BACKGROUND: The burden of cervical cancer and shortage of screening services in Tanzania confers an urgent need for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. However, the sustainability and impact of another new vaccine campaign in an under-resourced health system requires consideration. We aimed to determine the impact of the government's school-based HPV vaccine campaign in Kilimanjaro region on the provision of routine primary health services and staff workload. METHODS: Data on daily numbers of consultations were collected from health facility register books in 63 dispensaries and health centres in North-West Tanzania for 20 weeks in 2014. Changes in outpatient, antenatal care (ANC), family planning (FP) and immunisation service activity levels before, during and after the two HPV vaccination campaigns in 2014 in 30 facilities within Kilimanjaro region ('intervention facilities') were compared with changes in activity levels in 33 facilities in Arusha region ('controls'). Qualitative interviews were conducted with health workers in Kilimanjaro region who delivered HPV vaccination and those who remained at the facility during in-school HPV vaccine delivery to explore perceptions of workload and capacity. RESULTS: Health facility activity levels were low and very variable in both regions. Controlling for district, facility type, catchment population, clinical staff per 1000 catchment population and the timing of other campaigns, no evidence of a decrease in consultations at the health facility during HPV vaccination week was found across outpatient, ANC, routine immunisation and FP services. However, compared to the average week before and after the campaign, health workers reported longer working hours and patient waiting times, feeling over-stretched and performing duties outside their normal roles whilst colleagues were absent from the facility conducting the HPV vaccine campaign. CONCLUSION: Qualitative interviews with health workers revealed that staff absence from the health facility is common for a number of reasons, including vaccination campaigns. Health workers perceived that the absence of their colleagues increased the workload at the health facility. The numbers of consultations for each service on 'normal days' were low and highly variable and there was no clear detrimental effect of the HPV vaccination campaign on routine health service activity.
The past 10 years have seen remarkable progress in the global scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations. Forty-three low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) have gained experience in delivering this vaccine to young adolescent girls through pilot programs, demonstration programs, and national introductions and most of these have occurred in the last 4 years. The experience of Senegal is summarized as an illustrative country case study. Publication of numerous delivery experiences and lessons learned has demonstrated the acceptability and feasibility of HPV vaccinations in LLMICs. Four areas require dedicated action to overcome remaining challenges to national scaling-up: maintaining momentum politically, planning successfully, securing financing, and fostering sustainability. Advances in policy, programming, and science may help accelerate reaching 30 million girls in LLMICs with HPV vaccine by 2020.
Since 2007, low and middle-income countries (LMICs) have gained experience delivering HPV vaccines through HPV vaccination pilots, demonstration projects and national programmes. This commentary summarises lessons from HPV vaccination experiences in 45 LMICs and what works for HPV vaccination introduction. Methods included a systematic literature review, unpublished document review, and key informant interviews. Data were extracted from 61 peer-reviewed articles, 11 conference abstracts, 188 technical reports, and 56 interviews, with quantitative data analysed descriptively and qualitative data analysed thematically. Key lessons are described under five themes of preparation, communications, delivery, coverage achievements, and sustainability. Lessons learnt were generally consistent across countries and projects and sufficient lessons have been learnt for countries to deliver HPV vaccine through phased national rollout rather than demonstration projects. However, challenges remain in securing the political will and financial resources necessary to implement successful national programmes.
Since 2007, low and middle-income countries (LMICs) have gained experience delivering HPV vaccines through HPV vaccination pilots, demonstration projects and national programmes. This commentary summarises lessons from HPV vaccination experiences in 45 LMICs and what works for HPV vaccination introduction. Methods included a systematic literature review, unpublished document review, and key informant interviews. Data were extracted from 61 peer-reviewed articles, 11 conference abstracts, 188 technical reports, and 56 interviews, with quantitative data analysed descriptively and qualitative data analysed thematically. Key lessons are described under five themes of preparation, communications, delivery, coverage achievements, and sustainability. Lessons learnt were generally consistent across countries and projects and sufficient lessons have been learnt for countries to deliver HPV vaccine through phased national rollout rather than demonstration projects. However, challenges remain in securing the political will and financial resources necessary to implement successful national programmes.
BACKGROUND: Social mobilisation during new vaccine introductions encourages acceptance, uptake and adherence to multi-dose schedules. Effective communication is considered especially important for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which targets girls of an often-novel age group. This study synthesised experiences and lessons learnt around social mobilisation, consent, and acceptability during 55 HPV vaccine demonstration projects and 8 national programmes in 37 low and middle-income countries (LMICs) between January 2007 and January 2015. METHODS: A qualitative study design included: (i) a systematic review, in which 1,301 abstracts from five databases were screened and 41 publications included; (ii) soliciting 124 unpublished documents from governments and partner institutions; and (iii) conducting 27 key informant interviews. Data were extracted and analysed thematically. Additionally, first-dose coverage rates were categorised as above 90 %, 90-70 %, and below 70 %, and cross-tabulated with mobilisation timing, message content, materials and methods of delivery, and consent procedures. RESULTS: All but one delivery experience achieved over 70 % first-dose coverage; 60 % achieved over 90 %. Key informants emphasized the benefits of starting social mobilisation early and actively addressing rumours as they emerged. Interactive communication with parents appeared to achieve higher first-dose coverage than non-interactive messaging. Written parental consent (i.e., opt-in), though frequently used, resulted in lower reported coverage than implied consent (i.e., opt-out). Protection against cervical cancer was the primary reason for vaccine acceptability, whereas fear of adverse effects, exposure to rumours, lack of project/programme awareness, and schoolgirl absenteeism were major reasons for non-vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some challenges in obtaining parental consent and addressing rumours, experiences indicated effective social mobilisation and high HPV vaccine acceptability in LMICs. Social mobilisation, consent, and acceptability lessons were consistent across world regions and HPV vaccination projects/programmes. These can be used to guide HPV vaccination communication strategies without additional formative research.
Background: The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods: The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant's last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings: Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation: The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV.
BACKGROUND: The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. METHODS: The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all ...
