Potential for Controlling Cholera Using a Ring Vaccination Strategy: Re-analysis of Data from a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Mohammad Ali, Amanda K Debes, Francisco J Luquero, Deok Ryun Kim, Je Yeon Park, Laura Digilio, Byomkesh Manna, Suman Kanungo, Shanta Dutta, Dipika Sur, Sujit K Bhattacharya, David A Sack, Mohammad Ali, Amanda K Debes, Francisco J Luquero, Deok Ryun Kim, Je Yeon Park, Laura Digilio, Byomkesh Manna, Suman Kanungo, Shanta Dutta, Dipika Sur, Sujit K Bhattacharya, David A Sack

Abstract

Introduction: Vaccinating a buffer of individuals around a case (ring vaccination) has the potential to target those who are at highest risk of infection, reducing the number of doses needed to control a disease. We explored the potential vaccine effectiveness (VE) of oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) for such a strategy.

Methods and findings: This analysis uses existing data from a cluster-randomized clinical trial in which OCV or placebo was given to 71,900 participants in Kolkata, India, from 27 July to 10 September 2006. Cholera surveillance was then conducted on 144,106 individuals living in the study area, including trial participants, for 5 y following vaccination. First, we explored the risk of cholera among contacts of cholera patients, and, second, we measured VE among individuals living within 25 m of cholera cases between 8 and 28 d after onset of the index case. For the first analysis, individuals living around each index case identified during the 5-y period were assembled using a ring to define cohorts of individuals exposed to cholera index cases. An index control without cholera was randomly selected for each index case from the same population, matched by age group, and individuals living around each index control were assembled using a ring to define cohorts not exposed to cholera cases. Cholera attack rates among the exposed and non-exposed cohorts were compared using different distances from the index case/control to define the rings and different time frames to define the period at risk. For the VE analysis, the exposed cohorts were further stratified according to the level of vaccine coverage into high and low coverage strata. Overall VE was assessed by comparing the attack rates between high and low vaccine coverage strata irrespective of individuals' vaccination status, and indirect VE was assessed by comparing the attack rates among unvaccinated members between high and low vaccine coverage strata. Cholera risk among the cohort exposed to cholera cases was 5-11 times higher than that among the cohort not exposed to cholera cases. The risk gradually diminished with an increase in distance and time. The overall and indirect VE measured between 8 and 28 d after exposure to a cholera index case during the first 2 y was 91% (95% CI 62%-98%) and 93% (95% CI 44%-99%), respectively. VE persisted for 5 y after vaccination and was similar whether the index case was a young child (<5 y) or was older. Of note, this study was a reanalysis of a cholera vaccine trial that used two doses; thus, a limitation of the study relates to the assumption that a single dose, if administered quickly, will induce a similar level of total and indirect protection over the short term as did two doses.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that high-level protection can be achieved if individuals living close to cholera cases are living in a high coverage ring. Since this was an observational study including participants who had received two doses of vaccine (or placebo) in the clinical trial, further studies are needed to determine whether a ring vaccination strategy, in which vaccine is given quickly to those living close to a case, is feasible and effective.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00289224.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FJL received grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. All other authors have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT flow chart for assembling…
Fig 1. CONSORT flow chart for assembling the population.
The ring 0–10 m includes individuals living 0.00 m to 10.00 m from the index case/control, the ring 11–15 m includes individuals living 10.01 m to 15.00 m from the index case/control, and so on.
Fig 2. Relative risk for cholera between…
Fig 2. Relative risk for cholera between cohorts of cases and cohorts of controls in spatiotemporal scales.
Since there were no cholera cases among cohorts of index controls in the 16–20-m ring during the 15–21-d time frame, the relative risk could not be calculated. The 95% confidence intervals are shown by error bars. We cut off the upper 95% CI of the 0–10-m ring and 8–14-d time frame (which is 37.36) for better visualization of all bars and their 95% CIs.

References

    1. Ali M, Nelson AR, Lopez AL, Sack DA. Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003832 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003832
    1. Luquero FJ, Grout L, Ciglenecki I, Sakoba K, Traore B, Heile M, et al. Use of Vibrio cholerae vaccine in an outbreak in Guinea. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2111–2120. 10.1056/NEJMoa1312680
    1. Ivers LC, Farmer PE, Pape WJ. Oral cholera vaccine and integrated cholera control in Haiti. Lancet. 2012;379:2026–2028. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60832-0
    1. Lucas ME, Deen JL, von Seidlein L, Wang XY, Ampuero J, Puri M, et al. Effectiveness of mass oral cholera vaccination in Beira, Mozambique. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:757–767. 10.1056/NEJMoa043323
    1. Bhattacharya SK, Sur D, Ali M, Kanungo S, You YA, Manna B, et al. 5 year efficacy of a bivalent killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccine in Kolkata, India: a cluster-randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:1050–1056. 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70273-1
    1. Longini IM Jr, Nizam A, Ali M, Yunus M, Shenvi N, Clemens JD. Controlling endemic cholera with oral vaccines. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e336 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040336
    1. Martin S, Costa A, Perea W. Stockpiling oral cholera vaccine. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90:714 10.2471/BLT.12.112433
    1. You YA, Ali M, Kanungo S, Sah B, Manna B, Puri M, et al. Risk map of cholera infection for vaccine deployment: the eastern Kolkata case. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e71173 10.1371/journal.pone.0071173
    1. Luquero FJ, Banga CN, Remartinez D, Palma PP, Baron E, Grais RF. Cholera epidemic in Guinea-Bissau (2008): the importance of “place”. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e19005 10.1371/journal.pone.0019005
    1. Osei FB, Duker AA. Spatial and demographic patterns of cholera in Ashanti region—Ghana. Int J Health Geogr. 2008;7:44 10.1186/1476-072X-7-44
    1. Strassburg MA. The global eradication of smallpox. Am J Infect Control. 1982;10:53–59.
    1. Henao-Restrepo AM, Longini IM, Egger M, Dean NE, Edmunds WJ, Camacho A, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2015;386:857–866. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61117-5
    1. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80:27–38.
    1. Shapiro ED. Case-control studies of the effectiveness of vaccines: validity and assessment of potential bias. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23:127–131. 10.1097/01.inf.0000109248.32907.1d
    1. Deb BC, Sircar BK, Sengupta PG, De SP, Sen D, Saha MR, et al. Intra-familial transmission of Vibrio cholerae biotype E1 Tor in Calcutta slums. Indian J Med Res. 1982;76:814–819.
    1. Weil AA, Begum Y, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, Leung DT, LaRocque RC, et al. Bacterial shedding in household contacts of cholera patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:738–742. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0095
    1. Leung DT, Rahman MA, Mohasin M, Patel SM, Aktar A, Khanam F, et al. Memory B cell and other immune responses in children receiving two doses of an oral killed cholera vaccine compared to responses following natural cholera infection in Bangladesh. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012;19:690–698. 10.1128/CVI.05615-11
    1. Rahman A, Rashu R, Bhuiyan TR, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, Islam K, et al. Antibody-secreting cell responses after Vibrio cholerae O1 infection and oral cholera vaccination in adults in Bangladesh. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013;20:1592–1598. 10.1128/CVI.00347-13
    1. Azman AS, Luquero FJ, Ciglenecki I, Grais RF, Sack DA, Lessler J. The impact of a one-dose versus two-dose oral cholera vaccine regimen in outbreak settings: a modeling study. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001867 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001867
    1. Qadri F, Wierzba TF, Ali M, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, Saha A, et al. Efficacy of a single-dose, inactivated oral cholera vaccine in Bangladesh. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1723–1732. 10.1056/NEJMoa1510330
    1. Saha A, Chowdhury MI, Khanam F, Bhuiyan MS, Chowdhury F, Khan AI, et al. Safety and immunogenicity study of a killed bivalent (O1 and O139) whole-cell oral cholera vaccine Shanchol, in Bangladeshi adults and children as young as 1 year of age. Vaccine. 2011;29:8285–8292. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.08.108
    1. Wierzba TF, Kar SK, Mogasale VV, Kerketta AS, You YA, Baral P, et al. Effectiveness of an oral cholera vaccine campaign to prevent clinically-significant cholera in Odisha State, India. Vaccine. 2015;33:2463–2469. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.073
    1. George CM, Monira S, Sack DA, Rashid MU, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM, Mahmud T, et al. Randomized controlled trial of hospital-based hygiene and water treatment intervention (CHoBI7) to reduce cholera. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22:233–241. 10.3201/eid2202.151175
    1. Troeger C, Sack DA, Chao DL. Evaluation of targeted mass cholera vaccination strategies in Bangladesh: a demonstration of a new cost-effectiveness calculator. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:1181–1189. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0159
    1. Dowdy DW, Golub JE, Chaisson RE, Saraceni V. Heterogeneity in tuberculosis transmission and the role of geographic hotspots in propagating epidemics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:9557–9562. 10.1073/pnas.1203517109
    1. Bousema T, Griffin JT, Sauerwein RW, Smith DL, Churcher TS, Takken W, et al. Hitting hotspots: spatial targeting of malaria for control and elimination. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001165 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001165

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren