Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Finger F, Mimbu N, Ratnayake R, Meakin S, Bahati JB, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2024. 2024 May 16; DOI:10.57740/tC1av3293
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Confl Health. 2022 March 29; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 12.; DOI:10.1186/s13031-022-00445-1
D'Mello-Guyett L, Cumming O, Rogers E, D'hondt R, Mengitsu E, et al.
Confl Health. 2022 March 29; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 12.; DOI:10.1186/s13031-022-00445-1
BACKGROUND
Cholera epidemics occur frequently in low-income countries affected by concurrent humanitarian crises. Evaluations of these epidemic response remains largely unpublished and there is a need to generate evidence on response efforts to inform future programmes. This review of MSF cholera epidemic responses aimed to describe the main characteristics of the cholera epidemics and related responses in these three countries, to identify challenges to different intervention strategies based on available data; and to make recommendations for epidemic prevention and control practice and policy.
METHODS
Case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi and Mozambique were purposively selected by MSF for this review due to the documented burden of cholera in each country, frequency of cholera outbreaks, and risk of humanitarian crises. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the epidemics; time between alert and response; and, the delivery of health and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions. A Theory of Change for cholera response programmes was built to assess factors that affected implementation of the responses.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
20 epidemic response reports were identified, 15 in DRC, one in Malawi and four in Mozambique. All contexts experienced concurrent humanitarian crises, either armed conflict or natural disasters. Across the settings, median time between the date of alert and date of the start of the response by MSF was 23 days (IQR 14-41). Almost all responses targeted interventions community-wide, and all responses implemented in-patient treatment of suspected cholera cases in either established health care facilities (HCFs) or temporary cholera treatment units (CTUs). In three responses, interventions were delivered as case-area targeted interventions (CATI) and four responses targeted households of admitted suspected cholera cases. CATI or delivery of interventions to households of admitted suspected cases occurred from 2017 onwards only. Overall, 74 factors affecting implementation were identified including delayed supplies of materials, insufficient quantities of materials and limited or lack of coordination with local government or other agencies. Based on this review, the following recommendations are made to improve cholera prevention and control efforts: explore improved models for epidemic preparedness, including rapid mobilisation of supplies and deployment of trained staff; invest in and strengthen partnerships with national and local government and other agencies; and to standardise reporting templates that allow for rigorous and structured evaluations within and across countries to provide consistent and accessible data.
Cholera epidemics occur frequently in low-income countries affected by concurrent humanitarian crises. Evaluations of these epidemic response remains largely unpublished and there is a need to generate evidence on response efforts to inform future programmes. This review of MSF cholera epidemic responses aimed to describe the main characteristics of the cholera epidemics and related responses in these three countries, to identify challenges to different intervention strategies based on available data; and to make recommendations for epidemic prevention and control practice and policy.
METHODS
Case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi and Mozambique were purposively selected by MSF for this review due to the documented burden of cholera in each country, frequency of cholera outbreaks, and risk of humanitarian crises. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the epidemics; time between alert and response; and, the delivery of health and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions. A Theory of Change for cholera response programmes was built to assess factors that affected implementation of the responses.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
20 epidemic response reports were identified, 15 in DRC, one in Malawi and four in Mozambique. All contexts experienced concurrent humanitarian crises, either armed conflict or natural disasters. Across the settings, median time between the date of alert and date of the start of the response by MSF was 23 days (IQR 14-41). Almost all responses targeted interventions community-wide, and all responses implemented in-patient treatment of suspected cholera cases in either established health care facilities (HCFs) or temporary cholera treatment units (CTUs). In three responses, interventions were delivered as case-area targeted interventions (CATI) and four responses targeted households of admitted suspected cholera cases. CATI or delivery of interventions to households of admitted suspected cases occurred from 2017 onwards only. Overall, 74 factors affecting implementation were identified including delayed supplies of materials, insufficient quantities of materials and limited or lack of coordination with local government or other agencies. Based on this review, the following recommendations are made to improve cholera prevention and control efforts: explore improved models for epidemic preparedness, including rapid mobilisation of supplies and deployment of trained staff; invest in and strengthen partnerships with national and local government and other agencies; and to standardise reporting templates that allow for rigorous and structured evaluations within and across countries to provide consistent and accessible data.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Leclair C, Marien J, Sinzinkayo D, Abdelrahman A, Lampaert E, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 2021 May 19
Conference Material > Abstract
Finger F, Mimbu N, Ratnayake R, Meakin S, Bahati JB, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2024. 2024 May 16; DOI:10.57740/hfok99y
INTRODUCTION
The risk of cholera outbreaks spreading rapidly and extensively is substantial. Case-area targeted interventions (CATI) are based on the premise that early detection can trigger a rapid, localised response in the high-risk radius around case-households to reduce transmission sufficiently to extinguish the outbreak or reduce its spread, as opposed to relying on resource-intensive mass interventions. Current evidence supports intervention in a high-risk spatiotemporal zone of up to 200 m around case- households for 5 days after case presentation. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) started delivering CATI to people living within these high-risk rings during outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in April 2022. We present the results of a prospective observational study designed to evaluate the CATI strategy, measuring effectiveness, feasibility, timeliness, and resource requirements, and we extract operational learnings.
METHODS
Between April 2022 and April 2023, MSF delivered the holistic CATI package in five cholera-affected regions. The package incorporated key interventions combining household-level water, sanitation, and hygiene measures, health promotion, antibiotic chemoprophylaxis, and single-dose oral cholera vaccination (OCV). We conducted a survey in each ring roughly 3 weeks after the intervention to estimate coverage and uptake of the different components. We measured effectiveness by comparing cholera incidence in the first 30 days between rings with different delays from primary case presentation to CATI implementation, using a Bayesian regression model and adjusting for covariates such as population density, age, and access to water and sanitation.
RESULTS
During the study, four MSF operational sections implemented 118 CATI rings in five sites. The median number of households per ring was 70, the median OCV coverage was 85%, and the median time from presentation of the primary case to CATI implementation and to vaccination was 2 days and 3 days, respectively. These characteristics varied widely across sites and between rings. No secondary cases were observed in 81 (78%) of 104 rings included in the analysis, and we noted a (non- significant) decreasing trend in the number of secondary cases with decreasing delay to CATI implementation, e.g. 1.3 cases [95% CrI 0.01–4.9] for CATI implementation starting within 5 days from primary case presentation, and 0.5 cases [0.03–2.0] for CATI starting within 2 days.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that rapid implementation of CATI with vaccination is feasible in complex contexts. The number of secondary cases was low when CATI was implemented promptly. This highly targeted approach may be an effective strategy to quickly protect people most at risk and is resource- efficient if implemented early to extinguish localised outbreaks before they require mass interventions.
The risk of cholera outbreaks spreading rapidly and extensively is substantial. Case-area targeted interventions (CATI) are based on the premise that early detection can trigger a rapid, localised response in the high-risk radius around case-households to reduce transmission sufficiently to extinguish the outbreak or reduce its spread, as opposed to relying on resource-intensive mass interventions. Current evidence supports intervention in a high-risk spatiotemporal zone of up to 200 m around case- households for 5 days after case presentation. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) started delivering CATI to people living within these high-risk rings during outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in April 2022. We present the results of a prospective observational study designed to evaluate the CATI strategy, measuring effectiveness, feasibility, timeliness, and resource requirements, and we extract operational learnings.
METHODS
Between April 2022 and April 2023, MSF delivered the holistic CATI package in five cholera-affected regions. The package incorporated key interventions combining household-level water, sanitation, and hygiene measures, health promotion, antibiotic chemoprophylaxis, and single-dose oral cholera vaccination (OCV). We conducted a survey in each ring roughly 3 weeks after the intervention to estimate coverage and uptake of the different components. We measured effectiveness by comparing cholera incidence in the first 30 days between rings with different delays from primary case presentation to CATI implementation, using a Bayesian regression model and adjusting for covariates such as population density, age, and access to water and sanitation.
RESULTS
During the study, four MSF operational sections implemented 118 CATI rings in five sites. The median number of households per ring was 70, the median OCV coverage was 85%, and the median time from presentation of the primary case to CATI implementation and to vaccination was 2 days and 3 days, respectively. These characteristics varied widely across sites and between rings. No secondary cases were observed in 81 (78%) of 104 rings included in the analysis, and we noted a (non- significant) decreasing trend in the number of secondary cases with decreasing delay to CATI implementation, e.g. 1.3 cases [95% CrI 0.01–4.9] for CATI implementation starting within 5 days from primary case presentation, and 0.5 cases [0.03–2.0] for CATI starting within 2 days.
CONCLUSION
Our results show that rapid implementation of CATI with vaccination is feasible in complex contexts. The number of secondary cases was low when CATI was implemented promptly. This highly targeted approach may be an effective strategy to quickly protect people most at risk and is resource- efficient if implemented early to extinguish localised outbreaks before they require mass interventions.
Conference Material > Abstract
Leclair C, Marien J, Sinzinkayo D, Abdelrahman A, Lampaert E, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 2021 May 19
INTRODUCTION
In Burundi, malaria continues to be a major public health issue as the leading cause of health facility attendance, high levels of mortality and devastating malaria epidemics in highland areas. Since 2004, Burundi’s National Malaria Control Programme (PNILP) has developed an integrated malaria control strategy. Since 2016, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), in collaboration with the PNILP, has implemented integrated malaria control interventions within two malaria endemic health districts located in the central highlands and eastern border regions.
METHODS
We re-assessed epidemiological trends for malaria in Burundi to: (1) evaluate spatial heterogeneity and seasonality; (2) longitudinally describe trends in disease incidence for three epidemiological strata; and (3) assess the association between long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) mass distribution campaigns (MDC) and disease incidence. Analysis used malaria case data, routinely collected and reported weekly by PNILP from 2011- 2019. Malaria cases were converted into incidence rates, using existing population data, and expressed per 1000 population at risk. Health districts (n=47) were categorized into three different strata based upon geographic elevation and endemic channels, using the quartile method. A generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) was implemented in R to analyze time-series data.
ETHICS
This work met the requirements for exemption from MSF Ethics Review Board review, and was conducted with permission from Sebastian Spencer, Medical Director, Operational Centre Brussels, MSF.
RESULTS
From 2011-2016, seasonality and intensity of malaria transmission was heterogeneous across the three epidemiological strata. The median incidence (cases/1000 population) for health districts <1200m elevation was 6.0 (interquartile range, IQR, 4.3-8.5); for those 1200-1850m, incidence was 12.3 (IQR 8.0-17.6); and for those >1850m, incidence was 2.1 (IQR 1.1-6.3). In contrast to the observed incidence rates for health districts within the endemic channels at <1200m and >1850m, health districts within the endemic
channel at 1200-1850m showed marked seasonality, with a bimodal distribution. Health districts in these endemic channels, had peaks in median incidence of 17.6 cases/1000 and 15.1cases/1000 population in weeks 26 and 52, respectively. GAMM analysis suggested an increasing trend in malaria incidence over the period 2011—2019. The analysis further revealed that LLIN-MDC campaigns were associated with a rapid reduction in malaria incidence, but the epidemiological impact was attenuated after one year. Specifically, comparing malaria incidence in three health districts adjacent to MSF’s intervention area (1200-1850m channel), the 2017 LLIN-MCD was associated with a 44% reduction in clinical incidence one year post-distribution (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.556-0.56), but no evidence for a reduction two years post-distribution was observed RR 1.10 (95%CI 1.092-1.099).
CONCLUSION
These findings highlight the effectiveness of LLIN as a malaria control intervention across different epidemiological strata in Burundi. However, the duration of functional effectiveness of LLIN is most definitely less than 3 years and may be shorter than one year in Burundi. The reasons underlying these finding are legion. Further operational research is needed to disentangle the dynamic interplay between operational, human behavioural, sociological, and entomological factors.
In Burundi, malaria continues to be a major public health issue as the leading cause of health facility attendance, high levels of mortality and devastating malaria epidemics in highland areas. Since 2004, Burundi’s National Malaria Control Programme (PNILP) has developed an integrated malaria control strategy. Since 2016, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), in collaboration with the PNILP, has implemented integrated malaria control interventions within two malaria endemic health districts located in the central highlands and eastern border regions.
METHODS
We re-assessed epidemiological trends for malaria in Burundi to: (1) evaluate spatial heterogeneity and seasonality; (2) longitudinally describe trends in disease incidence for three epidemiological strata; and (3) assess the association between long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) mass distribution campaigns (MDC) and disease incidence. Analysis used malaria case data, routinely collected and reported weekly by PNILP from 2011- 2019. Malaria cases were converted into incidence rates, using existing population data, and expressed per 1000 population at risk. Health districts (n=47) were categorized into three different strata based upon geographic elevation and endemic channels, using the quartile method. A generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) was implemented in R to analyze time-series data.
ETHICS
This work met the requirements for exemption from MSF Ethics Review Board review, and was conducted with permission from Sebastian Spencer, Medical Director, Operational Centre Brussels, MSF.
RESULTS
From 2011-2016, seasonality and intensity of malaria transmission was heterogeneous across the three epidemiological strata. The median incidence (cases/1000 population) for health districts <1200m elevation was 6.0 (interquartile range, IQR, 4.3-8.5); for those 1200-1850m, incidence was 12.3 (IQR 8.0-17.6); and for those >1850m, incidence was 2.1 (IQR 1.1-6.3). In contrast to the observed incidence rates for health districts within the endemic channels at <1200m and >1850m, health districts within the endemic
channel at 1200-1850m showed marked seasonality, with a bimodal distribution. Health districts in these endemic channels, had peaks in median incidence of 17.6 cases/1000 and 15.1cases/1000 population in weeks 26 and 52, respectively. GAMM analysis suggested an increasing trend in malaria incidence over the period 2011—2019. The analysis further revealed that LLIN-MDC campaigns were associated with a rapid reduction in malaria incidence, but the epidemiological impact was attenuated after one year. Specifically, comparing malaria incidence in three health districts adjacent to MSF’s intervention area (1200-1850m channel), the 2017 LLIN-MCD was associated with a 44% reduction in clinical incidence one year post-distribution (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.556-0.56), but no evidence for a reduction two years post-distribution was observed RR 1.10 (95%CI 1.092-1.099).
CONCLUSION
These findings highlight the effectiveness of LLIN as a malaria control intervention across different epidemiological strata in Burundi. However, the duration of functional effectiveness of LLIN is most definitely less than 3 years and may be shorter than one year in Burundi. The reasons underlying these finding are legion. Further operational research is needed to disentangle the dynamic interplay between operational, human behavioural, sociological, and entomological factors.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMJ Open. 2021 October 1; Volume 11 (Issue 10); e050943.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050943
D'Mello-Guyett L, Cumming O, Bonneville S, D'hondt R, Mashako M, et al.
BMJ Open. 2021 October 1; Volume 11 (Issue 10); e050943.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050943
INTRODUCTION
Household contacts of cholera cases are at a greater risk of Vibrio cholerae infection than the general population. There is currently no agreed standard of care for household contacts, despite their high risk of infection, in cholera response strategies. In 2018, hygiene kit distribution and health promotion was recommended by Médecins Sans Frontières for admitted patients and accompanying household members on admission to a cholera treatment unit in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
METHODS
investigate the effectiveness of the intervention and risk factors for cholera infection, we conducted a prospective cohort study and followed household contacts for 7 days after patient admission. Clinical surveillance among household contacts was based on self-reported symptoms of cholera and diarrhoea, and environmental surveillance through the collection and analysis of food and water samples.
RESULTS
From 94 eligible households, 469 household contacts were enrolled and 444 completed follow-up. Multivariate analysis suggested evidence of a dose-response relationship with increased kit use associated with decreased relative risk of suspected cholera: household contacts in the high kit-use group had a 66% lower incidence of suspected cholera (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03, p=0.055), the mid-use group had a 53% lower incidence (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, p=1.44) and low-use group had 22% lower incidence (aRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.53, p=0.684), compared with household contacts without a kit. Drinking water contamination was significantly reduced among households in receipt of a kit. There was no significant effect on self-reported diarrhoea or food contamination.
CONCLUSION
The integration of a hygiene kit intervention to case-households may be effective in reducing cholera transmission among household contacts and environmental contamination within the household. Further work is required to evaluate whether other proactive localised distribution among patients and case-households or to households surrounding cholera cases can be used in future cholera response programmes in emergency contexts.
Household contacts of cholera cases are at a greater risk of Vibrio cholerae infection than the general population. There is currently no agreed standard of care for household contacts, despite their high risk of infection, in cholera response strategies. In 2018, hygiene kit distribution and health promotion was recommended by Médecins Sans Frontières for admitted patients and accompanying household members on admission to a cholera treatment unit in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
METHODS
investigate the effectiveness of the intervention and risk factors for cholera infection, we conducted a prospective cohort study and followed household contacts for 7 days after patient admission. Clinical surveillance among household contacts was based on self-reported symptoms of cholera and diarrhoea, and environmental surveillance through the collection and analysis of food and water samples.
RESULTS
From 94 eligible households, 469 household contacts were enrolled and 444 completed follow-up. Multivariate analysis suggested evidence of a dose-response relationship with increased kit use associated with decreased relative risk of suspected cholera: household contacts in the high kit-use group had a 66% lower incidence of suspected cholera (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03, p=0.055), the mid-use group had a 53% lower incidence (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, p=1.44) and low-use group had 22% lower incidence (aRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.53, p=0.684), compared with household contacts without a kit. Drinking water contamination was significantly reduced among households in receipt of a kit. There was no significant effect on self-reported diarrhoea or food contamination.
CONCLUSION
The integration of a hygiene kit intervention to case-households may be effective in reducing cholera transmission among household contacts and environmental contamination within the household. Further work is required to evaluate whether other proactive localised distribution among patients and case-households or to households surrounding cholera cases can be used in future cholera response programmes in emergency contexts.