Clinical challenges in vaccine and monoclonal antibody development against ESCAPE pathogens: insights from EMA scientific advice procedures.
4 affiliations
- 1Section Data Science and Methods, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.
- 2Division of Microbiology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.
- 3Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
- 4Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
Background
Combating ESCAPE pathogens (E. faecium, S. aureus, C. difficile, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae) remains a major public health concern due to their treatment resistance and immune evasion. Vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are promising solutions, yet only one mAb is licensed and no vaccine has reached that stage. To identify recurring clinical challenges, we analyzed final advice letters (FALs) issued through the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Scientific Advice procedure.Methods
We searched both the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut local database and the EMA database for FALs on vaccines and mAbs targeting ESCAPE pathogens. We included FALs that matched the pathogen and product criteria and addressed clinical development. We excluded those focused solely on quality, non-clinical, safety, or post-marketing aspects. From the included FALs, we extracted information across four main categories: primary endpoint, statistical analyses, study population, and study design. Regulatory responses were classified as fully, silently, partially, or not endorsed. We subsequently reviewed related clinical trial protocols to assess whether recommendations were implemented and to provide a narrative summary of changes to the development programs.Results
We included 14 FALs for each of the two medicine categories, related to six vaccine and 13 mAb trials. To address common challenges across the primary endpoints, regulators recommended selecting single, infection-related endpoints and emphasized precise clinical and laboratory case definitions to ensure attribution of infection to the target pathogen. They further advised on incorporating supportive evidence, such as subgroup analyses of cases or inflammation markers, direct microbiological or indirect measures (e.g., antibiotic use, hospital stay), or survival-related endpoints. Recommendations for study populations focused on refining the inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify those most likely to benefit. Regulators also advised on changes in the statistical analysis plan (mainly due to lower-than-expected incidence) and generally discouraged single pivotal trials.Conclusion
The development of vaccines and mAbs against ESCAPE pathogens is challenged by pathogen diversity, unpredictable infection rates, heterogeneous trial populations, and diagnostic uncertainty. In a field with no one-size-fits-all development pathway, early regulatory interaction and multidisciplinary disease-expert input are essential to reduce uncertainty and support robust, efficient clinical development programs.
Related
- Psychological Burden and Mental Health Challenges Associated with Occupational Exposure to Zoonotic Pathogens: A Narrative Review and One Health Perspective
- Ethical challenges in the clinical translation of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review.
- Ayurvedic approaches to scorpion stings: Historical insights, modern scientific perspectives and challenges.
- Determinants of Radiation Exposure and Radiation Overexposure During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Real-World Study of 10,634 Procedures With Development of a Pragmatic Radiation-Alert Risk Score
- Opportunities and challenges in the development of evolving EGFR inhibitors to overcome EGFR TKIs resistance
BibTeX
@article{stojkov2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical challenges in vaccine and monoclonal antibody development against ESCAPE pathogens: insights from EMA scientific advice procedures.}},
author = {Igor Stojkov and Linda Marchioro and Isabelle Bekeredjian-Ding and Benjamin Hofner},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2026.1931144},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42921014},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical challenges in vaccine and monoclonal antibody development against ESCAPE pathogens: insights from EMA scientific advice procedures.
AU - Igor Stojkov
AU - Linda Marchioro
AU - Isabelle Bekeredjian-Ding
AU - Benjamin Hofner
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/09
JO - Frontiers in medicine
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2026.1931144
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42921014
AB - Background Combating ESCAPE pathogens (E. faecium, S. aureus, C. difficile, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and Enterobacteriaceae) remains a major public health concern due to their treatment resistance and immune evasion. Vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are promising solutions, yet only one mAb is licensed and no vaccine has reached that stage. To identify recurring clinical challenges, we analyzed final advice letters (FALs) issued through the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Scientific Advice procedure.Methods We searched both the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut local database and the EMA database for FALs on vaccines and mAbs targeting ESCAPE pathogens. We included FALs that matched the pathogen and product criteria and addressed clinical development. We excluded those focused solely on quality, non-clinical, safety, or post-marketing aspects. From the included FALs, we extracted information across four main categories: primary endpoint, statistical analyses, study population, and study design. Regulatory responses were classified as fully, silently, partially, or not endorsed. We subsequently reviewed related clinical trial protocols to assess whether recommendations were implemented and to provide a narrative summary of changes to the development programs.Results We included 14 FALs for each of the two medicine categories, related to six vaccine and 13 mAb trials. To address common challenges across the primary endpoints, regulators recommended selecting single, infection-related endpoints and emphasized precise clinical and laboratory case definitions to ensure attribution of infection to the target pathogen. They further advised on incorporating supportive evidence, such as subgroup analyses of cases or inflammation markers, direct microbiological or indirect measures (e.g., antibiotic use, hospital stay), or survival-related endpoints. Recommendations for study populations focused on refining the inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify those most likely to benefit. Regulators also advised on changes in the statistical analysis plan (mainly due to lower-than-expected incidence) and generally discouraged single pivotal trials.Conclusion The development of vaccines and mAbs against ESCAPE pathogens is challenged by pathogen diversity, unpredictable infection rates, heterogeneous trial populations, and diagnostic uncertainty. In a field with no one-size-fits-all development pathway, early regulatory interaction and multidisciplinary disease-expert input are essential to reduce uncertainty and support robust, efficient clinical development programs.
SN - 2296-858X
ER -