Shared evidence, different recommendations: a comparative analysis of Qdenga (TAK-003) dengue vaccine guidance for travellers across countries

Clicks: 53
ID: 321890
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #14 of 77 articles by views in international journal of travel medicine and global health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Dengue is an increasingly important cause of illness in travellers, and Qdenga (TAK-003) is the first dengue vaccine incorporated into guidance for travellers in multiple countries. However, clinicians and travellers may encounter differing recommendations across jurisdictions. This study compared guidance on the use of Qdenga in travellers across countries. Methods We conducted a comparative analysis of national guidance on Qdenga use for travellers across countries, using survey data and structured review of publicly available recommendations. Guidance was synthesised according to dengue immune status and mapped across recurring decision domains. Results Survey responses were obtained from 18 advisory bodies across 17 countries between March and April 2026, including twelve non-endemic countries where Qdenga was licensed and guidance published. Guidance was generally more restrictive than regulatory authorisation. While there was broad agreement in recommending vaccination for travellers with laboratory-confirmed prior dengue infection, recommendations for those without documented infection varied widely. All advisory bodies considered destination-specific dengue risk but differed in whether and how they used travel duration, repeated or cumulative exposure, traveller characteristics and host susceptibility factors to determine vaccine eligibility. Some recommendations restricted vaccination to travellers with prior dengue infection, whereas others extended eligibility to selected travellers without documented prior infection or recommended vaccination irrespective of serostatus based on exposure risk. Approaches also differed in assessment of prior dengue infection and whether completion of the two-dose series before travel was required. Conclusions Variation in Qdenga guidance reflects differences in how advisory bodies interpret shared evidence and manage uncertainty arising from data gaps and differences between trial populations and travellers. Additional data on vaccine effectiveness and clinical outcomes among seronegative travellers and older adults may help reduce uncertainty and support greater alignment of future recommendations. Regardless, transparency and shared clinical decision-making remain essential when discussing dengue vaccination with travellers.
Reference Key
openalex_W7170037862 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sarah L. McGuinness, Dipti Patel, Helena Hervius Askling, Camilla Rothe, Steven Schofield, Robert Steffen, Leo G. Visser, Lin H Chen
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal international journal of travel medicine and global health
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jtm/taag065
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taag065
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.