BackgroundSeveral West African countries are unlikely to achieve the recommended Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) immunisation coverage and dropout targets in a landscape beset with entrenched intra-country equity gaps in immunisation. Our aim was to assess and compare the immunisation coverage, dropout and equity gaps across 15 West African countries between 2000 and 2017.MethodsWe compared Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) and the third dose of diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP3) containing vaccine coverage between 2000 and 2017 using the WHO and Unicef Estimates of National Immunisation Coverage for 15 West African countries. Estimated subregional median and weighted average coverages, and dropout (DTP1–DTP3) were tracked against the GVAP targets of ≥90% coverage (BCG and DTP3), and ≤10% dropouts. Equity gaps in immunisation were assessed using the latest disaggregated national health survey immunisation data.ResultsThe weighted average subregional BCG coverage was 60.7% in 2000, peaked at 83.2% in 2009 and was 65.7% in 2017. The weighted average DTP3 coverage was 42.3% in 2000, peaked at 70.3% in 2009 and was 61.5% in 2017. As of 2017, 46.7% of countries (7/15) had met the GVAP targets on DTP3 coverage. Average weighted subregional immunisation dropouts consistently reduced from 16.4% in 2000 to 7.4% in 2017, meeting the GVAP target in 2008. In most countries, inequalities in BCG, and DTP3 coverage and dropouts were mainly related to equity gaps of more than 20% points between the wealthiest and the poorest, high coverage regions and low coverage regions, and between children of mothers with at least secondary education and those with no formal education. A child’s sex and place of residence (urban or rural) minimally determined equity gaps.ConclusionsThe West African subregion made progress between 2000 and 2017 in ensuring that its children utilised immunisation services, however, wide equity gaps persist.

Summary Background The WHO Regional Office for the Africa Regional Immunization Technical Advisory Group, in 2011, adopted the measles control and elimination goals for all countries of the African region to achieve in 2015 and 2020 respectively. Our aim was to track the current status of progress towards measles control and elimination milestones across 15 west African countries between 2001 and 2019. Methods We did a retrospective multicountry series analysis of national immunisation coverage and case surveillance data from Jan 1, 2001, to Dec 31, 2019. Our analysis focused on the 15 west African countries that constitute the Economic Community of West African States. We tracked progress in the coverage of measles-containing vaccines (MCVs), measles supplementary immunisation activities, and measles incidence rates. We developed a country-level measles summary scorecard using eight indicators to track progress towards measles elimination as of the end of 2019. The summary indicators were tracked against measles control and elimination milestones. Findings The weighted average regional first-dose MCV coverage in 2019 was 66% compared with 45% in 2001. 73% (11 of 15) of the west African countries had introduced second-dose MCV as of December, 2019. An estimated 4 588 040 children (aged 12–23 months) did not receive first-dose MCV in 2019, the majority (71%) of whom lived in Nigeria. Based on the scorecard, 12 (80%) countries are off-track to achieving measles elimination milestones; however, Cape Verde, The Gambia, and Ghana have made substantial progress. Interpretation Measles will continue to be endemic in west Africa after 2020. The regional measles incidence rate in 2019 was 33 times the 2020 elimination target of less than 1 case per million population. However, some hope exists as countries can look at the efforts made by Cape Verde, The Gambia, and Ghana and learn from them. Funding None.

Background An affordable pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is needed to ensure sustainable access in low-income and middle-income countries. This trial examined the immunogenicity and safety of a novel ten-valent PCV (SIIPL-PCV) containing serotypes 1, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 19A, 19F, and 23F compared with the pneumococcal polysaccharide protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV; Synflorix; GlaxoSmithKline; Brentford, UK).Methods In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia, healthy, PCV-naive infants aged 6-8 weeks were enrolled and assigned using permuted block randomisation to receive one of three lots of SIIPL-PCV or to PHiD-CV in a ratio of 2:2:2:3. Parents and all staff assessing study outcomes were masked to group assignment. Vaccines (0•5 mL SIIPL-PCV or 0•5 mL PHiD-CV) were administered at ages 6, 10, and 14 weeks by intramuscular injection. Primary immunogenicity outcomes, measured at age 18 weeks, were serotype-specific IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and seroresponse rates (IgG ≥ 0•35 μg/mL). Lot-to-lot equivalence (objective 1) was shown if the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 95% CI around the GMC ratio for each pairwise lot-to-lot comparison was between the 0•5 and 2•0 equivalence margins for all ten serotypes. The immunogenicity of SIIPL-PCV was defined as being non-inferior to that of PHiD-CV (objective 2) if, for at least seven of the ten serotypes in SIIPL-PCV, the lower bound of the 97•5% CI for the GMC ratio was greater than 0•5, or the lower bound of the 97•5% CI for differences in seroresponse rate was greater than -10%. The GMC and seroresponse rates to serotypes 6A and 19A, which are not in PHiD-CV, were compared with those of the serotype in PHiD-CV that had the lowest seroresponse rate. Non-inferiority of the immune responses to antigens in the co-administered Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) vaccines (objective 3) was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between SIIPL-PCV and PHiD-CV in seroresponse rates, or GMC ratios for pertussis antigens, was greater than -10% (or 0•5 for pertussis antigens) for all vaccine antigens. Safety data were assessed according to treatment received at the first visit in infants who received at least one dose of study vaccine and for whom at least some post-vaccination safety data were available. The primary immunogenicity analysis was in the per-protocol immunogenicity population, which included infants who received all study vaccines and had immunogenicity measurements after vaccination and no major protocol deviations. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03197376).

Objective The declaration of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), a pandemic in early 2020, has seen an upsurge in research globally to fill gaps in the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus impact on health care and clinical management, as well as possible prevention and treatment modalities. Published literature on the different types of COVID-19 research conducted globally is varied and is particularly limited in Africa. This study sets out to describe the COVID-19-related research registered and conducted on the African continent. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of all COVID-19-related studies available in the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) repository. We extracted studies registered from March 1, 2020, to July 15, 2021. A descriptive analysis of the extracted data was performed, and the findings were presented. Results At extraction, a total of 12,533 COVID-19-related studies were listed on the ICTRP portal. We included 9803 studies, after excluding 2060 duplicate records and 686 records without a site/country. While 9347 studies (96%) were conducted outside of Africa, only 456 studies (4%) were conducted in the African continent, of which 270 (59.2%) were interventional studies, and 184 (40.4%) were observational studies. About 80% of the studies were conducted in Egypt and South Africa, and most of these involved testing of drugs and biologicals. Conclusion The African continent hosts considerably fewer COVID-19-related research compared to other parts of the world. This may have implications on scientific evidence available for implementing COVID-19 control efforts. There is, therefore, a need for local funding and ownership of research projects and north-south collaboration in research.

No abstract