Meeting Report: WHO Workshop on modelling global mortality and aetiology estimates of enteric pathogens in children under five. Cape Town, 28-29th November 2018.

Abstract Investment in vaccine product development should be guided by up-to-date and transparent global burden of disease estimates, which are also fundamental to policy recommendation and vaccine introduction decisions. For low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), vaccine prioritization is primarily driven by the number of deaths caused by different pathogens. Enteric diseases are known to be a major cause of death in LMICs. The two main modelling groups providing mortality estimates for enteric diseases are the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle and the Maternal Child Epidemiology Estimation (MCEE) group, led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Whilst previous global diarrhoea mortality estimates for under five-year-olds from these two groups were closely aligned, more recent estimates for 2016 have diverged, particularly with respect to numbers of deaths attributable to different enteric pathogens. This has impacted prioritization and investment decisions for vaccines in the development pipeline. The mission of the Product Development for Vaccines Advisory Committee (PDVAC) at the World Health Organisation (WHO) is to accelerate product development of vaccines and technologies that are urgently needed and ensure they are appropriately targeted for use in LMICs. At their 2018 meeting, PDVAC recommended the formation of an independent working group of subject matter experts to explore the reasons for the difference between the IHME and MCEE estimates, and to assess the respective strengths and limitations of the estimation approaches adopted, including a review of the data on which the estimates are based. Here, we report on the proceedings and recommendations from a consultation with the working group of experts, the IHME and MCEE modelling groups, and other key stakeholders. We briefly review the methodological approaches of both groups and provide a series of proposals for investigating the drivers for the differences in enteric disease burden estimates.