Projecting health and economic impacts of Lassa vaccination campaigns in West Africa ==================================================================================== * David R M Smith * Joanne Turner * Patrick Fahr * Lauren A Attfield * Paul R Bessell * Christl A Donnelly * Rory Gibb * Kate E Jones * David W Redding * Danny Asogun * Oladele Oluwafemi Ayodeji * Benedict N Azuogu * William A Fischer II * Kamji Jan * Adebola T Olayinka * David A Wohl * Andrew A Torkelson * Katelyn A Dinkel * Emily J Nixon * Koen B Pouwels * T Déirdre Hollingsworth ## Abstract **Background** Lassa fever is a zoonotic disease identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as having pandemic potential. Estimates of the health-economic impacts of vaccination are needed to guide vaccine investments. **Methods** We estimated rates of Lassa virus (LASV) infection across West Africa, quantified the health-economic burden of disease and evaluated impacts of a series of vaccination campaigns. We also modelled the emergence of “Lassa-X” – a hypothetical pandemic LASV variant – and evaluated impacts of the 100 Days Mission, a pandemic response initiative aimed at delivering vaccines within 100 days of such a pathogen emerging. **Findings** We estimated 2.7M (95% uncertainty interval: 2.1M-3.4M) LASV infections, 23.7K (14.9K-34.6K) hospitalisations and 3.9K (1.3K-8.3K) deaths annually, resulting over ten years in 2.0M (793.8K-3.9M) disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and $1.6B ($805.1M-$2.8B) in societal costs (International dollars 2021). Reaching 80% vaccine coverage in WHO-classified “endemic districts” and 5% coverage elsewhere with a vaccine 70% effective against disease prevented 3.3K (1.1K-7.0K) deaths, 164.1K (66.7K-317.7K) undiscounted DALYs and $128.2M ($67.2M-$231.9M) in discounted societal costs over ten years, thus averting approximately 11%-28% of DALYs in endemic countries. In the event of Lassa-X emerging, achieving 100 Days Mission vaccination targets averted approximately 22% of DALYs given a vaccine 70% effective against disease and 74% of DALYs given a vaccine 70% effective against both infection and disease. **Interpretation** Vaccination will help alleviate Lassa fever’s health-economic burden. Investing in Lassa vaccination now may help prepare against potential future variants with pandemic potential. **Funding** Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. **Evidence before this study** Lassa fever is a common but widely underreported emerging zoonotic disease endemic to West Africa. At least four Lassa vaccine candidates have begun clinical trials. We searched PubMed and preprint archives MedRxiv and BioRxiv up to 26 February 2024 for journal articles using the query (LASV OR Lassa) AND vaccin* AND (burden OR health-econ* OR econ* OR projection) without data or language restrictions. Several articles addressed Lassa vaccine candidates currently in development, including laboratory studies, experiments in animal models and one first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Reviews and editorials have discussed extensive gaps in Lassa fever surveillance, recent efforts to scale-up vaccine investment and challenges in designing efficient vaccination campaigns. However, no studies have attempted to estimate the potential impacts of Lassa vaccination on population health or economies. Estimates of Lassa fever burden and vaccine impact are needed to guide epidemiological study design and investment in Lassa vaccine development. **Added value of this study** We provide the first estimates of the health-economic burden of Lassa fever, synthesizing recent data on zoonotic risk, human-to-human transmission, clinical outcomes and economic costs associated with infection. We assess a series of vaccination campaigns and describe their projected impacts on population health and economies across the 15 countries of continental West Africa. We also consider a scenario describing the emergence of Lassa-X, a hypothetical novel Lassa-related virus with pandemic potential. We quantify health-economic impacts of reactive Lassa-X vaccination campaigns in line with the stated goals of the 100 Days Mission. **Implications of all the available evidence** Our analysis predicts that vaccination campaigns predominantly targeting districts of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria currently classified as endemic by WHO could substantially reduce the health-economic burden of Lassa fever. However, we further predict extensive underreported LASV infection in neighbouring regions, suggesting potential for significant benefits to expanding Lassa vaccination beyond WHO-classified endemic districts. In order to optimize vaccine rollout, improved surveillance is needed to better define populations at greatest risk of infection and severe disease throughout West Africa. Our study further demonstrates the critical health and economic benefits of achieving 100 Days Mission vaccination goals in response to a hypothetical pandemic variant of Lassa virus emerging. Although the probability of such a variant emerging is unknown, this analysis demonstrates potential for additional large-scale benefits to Lassa vaccine investment. ## Introduction Lassa fever is a viral haemorrhagic disease endemic to West Africa, where infections are common but widely undetected. Lassa fever is caused by *Lassa mammarenavirus* (LASV) and several lines of evidence, including detailed genomic analyses, suggest that the vast majority of human LASV infections are caused by zoonotic transmission from the Natal multimammate mouse (*Mastomys natalensis*).1,2 The virus can also spread through human-to-human contact, although this has predominantly been observed in healthcare settings with inadequate infection prevention and control practices.3 Most LASV infections are believed to be asymptomatic or cause only mild febrile illness,4 but Lassa fever nonetheless has a large negative impact on population health and economies. Among patients presenting to hospital, the case-fatality ratio is estimated to be around 15%, and long-term sequelae such as bilateral sensorineural hearing loss are common in Lassa fever survivors5,6 Monetary costs per hospitalisation are estimated to be high and are often paid (partly) out-of-pocket by patients.7 For example, a study from Nigeria found that the average patient’s out-of-pocket expenditure on Lassa fever treatment was approximately 480% of the monthly minimum wage in 2011.8 No licensed vaccines against Lassa fever are currently available, although several candidates are under development. A recent phase 1 randomised trial of a measles-vectored Lassa vaccine showed an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, a substantial increase in LASV-specific non-neutralising IgG concentrations and a moderate T-cell response,9 in line with the response observed in non-human primates.10 Several other vaccines are currently at early stages of development, with five phase 1 trials and one phase 2 trial registered by October 2022.11 Lassa fever is listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the diseases posing the greatest risk to public health due to its epidemic potential and the absence of effective countermeasures.12 In response to such concerns, in 2022 the Group of Seven forum, Group of Twenty forum and various international governments endorsed the 100 Days Mission, a pandemic response roadmap aiming at the delivery of vaccines within 100 days of the emergence of novel pathogens with pandemic potential.13 In anticipation of one or more Lassa vaccine candidates being licensed in the near future, in this study we estimate the current health-economic burden of Lassa fever in West Africa and evaluate the potential impacts of different reactive and preventive vaccination campaigns. We also estimate potential impacts of vaccination in line with the 100 Days Mission in response to the emergence of “Lassa-X”, a hypothetical future variant of LASV with pandemic potential. ## Methods ### Overview We developed an epidemiological model describing human Lassa fever burden over a 10-year time horizon across the 15 countries of continental West Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo). The model consists of three main components: (i) a geospatial risk map used to estimate zoonotic transmission (“spillover”) from *M. natalensis*, (ii) a stochastic branching process used to model onward human-to-human transmission, and (iii) a probabilistic decision-analytic model used to estimate the health burden of Lassa fever and associated economic costs. Vaccination is introduced into the population via a series of campaigns designed to reflect realistic assumptions about vaccine stockpile, administration and efficacy. Two main mechanisms of vaccine efficacy are considered: protection against infection prevents individuals from acquiring LASV infection from either *M. natalensis* or other humans, and protection against disease prevents vaccinated individuals who become infected from progressing to disease, thus averting hospitalisation, chronic sequelae and death. We did not consider other potential mechanistic impacts of vaccination, such as reduced infectiousness or altered behaviour among vaccinated individuals, as such factors are less relevant given low estimated rates of human-to-human LASV transmission. The model operates at the scale of Level 1 sub-national administrative units in all countries. These units have different names in different countries (e.g. regions in Guinea, counties in Liberia, departments in Benin) but herein are collectively referred to as *districts*. ### Zoonotic transmission The incidence of LASV spillover was estimated by extending a previously published geospatial risk model by Basinski et al. (details in **Appendix A**). Briefly, this model synthesizes environmental features, *M. natalensis* occurrence data and LASV seroprevalence estimates from both rodents and humans to estimate rates of zoonotic LASV infection across West Africa.14 We used a generalised linear model to predict human seroprevalence from estimated spillover risk at the level of 0.05° x 0.05° spatial pixels. Then, a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered model was used to model transitions between susceptible (seronegative), infected (seropositive) and recovered (seropositive) states. This model was fitted to spatial human seroprevalence estimates to estimate the force of infection, which was then used to estimate LASV spillover incidence while accounting for evolution in population size over time. Uncertainty in human LASV seroprevalence from the GLM was propagated forward to generate uncertainty in spillover incidence. Non-aggregated spillover incidence data (at the pixel level) are shown in **Figure 1**, while aggregated data showing estimated spillover incidence at the district level are shown in **Supplementary figure A.1**. Estimates of spillover incidence in endemic districts are shown in **Supplementary figures A.2** and **A.3**. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F1) Figure 1. Maps of West Africa showing reported Lassa fever endemicity and estimated LASV spillover incidence. Top: map showing the classification of Lassa fever endemicity for different countries and “districts”, as defined by US CDC and WHO (see **Supplementary appendix B.2**). Middle: the median annual incidence of zoonotic LASV infection per 100,000 population as estimated by our model at the level of 5km grid cells. Bottom: the median total annual number of zoonotic LASV infections as estimated by our model at the level of 5km grid cells. LASV: Lassa virus, US CDC: United States Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, WHO: World Health Organization. ### Human-to-human transmission We developed a stochastic branching process model to estimate the number of infections arising from human-to-human transmission following spillover infection (**Supplementary appendix B**). To account for estimated uncertainty in annual spillover incidence, 99 distinct transmission simulations were run, with each one using as inputs a set of LASV spillover estimates corresponding to a particular centile. Each set contains 183 values (one for each district) and the same values are used for each of the 10 years of simulation. To account for seasonality observed in Lassa fever case reports, annual incidence estimates are distributed across each epidemiological year according to a Beta distribution, as considered previously in Lerch *et al*.15 An outbreak tree was generated for each spillover event using an estimate of LASV’s basic reproduction number from the literature (*R* = 0.063).15 Infections in each outbreak tree are distributed stochastically through time following estimates of LASV’s incubation and infectious periods, and final outbreak trees are combined to generate the daily incidence of human-source infection in each district in the absence of vaccination. ### Lassa vaccination campaigns We included 6 vaccination scenarios in which limited doses of vaccine are allocated across specific sub-populations of West Africa (see **Table 1** and **Supplementary appendix B.2** for more detail). In all scenarios, vaccine doses are allocated preferentially to populations perceived to be at greatest risk of Lassa fever, i.e. those living in districts classified as Lassa fever endemic by WHO.16 In some scenarios, a small number of additional doses are allocated to non-endemic districts. In “constrained” scenarios, the total number of vaccine doses is constrained to reflect limited capacity to produce, stockpile and deliver vaccine. For these scenarios, cholera is used as a proxy disease for assumptions relating to vaccine stockpile and target coverage based on recent campaigns in West Africa. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/T1) Table 1. Lassa vaccination scenarios. Scenario 1 includes reactive vaccination only, which is triggered in response to local outbreaks, while scenarios 2 through 6 include preventive vaccination campaigns in addition to reactive vaccination. Vaccination coverage refers to the percentage of the general population targeted for vaccination in specified districts. Preventive vaccination in scenarios 2 through 4 is unconstrained, i.e. the number of doses reflects desired vaccination coverage levels, while preventive vaccination is constrained in scenarios 5 and 6, i.e. population coverage is constrained by an upper limit of doses to reflect a limited global vaccine stockpile (see **Supplementary table B.2**). The small vaccine pool reserved for reactive vaccination (1 million doses annually, shared across all districts proportionately to population size) is available immediately from year 1, while vaccination for preventive campaigns is rolled out to different countries in different years, generally to high-, medium- and low-endemic countries in years 1, 2 and 3, respectively (see **Supplementary table B.3**). A map showing the classification of endemicity across the countries and districts of West Africa is given in **Figure 1**. For both reactive and preventive vaccination, booster doses are allocated five years after the initial dose, and 90% of available doses are assumed to be delivered (i.e. all coverage targets were reduced by 10% wastage). In our vaccination scenarios developed with these constrains in mind, we consider both reactive vaccination (targeting specific districts in response to local outbreaks) and preventive vaccination (mass vaccinating across entire countries or districts regardless of local transmission patterns). Vaccination is assumed to confer immunity for five years, with booster doses given five years after the initial dose. Vaccination is applied in the model by retrospectively “pruning” zoonotic infections and ensuing person-to-person transmission chains (see **Supplementary appendix B.3** for more detail). ### Health-economic burden of Lassa fever A decision-analytic model describing the main health and economic outcomes of LASV infection was developed to estimate Lassa fever burden and impacts of vaccination (**Supplementary appendix C.1**). Inputs into this model from our spillover risk map and branching process transmission model include, for each year, district and vaccination scenario: the total number of LASV infections, the number of infections averted due to vaccination, and the number of infections occurring in vaccinated individuals. The latter is included to account for vaccine preventing progression from infection to disease (**Supplementary appendix C.2**). Lassa fever health outcomes estimated by our model include symptomatic unhospitalised cases, hospitalised cases, deaths, cases of chronic sequelae following hospital discharge, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Economic outcomes include direct healthcare costs, instances of catastrophic or impoverishing healthcare expenditures, productivity losses, monetised DALYs, and the value of statistical life (VSL) lost (a population-aggregate measure of individuals’ willingness to pay for a reduction in the probability of dying).17 Incorporating these outcomes into our health-economic model required estimation of several key parameters using data from the literature, described in **Supplementary appendix C.3**. Monetary costs are reported in International dollars ($) 2021. ### Lassa-X In addition to our analysis of Lassa fever, we consider the emergence of “Lassa-X”, a hypothetical future variant of LASV with pandemic potential due to both elevated clinical severity and increased propensity for human-to-human transmission. We assume that the clinical characteristics of Lassa-X are identical to Lassa fever (including sequelae risk and hospital case-fatality ratio), except that Lassa-X is accompanied by a ten-fold increase in risk of hospitalisation relative to Lassa fever. Then, to conceive plausible scenarios of Lassa-X transmission informed by empirical data, we assume that the inherent transmissibility of Lassa-X resembles that of Ebola virus during the 2013/16 West Africa outbreak. Ebola virus transmission is chosen as a surrogate for Lassa-X transmission because, like LASV, Ebola virus is a single-stranded RNA virus endemic to West Africa, results in frequent zoonotic spillover to humans from its animal reservoir, causes viral haemorrhagic fever, and spreads primarily through contact with infectious bodily fluids. Based on this conceptualisation of Lassa-X, we use a five-step approach to model its emergence and subsequent geospatial spread across West Africa, and to estimate the health-economic impacts of reactive “100 Days Mission” vaccination campaigns (described in detail in **Supplementary appendix E**). ### Simulation and statistical reporting For each of 99 runs of the LASV transmission model and 100 runs of the Lassa-X transmission model, health-economic outcomes were calculated via 100 Monte Carlo simulations, in which input parameters for the health-economic model were drawn probabilistically from their distributions (**Supplementary table C.1**). In our base case we assume the vaccine is 70% effective only against disease. However, we also include scenarios with vaccine that is 90% effective against disease, 70% effective against both infection and disease, and 90% effective against both infection and disease. Final health and economic outcomes, as well as outcomes averted by vaccination, are reported as means and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) across all simulations over the ten-year time horizon of the model. Future monetary costs are discounted at 3%/year. In sensitivity analysis, we consider a 0% discounting rate, a lower risk of developing chronic sequelae subsequent to hospital discharge, and either the same or lower hospitalisation risk for Lassa-X relative to LASV. We also conduct univariate sensitivity analysis to identify the parameters driving outcome uncertainty. See **Supplementary appendix C.4** for more details. Estimates of Lassa fever burden are reported in accordance with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement. A GATHER checklist is provided in **Supplementary appendix G**. ### Role of the funder The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) commissioned this analysis and CEPI internal Lassa fever experts were involved in study design by providing knowledge on input parameters and fine-tuning of realistic scenarios for vaccine rollout. An earlier version of this work was provided as a report to CEPI. ## Results ### Lassa fever burden In the absence of vaccination, the mean annual number of LASV infections across West Africa was estimated at 2.7M (95%UI: 2.1M–3.4M), or 27.2M (20.9M–34.0M) over the full 10-year simulation period (**Table 2**). Just over half of all infections occurred in Nigeria (mean 52.9%) and the vast majority (mean 93.7%) resulted from zoonotic spillover as opposed to human-to-human transmission. At the district level, annual LASV infection incidence was highest in Margibi, Liberia (1,198 [943–1,475] infections /100,000 population), followed by Denguélé, Côte d’Ivoire (1,032 [880–1,200] /100,000) and Nasarawa, Nigeria (978 [803–1,162] /100,000). Over ten years, these infections led to an estimated 5.4M (2.7M–9.9M) symptomatic cases, 237.0K (148.6K–345.6K) hospitalisations and 39.3K (12.9K–83.3K) deaths across West Africa, resulting in 2.0M (793.8K-3.9M) DALYs. These DALYs were valued at $287.7M ($115.4M-$562.9M) using country-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds and accounting for an annual discounting rate of 3% for future monetary costs (**Supplementary table D.2**). See **Supplementary Appendix D** for more detailed estimates of Lassa fever burden. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/T2) Table 2. Estimated cumulative health burden of Lassa fever by country over ten years in the absence of vaccination. All figures represent means (95% uncertainty intervals) across 100 runs of the health-economic model for each of 99 runs of the infection model, for the baseline scenario assuming a probability of sequelae of 62% among patients discharged from hospital. Symptomatic cases refers to mild or moderately severe unhospitalised cases. DALY = disability-adjusted life year, K = thousand, M = million. ### Health-economic impacts of vaccination against Lassa fever The considered vaccination scenarios varied considerably in their projected impacts, with scenario 4 leading to the greatest reductions in Lassa fever burden over ten years (**Figure 2** and **Table 3**). In this scenario, in addition to reactive vaccination triggered in districts experiencing local outbreaks, preventive vaccination was administered to 80% of the population in WHO-classified endemic districts, as well as to healthcare workers and other high-risk groups (estimated at 5% of the population) in all other districts. For a vaccine 70% effective against disease with no impact on infection, over ten years this strategy averted a mean 456.0K (226.4K-822.7K) mild/moderate symptomatic cases, 19.9K (12.7K-28.8K) hospitalisations, 3.3K (1.1K-7.0K) deaths and 164.1K (66.7K-317.7K) DALYs (**Supplementary table D.4**). Over this period, this strategy further prevented 19.8K (12.6K-28.5K) and 14.2K (9.0K-20.5K) individuals, respectively, from experiencing catastrophic or impoverishing out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures, and averted $128.2M ($67.2M-$231.9M) in societal costs and $1.3B ($436.8M-$2.8B) in VSL lost. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F2) Figure 2. Impacts of a Lassa vaccine effective against infection and disease. (**A**) The mean cumulative number of infections averted due to vaccination across the 15 countries included in the model, comparing vaccine efficacy against infection and disease of 70% (blue) versus 90% (red) across the six considered vaccination scenarios (panels). 95% uncertainty intervals are indicated by shading. (**B**) The mean cumulative number of infections averted over ten years under each vaccination scenario in the four countries classified as high-endemic (Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone). 95% uncertainty intervals are indicated by error bars. (**C**) The mean cumulative incidence of infections averted over ten years per 100,000 population under each vaccination scenario in the same four countries. 95% uncertainty intervals are indicated by error bars. (**D**) The mean daily number of infections averted by a vaccine with 70% efficacy against infection and disease over the first three years of vaccine rollout, in three distinct districts under four selected vaccination scenarios. 95% uncertainty intervals are indicated by shading. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/T3) Table 3. Projected ten-year impacts of Lassa vaccination. The estimated health and economic burden of Lassa fever averted due to vaccination over ten years from the initiation of vaccine rollout, for the six vaccination scenarios described in Table 1. Columns represent the vaccination scenarios and rows represent the outcomes averted. All figures represent means (95% uncertainty intervals) across all simulations, comparing a vaccine 70% effective only against disease (top) and a vaccine 70% effective against both infection and disease (bottom). Societal costs combine outpatient treatment costs, hospital treatment costs and productivity costs. Future monetary costs are discounted at 3%/year. Costs are reported in International dollars (2021). LASV = Lassa virus, DALY = disability-adjusted life-year, VSL = value of statistical life, K = thousand, M = million, B = billion. Other vaccination scenarios used fewer doses of vaccine and, in turn, averted less of Lassa fever’s health-economic burden. Scenario 3, which limited preventive vaccination to high-endemic countries, was the scenario resulting in the second greatest health-economic benefits, including the aversion of 141.4K (57.6K-273.2K) DALYs and $112.8M ($59.2M-$203.8M) in societal costs. Scenarios 2, 5 and 6 varied considerably in terms of which individuals were vaccinated but ultimately resulted in similar cumulative health-economic benefits across the region, because the overall number of doses delivered under each scenario was essentially the same. By contrast, Scenario 1 included only reactive and not preventive vaccination, averting just 13.7K (5.5K-26.8K) DALYs and $10.3M ($5.3M–$18.8M) in societal costs, thus having approximately one-tenth the overall health-economic benefits of Scenario 4. A vaccine effective against infection in addition to disease was found to have moderately increased impact. In scenario 4 for instance, $20.1M ($8.2M-$39.0M) in DALY value was averted by a vaccine 70% effective only against disease, while $27.1M ($11.0M-$52.5M) was averted when also 70% effective against infection (**Table 3**). By comparison, a vaccine 90% effective only against disease averted $25.8M ($10.5M-$50.1M) in DALY value (**Supplementary table D.7**), having similar impact to a vaccine 70% effective against both infection and disease. In the best-case scenario of a vaccine 90% effective against both infection and disease, scenario 4 averted up to 3.1M (2.4M-3.7M) infections, 240.1K (97.5K-464.9K) DALYs valued at $29.5M ($12.0M-$57.2M), and $1.9B ($638.5M-$4.1B) in VSL lost. Geographic variation in vaccine impact depended primarily on which districts were classified as endemic and hence targeted for vaccination (**Figure 2**). Overall impacts of vaccination were greatest in Nigeria, but impacts per 100,000 population were greatest in other endemic countries (Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone), because Nigeria had a larger number of individuals, but a smaller share of its total population, living in districts classified as endemic. In turn, approximately 16% of the total population of Nigeria and 33% of the combined population of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone were vaccinated by ten years under scenarios 3 and 4 (**Figure 3**). Given a vaccine 70% effective only against disease, these scenarios averted 10.5% of DALYs in Nigeria, 20.3% in Liberia, 23.6% in Guinea and 28.1% in Sierra Leone. For a vaccine 90% effective against infection and disease, these scenarios averted 15.3% of DALYS in Nigeria, 29.4% in Liberia, 34.1% in Guinea and 40.7% in Sierra Leone. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F3) Figure 3. Vaccination coverage and corresponding reductions in Lassa fever burden vary greatly across countries. (A) The share of the total population vaccinated by ten years in each vaccination scenario (x-axis) and aggregated across three geographic levels (y-axis). (B) The share of cumulative DALYs due to Lassa fever averted over ten years by vaccination. Impacts vary greatly depending on the vaccination scenario (x-axis), assumed vaccine efficacy (y-axis) and the geographic location (panels). DALY: disability-adjusted life-year. ### Projected burden of Lassa-X In our Lassa-X scenario, a hypothetical variant of LASV with increased virulence and Ebola-like transmission characteristics was assumed to emerge following a single spillover event and subsequently spread across West Africa over a period of approximately two years (**Figure 4**). Under our modelling assumptions, Lassa-X spread to a mean 88.3% (63.9%–94.0%) of the 183 districts included in our model (**Supplementary figure E.1**). In total, there were a mean 1.7M (230.1K–4.2M) Lassa-X infections, and Nigeria accounted for by far the greatest share of infections, followed by Niger and Ghana (**Supplementary tables F.1 and F.2**). The projected burden of Lassa-X infection was associated with a high degree of uncertainty, driven predominantly by the highly stochastic nature of simulated outbreaks (**Supplementary figure F.2**). ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/F4) Figure 4. Estimated burden of Lassa-X infection and impacts of vaccination. Maps of West Africa showing, for each district: (**A**) the population size, (**B**) the probability of Lassa-X spillover and (**C**) the mean cumulative number of Lassa-X infections over the entire outbreak (approximately two years). The second row depicts (**D**) the median cumulative incidence of Lassa-X infection over the entire outbreak and (**E**) the median cumulative incidence over the entire outbreak per 100,000 population in the absence of vaccination. Interquartile ranges are indicated by error bars. (**F**) The total number of Lassa-X infections over time in six selected countries in one randomly selected outbreak simulation in which the initial Lassa-X spillover event occurred in Niger (the red dot highlights the initial detection of the epidemic at time 0). Lines show how a vaccine with 70% efficacy against infection and disease influences infection dynamics, where line colour represents the delay to vaccine rollout and line dashing represents the rate of vaccination (the proportion of the population vaccinated over a 1-year period). (**G**) The mean cumulative number of deaths averted due to vaccination over the entire outbreak and across all countries, depending on vaccine efficacy (panels), the rate of vaccination (x-axis) and the delay to vaccine rollout (colours). Interquartile ranges are indicated by error bars. In our baseline analysis, Lassa-X resulted in 149.7K (19.7K–374.4K) hospitalisations and 24.8K (2.4K-76.0K) deaths, causing 1.2M (95% UI: 132.5K–3.7M) DALYs valued at $191.1M ($18.4M–$575.2M). Out-of-pocket treatment costs were estimated at $118.5M ($12.2M–$317.3M), resulting in catastrophic healthcare expenditures for 147.4K (18.5K-372.5K) individuals, and pushing 103.1K (13.6K-254.3K) individuals below the poverty line. Lassa-X also resulted in $737.2M ($56.4M-$2.4B) in productivity losses to the greater economy and $10.1B ($625.9M-34.1B) in VSL lost. In alternative scenarios where Lassa-X infection was just as likely or one-tenth as likely to result in hospitalisation as LASV infection, estimates of the health-economic burden were approximately one and two orders of magnitude lower, respectively (**Supplementary table F.4**). ### Vaccination to slow the spread of Lassa-X Impacts of vaccination on the health-economic burden of Lassa-X depend on the delay until vaccination initiation, the rate of vaccine uptake in the population, and the efficacy of vaccination against infection and/or disease (**Table 4**). In the most ambitious vaccination scenario considered, vaccine administration began 100 days after initial detection of the first hospitalised case of Lassa-X at a rate equivalent to 40% of the population per year across all countries in West Africa. Assuming a vaccine 70% effective only against disease, this vaccination scenario averted 276.6K (38.0K-755.9K) DALYs. However, in contrast to LASV vaccination, vaccine impact was several-fold greater when effective against infection as well as disease. For a vaccine 70% effective against both, this most ambitious vaccination scenario averted 1.2M (201.3K-2.7M) infections and 916.4K (108.0K-2.6M) DALYs, representing approximately 74% of the DALY burden imposed by Lassa-X. Vaccinating at half the rate (20% of the population/year) averted approximately 55% of the DALYs imposed by Lassa-X, while vaccinating at a low rate (2.5% of the population/year) averted just 11% of DALYs (**Supplementary tables F.5 to F.8**). Benefits of delivering vaccines at a higher rate outweighed benefits of initiating vaccination earlier (100 days vs. 160 days from outbreak detection), which in turn outweighed benefits of a vaccine with greater efficacy against infection and disease (90% vs. 70%). View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/27/2024.02.26.24303394/T4) Table 4. Projected impacts of 100 Days Mission vaccination campaigns in response to Lassa-X. Estimated health-economic burden of Lassa-X averted due to vaccination, comparing a vaccine 70% effective only against disease (top) and a vaccine 70% effective against both infection and disease (bottom). Columns represent the vaccination scenarios considered and rows represent the outcomes averted. All figures represent means (95% uncertainty intervals) across all simulations, for the baseline scenario assuming a ten-fold greater risk of hospitalization relative to Lassa virus infection. Societal costs combine outpatient treatment costs, hospital treatment costs and productivity costs. Future monetary costs are discounted at 3%/year. Costs are reported in International dollars (2021). DALY = disability-adjusted life-year, VSL = value of statistical life, K = thousand, M = million, B = billion. ## Discussion We have estimated the health burden of Lassa fever throughout West Africa, including 2.1M to 3.4M infections, 15K to 35K hospitalisations and 1.3K to 8.3K deaths annually. These figures are consistent with recent modelling work estimating 900K to 4.4M human LASV infections per year,14 and an annual 5K deaths reported elsewhere.3,18 To our knowledge, our study is the first to further quantify the health-economic burden of Lassa fever and impacts of vaccination. We estimated that Lassa fever causes 2.0M DALYs, $1.6B in societal costs and $15.3B in VSL lost over ten years. Our modelling suggests that administering Lassa vaccines preventively to districts of Nigeria, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone currently classified as “endemic” by WHO would avert a substantial share of the burden of disease in those areas. In our most expansive rollout scenario – in which vaccine reaches approximately 80% of individuals in endemic districts and 5% of individuals elsewhere over a 3-year period – a vaccine 70% effective against disease is projected to avert 164K DALYs, $128M in societal costs and $1.3B in VSL lost over ten years. This corresponds to a 10.5% reduction in Lassa fever DALYs in Nigeria given vaccination among 16.1% of the population, and a 24.4% reduction in DALYs across Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone given vaccination among 33.3% of the population. However, a vaccine 90% effective against both infection and disease could avert 240K DALYs, $188M in societal costs and $1.9B in VSL lost, corresponding to a 15.3% reduction in Lassa fever DALYs in Nigeria and a 35.3% reduction across Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Beyond these four countries, projected impacts of Lassa vaccination are modest. This is due primarily to our vaccination scenarios reflecting a constrained global vaccine stockpile (<20M doses annually) and hence limited allocation to districts not currently classified as endemic by WHO. While our most optimistic vaccination scenario was projected to prevent as many as 1.9M (62%) infections in endemic-classified districts (**Supplementary figure D.4**), these areas cover just shy of 10% of the approximately 400M individuals living in West Africa. Yet our model predicts high Lassa fever incidence and disease burden in several “non-endemic” areas. This is consistent with seroprevalence data highlighting extensive underreporting of LASV infection across the region, particularly in Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Mali, Togo and Benin.14,19–21 Underreporting of Lassa fever is likely due to a combination of limited surveillance resources in affected countries, the mild and non-specific symptom presentation of most cases, seasonal fluctuations in infection incidence coincident with other febrile illnesses (malaria in particular), and stigma associated with infection, making robust estimation of Lassa fever burden a great challenge.22 Conversely, low case numbers in some areas estimated to be suitable for transmission23 may reflect truly limited burden, driven in part by significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity in LASV infection prevalence and the low dispersal rate of *M. natalensis*.24 We have also estimated impacts of ambitious vaccination campaigns in response to the emergence of a hypothetical novel LASV variant with pandemic potential. While it is impossible to predict whether “Lassa-X” will evolve and which characteristics it would have, this modelling represents a plausible scenario for its emergence and spread, totalling on average 1.7M infections, 150K hospitalisations and 25K deaths over roughly two years, resulting in 1.2M DALYs, $1.1B in societal costs and $10.1B in VSL lost. We estimated that a vaccine 70% effective against infection and disease, with delivery starting 100 days from the first detected case, could avert roughly one-tenth of Lassa-X’s health-economic burden assuming delivery of about 10M doses per year, or up to three-quarters of its burden given 160M doses per year. Such ambitious vaccination scenarios are in keeping with the stated goals of the 100 Days Mission,13 representing an expansive global effort to rapidly respond to emerging pandemic threats. In contrast to LASV, vaccination against Lassa-X was severalfold more impactful when blocking infection in addition to disease, due to indirect vaccine protection successfully slowing its explosive outbreak dynamics. This work has several limitations. Our estimates of Lassa fever burden build upon recent estimates of spillover risk and viral transmissibility, but do not account for the potential evolution of these parameters over time, for instance due to projected impacts of climate change.24 Our model also appears to overestimate the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations in incidence, potentially biasing not the total number of infections but how they are distributed through time. While peaks in Lassa fever risk during the dry season are well observed, including five-fold greater risk estimated in Nigeria,25 a large outbreak in Liberia during the rainy season in 2019/20 highlights that LASV nonetheless circulates year-round.26 Our evaluation of the economic consequences of Lassa-X is also conservative, as we do not account for the exportation of cases outside of West Africa, nor potential externalities of such a large epidemic, including negative impacts on tourism and trade, and the oversaturation and potential collapse of healthcare services. Finally, for both LASV and Lassa-X we do not stratify risks of infection, hospitalisation or death by sex or age, and infections in each country are assumed to be representative of the general population in terms of age, sex, employment and income. Seroepidemiological data from Sierra Leone show no clear association between antibodies to LASV and age, sex or occupation,27 and studies from hospitalized patients in Sierra Leone and Nigeria show conflicting relationships between age and mortality.3,28,29 Prospective epidemiological cohort studies such as the ongoing *Enable* programme will help to better characterize Lassa fever epidemiology – including the spectrum of illness, extent of seroreversion, and risk factors for infection and disease – in turn informing future modelling, vaccine trial design and intervention investment.30 ## Conclusion Our analysis suggests that vaccination campaigns targeting known Lassa fever hotspots will help to alleviate the large health-economic burden caused by this disease. However, expanding vaccination beyond WHO-classified “endemic” districts will be necessary to prevent the large burden of disease estimated to occur in neighbouring areas not currently classified as endemic. Improved surveillance is greatly needed to better characterize the epidemiology of Lassa fever across West Africa, helping to inform the design of vaccination campaigns that maximize population health by better targeting those at greatest risk of infection and severe outcomes. In the hypothetical event of a novel, highly pathogenic pandemic variant emerging and devastating the region, our modelling also suggests that the ambitious vaccination targets of the 100 Days Mission could have critical impact, helping to prevent up to three-quarters of associated health-economic burden. The probability of such a variant evolving is exceedingly difficult to predict, but investment in Lassa vaccination now may nonetheless help to prepare humanity against the catastrophic consequences of a pandemic Lassa-related virus emerging in the future. ## Data sharing All underlying data and code for this article are available at [www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/](http://www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/). ## Credit taxonomy for authorship David R M Smith: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. Joanne Turner: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. Patrick Fahr: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing Lauren A Attfield: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology Paul R Bessell: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology Christl A Donnelly: Methodology, Supervision, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing Rory Gibb: Supervision, Writing-review and editing Kate E Jones: Supervision, Writing-review and editing David W Redding: Methodology, Supervision, Writing-review and editing Danny Asogun: Writing-review and editing Oladele Oluwafemi Ayodeji: Writing-review and editing Benedict N Azuogu: Writing-review and editing William A Fischer II: Writing-review and editing Kamji Jan: Writing-review and editing Adebola T Olayinka: Writing-review and editing David A Wohl: Writing-review and editing Andrew A Torkelson: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing Katelyn A Dinkel: Methodology Emily J Nixon: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. Koen B Pouwels: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. T Deirdre Hollingsworth: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. ## Supporting information Supplementary appendix [[supplements/303394_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All underlying data and code for this article are available at [www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/](http://www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/) [http://www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/](http://www.github.com/drmsmith/lassaVac/) ## Conflicts of interest None declared. ## Acknowledgements This work was funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) through the Vaccine Impact Assessment project funding. The authors would like to acknowledge the CEPI project team (Project lead: Arminder Deol and Project co-lead: Christinah Mukandavire) for their continuous support and helpful discussions and the project’s external advisory team for their invaluable feedback. TDH thanks the Li Ka Shing Foundation for institutional funding. CAD is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (200907), a partnership between the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the University of Liverpool, the University of Oxford and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. We would like to thank Anita Lerch for personal communications and providing code that inspired our LASV transmission model. We would like to thank Mark Todd from Dreaming Spires for assisting in optimising the speed for our stochastic branching process model for Lassa. We acknowledge Dr. Ian Smith, Head of Research Software Engineering at University of Liverpool IT Services, for his help running simulations using HTCondor. We thank Natasha Salant for beta testing our code, and Claudio Nunes-Alves for providing helpful comments on an earlier draft. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions with which they are affiliated. * Received February 26, 2024. * Revision received February 26, 2024. * Accepted February 27, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Andersen KG, Shapiro BJ, Matranga CB, et al. Clinical Sequencing Uncovers Origins and Evolution of Lassa Virus. Cell 2015; 162(4): 738–50. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.020&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26276630&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F27%2F2024.02.26.24303394.atom) 2. 2.Kafetzopoulou LE, Pullan ST, Lemey P, et al. Metagenomic sequencing at the epicenter of the Nigeria 2018 Lassa fever outbreak. Science 2019; 363(6422): 74–7. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIzNjMvNjQyMi83NCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAyLzI3LzIwMjQuMDIuMjYuMjQzMDMzOTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 3. 3.Garry RF. Lassa fever - the road ahead. Nat Rev Microbiol 2023; 21(2): 87–96. 4. 4.World Health Organization. Lassa fever. 2023. [https://www.who.int/health-topics/lassa-fever#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/lassa-fever#tab=tab_1) (accessed 20/10/2023). 5. 5.Simons D. Lassa fever cases suffer from severe underreporting based on reported fatalities. Int Health 2023; 15(5): 608–10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/inthealth/ihac076&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Ficenec SC, Percak J, Arguello S, et al. Lassa Fever Induced Hearing Loss: The Neglected Disability of Hemorrhagic Fever. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 100: 82–7. 7. 7.Adetunji AE, Ayenale M, Akhigbe I, et al. Acute kidney injury and mortality in pediatric Lassa fever versus question of access to dialysis. Int J Infect Dis 2021; 103: 124–31. 8. 8.Asogun D, Tobin E, Momoh J, et al. Medical cost of Lassa fever treatment in Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. Int J Basic Appl Innov Res 2016; 5(3): 62–73. 9. 9.Tschismarov R, Van Damme P, Germain C, et al. Immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of a recombinant measles-vectored Lassa fever vaccine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, first-in-human trial. Lancet 2023; 401(10384): 1267–76. 10. 10.Mateo M, Reynard S, Journeaux A, et al. A single-shot Lassa vaccine induces long-term immunity and protects cynomolgus monkeys against heterologous strains. Sci Transl Med 2021; 13(597). 11. 11.Sulis G, Peebles A, Basta NE. Lassa fever vaccine candidates: A scoping review of vaccine clinical trials. Trop Med Int Health 2023; 28(6): 420–31. 12. 12.World Health Organization. Prioritizing diseases for research and development in emergency contexts. 2023. [https://www.who.int/activities/prioritizing-diseases-for-research-and-development-in-emergency-contexts](https://www.who.int/activities/prioritizing-diseases-for-research-and-development-in-emergency-contexts) (accessed 20/10/2023). 13. 13.Gouglas D, Christodoulou M, Hatchett R. The 100 Days Mission—2022 Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit. Emerg Infect Dis 2023; 29(3): e221142. 14. 14.Basinski AJ, Fichet-Calvet E, Sjodin AR, et al. Bridging the gap: Using reservoir ecology and human serosurveys to estimate Lassa virus spillover in West Africa. PLoS Comput Biol 2021; 17(3): e1008811. 15. 15.Lerch A, Ten Bosch QA, L’Azou Jackson M, et al. Projecting vaccine demand and impact for emerging zoonotic pathogens. BMC Med 2022; 20(1): 202. 16. 16.World Health Organization. Geographic distribution of Lassa fever in West African affected countries, 1969-2018. 2018. [https://cdn.who.int/media/images/default-source/health-topics/lassa-fever/lassa-fever-countries-2018png.tmb-1024v.png?sfvrsn=10af107d\_7](https://cdn.who.int/media/images/default-source/health-topics/lassa-fever/lassa-fever-countries-2018png.tmb-1024v.png?sfvrsn=10af107d_7) (accessed 16/10/2023). 17. 17.Robinson LA, Hammitt JK, Cecchini M, et al. Reference Case Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Global Health and Development, 2019. 18. 18.US CDC. Lassa fever. 2022. [https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/lassa/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/lassa/index.html) (accessed 30/09/2023). 19. 19.Safronetz D, Sogoba N, Diawara SI, et al. Annual Incidence of Lassa Virus Infection in Southern Mali. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2017; 96(4): 944–6. 20. 20.Emmerich P, Gunther S, Schmitz H. Strain-specific antibody response to Lassa virus in the local population of west Africa. J Clin Virol 2008; 42(1): 40–4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2007.11.019&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18164653&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F27%2F2024.02.26.24303394.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256391600007&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Yadouleton A, Picard C, Rieger T, et al. Lassa fever in Benin: description of the 2014 and 2016 epidemics and genetic characterization of a new Lassa virus. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9(1): 1761–70. 22. 22.Bausch DG, Demby AH, Coulibaly M, et al. Lassa fever in Guinea: I. Epidemiology of human disease and clinical observations. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2001; 1(4): 269–81. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/15303660160025903&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12653127&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F27%2F2024.02.26.24303394.atom) 23. 23.Mylne AQ, Pigott DM, Longbottom J, et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Lassa fever in Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2015; 109(8): 483–92. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/trstmh/trv047&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26085474&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F27%2F2024.02.26.24303394.atom) 24. 24.Klitting R, Kafetzopoulou LE, Thiery W, et al. Predicting the evolution of the Lassa virus endemic area and population at risk over the next decades. Nat Commun 2022; 13(1): 5596. 25. 25.Akhmetzhanov AR, Asai Y, Nishiura H. Quantifying the seasonal drivers of transmission for Lassa fever in Nigeria. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2019; 374(1775): 20180268. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rstb.2018.0268&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Jetoh RW, Malik S, Shobayo B, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of Lassa fever cases in Liberia: a retrospective analysis of surveillance data, 2019-2020. Int J Infect Dis 2022; 122: 767–74. 27. 27.Grant DS, Engel EJ, Roberts Yerkes N, et al. Seroprevalence of anti-Lassa Virus IgG antibodies in three districts of Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional, population-based study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2023; 17(2): e0010938. 28. 28.Duvignaud A, Jaspard M, Etafo IC, et al. Lassa fever outcomes and prognostic factors in Nigeria (LASCOPE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 2021; 9(4): e469–e78. 29. 29.Shaffer JG, Grant DS, Schieffelin JS, et al. Lassa fever in post-conflict sierra leone. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2014; 8(3): e2748. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pntd.0002748&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24651047&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F27%2F2024.02.26.24303394.atom) 30. 30.Penfold S, Adegnika AA, Asogun D, et al. A prospective, multi-site, cohort study to estimate incidence of infection and disease due to Lassa fever virus in West African countries (the Enable Lassa research programme)-Study protocol. PLoS One 2023; 18(3): e0283643.