seoul, Korea on April 25. From left: SK bioscience CEO Jaeyong Ahn, H.E. Federico Failla, Italian Ambassador to Korea, IVI Director General Dr. Jerome Kim, Dr. Mariagrazia Pizza, Prof. Sarah Gilbert, Dr. Rino Rappuoli, Prof. Hong-lim Ryu, President of Seoul National University, Mr. Gareth Weir, Deputy Head of the UK Mission to Korea.
April 26, 2023 – SEOUL, Korea – The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) gave the 2023 IVI-SK bioscience Park MahnHoon Award to Drs. Rino Rappuoli and Mariagrazia Pizza as co-recipients for their development of new scientific approach to the development of all vaccines, and Profs. Sir Andrew Pollard and Dame Sarah Gilbert of Oxford University as co-recipients for their work on COVID-19 and other vaccines.
Joining the Award Ceremony, held on April 25, 2023, at IVI headquarters in Seoul were Drs. Rappuoli and Pizza and Prof. Gilbert, Seoul National University President Honglim Ryu, IVI Director General Dr. Jerome Kim, and SK bioscience CEO Mr. Jaeyong Ahn. Mr. George Bickerstaff, Chair of the IVI Board of Trustees, congratulated the awardees in a video speech, while Prof. Pollard shared a pre-recorded video message. The ceremony was followed by the Park MahnHoon Award Forum, which featured the four awardees’ lectures on their work and achievements to share experience and knowledge. The three participating awardees will visit the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency on April 26 to meet with KDCA Commissioner Dr. Youngmee Jee and convene a seminar with KDCA researchers.
Drs. Rappuoli and Pizza jointly pioneered a new more scientific approach to vaccine development – “reverse vaccinology.” Using this approach, they developed a Type B meningococcus vaccine, which has been shown to be highly efficacious and licensed in over 40 countries worldwide to protect infants aged under 1 year, children and adolescents against this devastating infection of the nervous system. Today, genome-based vaccine discovery and design is universally used for virtually all vaccines and is considered vital for pandemic preparedness. The technology is also the basis for vaccines which recently have been reported to contribute to the cure of cancer.
Dr. Rappuoli said, “It is a great honor and privilege to receive this award. The award recognizes the transition from classical vaccinology to the use of genomic information in vaccine discovery and design. The project was carried out in the late 1990s, the period that today we can consider the ’stone age of genomics.’ In addition to Dr. Pizza, the project involved collaboration with teams led by great scientists such as Craig Venter in the US, who decoded the sequence of meningococcus B genome, and Richard Moxon in the UK, who helped us understand the genomic information. I wish to thank them and their teams for making reverse vaccinology a reality.”
Dr. Pizza said, “I am very proud to receive this award, and I am truly grateful to the organizers and Award Selection Committee members for acknowledging Dr. Rappuoli and myself for this achievement. The new reverse vaccinology concept has been innovative also in the way of working, moving from the study of one vaccine antigen at time to hundred antigens identified ‘in silico,’ and the success of this adventure has only been possible because of the contribution of a great team of outstanding people. The real-world data indicate that our dream to prevent this devastating disease (Type B meningococcus) is becoming a reality.”
Prof. Sir Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Oxford, led the clinical development of the Oxford/AZ COVID-19 vaccine, one of the first and most widely administered vaccines in the fight against the pandemic. “It is a great honor for me personally, but this award is really for all of the amazing scientists and researchers at Oxford and around the world in the development of the vaccine — around 2,000 people in the development team,” Prof. Pollard said. “Perhaps it is even more for 25,000 members of the public who participated in the clinical development of this vaccine. When you look at public contribution to the development, and the vaccine really saved us in the pandemic, it is the greatest collective scientific endeavor of our generation.”
Prof. Dame Sarah Gilbert initiated the development of the AZ vaccine, a novel adenoviral vectored COVID vaccine that was developed an unprecedented speed. Prof. Gilbert said, “I am deeply grateful to receive this prestigious award, in recognition of my work to co-create a COVID-19 vaccine. This vaccine was produced as a result of an enormous effort by an exceptional team. Firstly, many of my colleagues at Oxford, who worked unceasingly to bring their scientific expertise and ingenuity to the most pressing global health challenge in a century. Secondly, our collaborators in Brazil and South Africa who joined our clinical trials partnership to such great effect. Thirdly, AstraZeneca, who with their network of vaccine manufacturers, committed to providing the vaccine on a non-profit basis to all countries during the pandemic, and to low-income countries for as long as it is needed. Having worked in the field of vaccinology it has been a great privilege to witness what can be achieved when a team of committed people share a common goal.”
“IVI is privileged to honor the four recipients of the second Park MahnHoon Award in recognition of their pivotal contributions to the development of crucial vaccines for global health,” said Dr. Jerome Kim, Director General of IVI. “As the world’s only international organization devoted to the development and delivery of vaccines for global public health, IVI will continue to identify and recognize vaccine pioneers and innovators to promote vaccine science, industry, and global health in collaboration with SK bioscience.”
SK bioscience President Jaeyong Ahn said, “We are delighted with the opportunity to acknowledge four great scientists for their contributions to the research, development and delivery of vaccines for global health again this year. Building upon the spirit of the late Vice Chairman Park MahnHoon, we will try our best to achieve the goal of improving the health of humanity.”
The IVI-SK bioscience Park MahnHoon Award annually honors up to two international individuals or organizations that made extraordinary contributions to the discovery, development and delivery of vaccines and advancement of global health. The award was launched in 2021 to commemorate the legacy of the late Vice Chairman Dr. Park MahnHoon of SK bioscience. SK bioscience contributes funding for two 100 million Korean won (approx. US$85,000) annual prizes to IVI for the awards.
# # #
About the International Vaccine Institute (IVI)
The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a non-profit international organization established in 1997 at the initiative of the United Nations Development Programme with a mission to discover, develop, and deliver safe, effective, and affordable vaccines for global health.
IVI’s current portfolio includes vaccines at all stages of pre-clinical and clinical development for infectious diseases that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, such as cholera, typhoid, chikungunya, shigella, salmonella, schistosomiasis, hepatitis E, HPV, COVID-19, and more. IVI developed the world’s first low-cost oral cholera vaccine, pre-qualified by the World Health Organization (WHO), and developed a new-generation typhoid conjugate vaccine that is currently under assessment for WHO PQ.
IVI is headquartered in Seoul, Republic of Korea with a Europe Regional Office in Sweden and Collaborating Centers in Ghana, Ethiopia, and Madagascar. 39 countries and the WHO are members of IVI, and the governments of the Republic of Korea, Sweden, India, and Finland provide state funding. For more information, please visit https://www.ivi.int.
Date:Tuesday, 29 November 2022
Objectives:
A total of 39 participants from Bangladesh, Malawi, Nepal, and Uganda participated in the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
The preparatory work outlined in Webinar 7 was to:
Session 15: Presentation of Formative Evidence Brief for Policy
The final Webinar/Session focused on the Presentation of Formative EBP. Participants from Bangladesh, Malawi, Nepal, and Uganda presented their EBP, with a peer review, and feedback and comments from the EVIPNet/K2P team. The session finished with reflections on the next steps, including the potential for scale-up.
Wrap-up and closing
Date:Thursday, 10 November2022
Objectives:
A total of 39 participants from Bangladesh, Malawi, Nepal, and Uganda participated in the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
The preparatory work outlined in Webinar 6 was to:
Feedback from country teams on preparatory work/progress to date:
Uganda, Malawi, Nepal briefly shared progress and EVIPNet/K2P team commented on the progress.
Webinar Session 13: Organizing a policy dialogue presented by EVIPNet-K2P Center, focusing on how policy dialogues influence the use of evidence in health policy and decision-making including:
Considerations for conducting policy dialogues, i.e., does the dialogue address a high priority issue? Does it provide opportunities to discuss/address the issue, and considerations for implementation? Is there fair representation among those involved in/affected by future decisions related to the issue? Are follow-up activities undertaken to support action?
Preparation for policy dialogues, i.e., informed by pre-circulated evidence on the policy issue.
Stakeholder selection, i.e., degree of involvement in/knowledge about the issue and relevant solutions; ability to constructively engage in discussions; ability to take forward recommended actions within respective constituencies; and the importance of the dialogue facilitator’s role.
Dialogue summary, i.e., tools to outline the results of the discussions during the policy dialogue; and post-dialogue summaries.
Session 14: Data visualization and role of media in policy-making
Group or individual work with support from EVIPNet/K2P
The webinar ended with Group work based upon Session 14.
Wrap-up and closing
The final Webinar (#8) will be a Simulation Meeting: Presentation of Formative EBP, with the objective:
To present the draft formative EBPs among countries teams (peer review)
To propose outreach strategies for EBPs
To reflect on next steps (including potential for scale up)
Preparatory work (prior to Webinar 8): To complete the formative EBP
Presentation slides are available here
Date:Thursday, 27 October 2022
Objectives:
A total of 42 participants from Bangladesh, Malawi, Nepal, and Uganda participated in the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
The preparatory work outlined in Webinar 5 was to:
Feedback from country teams on progress to date (10 minutes per team)
Uganda, Malawi, Nepal briefly shared progress and EVIPNet/K2P team commented on the progress.
Webinar 6 provided a ‘Refresher: from problem statement to policy options‘ on the content of Evidence-to-Policy Briefs (EBP) including the problem statement, options and elements, and implementation considerations; framing the problem, clarifying its underlying causes, the appropriate types of evidence to use in framing problems, and framing, developing, and expanding on the options/ elements to address the problem. The refresher session finished with ‘Case examples’.
The webinar then focused on
Session 11: Identifying Key Implementation Considerations Framing presented by EVIPNet-K2P Center. Session 11 included: approaches to policy implementation (i.e. ‘top-down’ and ‘Bottom-up’); identifying and addressing barriers to implementing policies; health system, and social and political constraints; and tips on developing the implementation considerations.
Session 12: Overview of EBP outline (and semi-structured interviews/litmus) including: the policy brief outline, e.g., identification of how the problem related to risk factors/disease, to a program or service, and/or to the current health system; viable policy or programmatic options to address the problem; and potential barriers that could influence implementation policy options. The session also covered: stake- holder selection framework for litmus testing, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders.
The next steps for countries include:
To agree on preliminary timeline for the updated policy brief outlines
To coordinate with assigned team lead for each country team
Group or individual work with support from EVIPNet/K2P
The webinar ended with Group work – using the EBP template – based upon Sessions 11 and 12.
Presentation slides are available here
Date:Thursday, 15 September 2022
Objectives:
A total of 51 participants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Malawi attended the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
The preparatory work outlined in Webinar 4 was to:
The introduction to the webinar provided: an Overview of methodologies to measure antibiotic use, and the use of surveillance data; the link between AMR and use of antimicrobials; and the integrated national action needed on optimal use of antimicrobials, including through data, surveillance, and monitoring.
The webinar then focused on Session 10: Framing Viable Policy Options to Address a Problem: A Step-by-Step Guide presented by EVIPNet-K2P Center. Session 10 included: Content of EBPs (i.e. problem statement, options or elements, and implementation considerations); Developing options/elements to address the problem (i.e. policy options, and health system/governance/financial arrangements/delivery arrangements); Steps for developing options/elements to address the issue (literature review, thematic analysis, tailoring to the country issue/context, and selecting 3-4 options); and practical examples of AMR and underlying causes to policy options.
A Q&A session followed, with questions on the behavioural and economic dimensions of policy response and options; the specificity and feasibility of options; and appropriate types of research evidence for developing options.
The webinar ended with Group work – with support from EVIPNet/K2P and using the EBP template to:
Identify 3-4 policy options/elements to address the problem and its underlying causes
Date:Thursday, 8 September 2022
Objectives:
A total of 57 participants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Malawi attended the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
Webinar 4 began with the ‘Feedback on preparatory work’ outlined in Webinar 3, which was to:
Dr Fadi El-Jardali from the American University of Beirut updated participants on the progress of the four countries including: on the topics selected (Uganda on irrational antibiotic use; Nepal on AMR National Action Plan (NAP) implementation [adjudged to be more about the solution than the problem]; Malawi on the utilization of AMR evidence generated at facility/national level and translation into policy [also more about the solution than the problem]; and Bangladesh, which had not yet been reviewed. The review also included country search strategies. The feedback included questions from participants.
The webinar then focused on the next (of the 15) training sessions:
Session 9. Preparing the EBPs: clarifying and framing the problem including:
Knowledge Translation (KT). Which facilitates the process of translating research into policy and action; and KT products which allow evidence generated from systematic reviews – the basic units of KT – to be packaged in a user-friendly format, written in clear language, and with key messages to increase the likelihood of adoption by policy-makers, and resonance among different target audiences. The use of systematic reviews enable policy-makers to scan large bodies of research evidence to address key features of any policy issue of interest.
– Problem statement: A policy problem that summarizes the best available evidence to clarify the size and nature of the problem and its underlying causes.
– Options or elements: Three or more viable policy and programmatic options described.
– Implementation considerations: Potential barriers to implementing the options/elements and strategies for addressing those.
The EBP does not provide recommendations for action.
The remainder of Webinar 4 featured the Group work exercise facilitated by Racha Fadlallah from K2P Lebanon (and support from EVIPNet). The group work comprised four groups – one for each country (including representatives from WHO country offices, and observers from EVIP/RADAAR) – with the aim:
A template was provided by EVIP facilitators (based on the presentation from Session 9) with sections for completion by country groups.
Presentation slides are available here
Date:Thursday, 25 August 2022
Objectives:
A total of 59 participants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Malawi attended the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and EVIPNet/WHO.
Webinar 3 began with the ‘Feedback on preparatory work’ outlined in Webinar 2, which was to:
Fadi El-Jardali from the American University in Beirut updated participants on the progress of the four countries and provided further guidance for countries on completing these two crucial stages. Malawi was used as an example applicable to other countries, in terms of structuring thinking in relation to identifying the issue, the political context, what has already been done in terms of AMR, what is missing and why, and stakeholder mapping. Country participants summarised their experiences. The feedback ended with a discussion on the priority areas of focus for the Evidence Brief for Policy (EBP), with updates from countries.
Following feedback reporting, the webinar focused on the next two (of 15) training sessions:
Session 7. Designing search strategies to identify and access research evidence on priority topics including: the importance of effective searches (6,500 medical articles published daily); the use of ‘Boolean Operators (e.g., And, Or, Not); identification of search terms; building a search strategy, including formulating the question/issue, choosing appropriate databases, dividing the question/issue into 2 or 3 concepts, generating search terms for each concept, and combining concepts – and search terms within concepts – using Boolean operators; and validating/documenting the search.
An example of a ‘search’ template was presented, and which participants would complete in the group work at the end of the webinar. The template included: the Problem/Issue being addressed, the Options, the Concepts, the Search terms for each concept, and Combining concepts using Boolean operators
The importance of collecting the best available evidence for EBPs was stressed: local evidence and global research evidence from systematic reviews. Guidance was provided on where to search for such information, including local and national databases, websites of relevant organisations, search engines, ‘grey’ literature, and systematic reviews.
Session 8: Understanding the role of systematic reviews in influencing policy decisions including: the Concept of a systematic review; key databases to search – and how to search – for reviews (e.g., Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane, PubMed); a live demonstration of a search on Health Systems Evidence and PubMed databases; and assessing the quality of reviews (e.g., using AMSTAR).
The remainder of Webinar 3 featured the Group work exercise facilitated by Racha Fadlallah and
Lama Bou Karroum from K2P Lebanon (with support from EVIPNet). The group work was comprised of four groups
– one for each country (including representatives from WHO country offices, with observers from EVIP/RADAAR) – with the aim: To develop a search strategy and search key databases for systematic reviews.
A template was provided by EVIP facilitators (based on the presentation from Session 7) with sections for completion by country groups as follows: the Topic/Issue being addressed, the Concepts, the Search terms for each concept, Combining concepts using Boolean operators, and the Databases searched.
Date:Thursday, 18 August 2022
Objectives:
A total of 65 participants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Malawi attended the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and WHO.
After a brief introduction, Webinar 2 began with ‘Feedback on preparatory work’ outlined in Webinar 1:
The EBP Team is responsible for developing the EBP and conducting key informant interviews (KIIs), hence an appropriate mixture of expertise is key to a successful team, including members with experience in: methods of writing an EBP; administration; evidence search, appraisal and synthesis; technical expertise on the topic being addressed in the EBP; and communication. Each country must also appoint an EBP steering committee to support the EBP development process, comprising: 4-6 multisectoral, multidisciplinary and high-level stakeholders from government/policy-makers/researchers knowledgeable in the topic and able to contribute to the development of the EBP for AMR.
Each of the four countries reported briefly on the steps taken to form the Core Team, Steering Committee, and in identifying AMR stakeholders (some countries had also informed RADAAR/EVIP prior to the Webinar via email).
Following reporting, the Webinar focused on the next two (of 15) training sessions:
Session 5. Understanding the political and health system and outlining key areas to keep in mind when mapping the policy and political context including: the importance of context-specific and actionable evidence, in particular the political/policy context (e.g., characteristics of government structures, civil service – and interests of – policy-making stakeholders, societal values and external factors, such as social and economic); and health system context (e.g., evidence on health system inputs, processes, and outputs and the analysis of how they combine to produce outcomes, such as – the WHO defined – service delivery, health workforce, information, medical technologies, finance, and leadership/governance).
Session 6:Stakeholder mapping including: on stakeholder interests, i.e., concerns over how a policy may impact them; their positions, i.e., degree of agreement or disagreement with the policy; and their power, i.e., capacity to influence policy. The steps in stakeholder mapping include: defining the goal and implications of the proposed policy change; listing interest groups involved in the issue; categorizing stakeholders according to their influence and power over, and level of interest in the issue; determining a strategy to engage relevant stakeholders; conducting KIIs; and presenting stakeholder analysis.
Stakeholders identified include: decision-/policy-makers (e.g., ministries, government agencies, parliamentarians, municipalities); influencers (e.g., NGOs/CSOs, religious leaders, media, private sector); and the public (e.g., those affected by AMR).
A case example from Ghana was presented to highlight the steps in stakeholder mapping.
Webinar 2 concluded with a Group work exercise (with support from EVIPNet/K2P)
Group work was comprised of four groups – one for each country (including representatives from WHO country offices) – with the aim of:
A template was provided by facilitators with nine questions to capture the above details including: the issue; progress made in addressing the issue; previous related policies/laws/regulations; whether the issue is on the government agenda; windows of opportunity; requirements to reach the policy objective; how laws/regulations are implemented to this purpose; stakeholders involved; and the power interplay among/between stakeholders. The questions provided background information to enable completion of full ‘Stakeholder Mapping’ template (including stakeholder, description, name, power, interest).
Date:Thursday, 11 August 2022
Objectives:
A total of 88 participants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Malawi attended the webinar, together with those from IVI-RADAAR and WHO.
After an introduction to evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) and EVIPNet, Webinar 1 included the first four (of 15) training sessions:
Session 1. Brief overview of the policy-making process including: promoting the use of research evidence in policy-making to improve health systems; increasing country capacity in/institutionalising knowledge translation (KT); approaches to increase research utilization; developing evidence briefs to inform health policy deliberations, and assess the impacts of policy options; and the evidence-action cycle, including priority-setting, evidence, convening deliberative dialogue, and policy implementation.
Presentation slides are available here
Session 2: Understanding role of evidence in policy-making process and efforts to support use of evidence in policy-making including: policy process overview; major public policy theories/frameworks; stages in public policy making, i.e., definition, agenda setting, and policy instruments/implementation/ evaluation; importance of robust research/data/evidence, as well as KT tools/strategies; and enhancing awareness/capacity of, and engaging policy-makers/stakeholders early, and sustaining engagement.
Session 3: Knowledge generation and knowledge translation as a spectrum: evidence on establishing and/or strengthening national health research system using a systems approach and the need of cross evidence ecosystem collaboration including: the National health research system (NHRS); WHO guides/ tools; key workstreams of the evidence ecosystem, i.e., partnering for complementary support in decision-making; HO workstreams, i.e., data analytics, guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA), evidence-informed policy-making supports, modelling, and behavioral research; and the evidence ecosystem framework and policy/action cycle.
Session 4: Learning from success stories of EVIPNet Member Countries: development of evidence briefs for policy on AMR including: Slovenia case study on ‘Translating AMR data and evidence into effective policies (EBP development); driving factors, challenges, and lessons learned; importance of a multi-level/sectoral approach; the need to integrate local evidence; the crucial role of Ministries of Health to put options on the political agenda (and sufficient capacity within the MoH and NIPH).
