Euvichol-plus vaccine campaign coverage during the 2017/2018 cholera outbreak in Lusaka district, Zambia: a cross-sectional descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the coverage for the oral cholera vaccine (OCV) campaign conducted during the 2017/2018 cholera outbreak in Lusaka, Zambia.

STUDY DESIGN

A descriptive cross-sectional study employing survey method conducted among 1691 respondents from 369 households following the second round of the 2018 OCV campaign.

STUDY SETTING

Four primary healthcare facilities and their catchment areas in Lusaka city (Kanyama, Chawama, Chipata and Matero subdistricts).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1691 respondents 12 months and older sampled from 369 households where the campaign was conducted. A satellite map-based sampling technique was used to randomly select households.

DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

A pretested electronic questionnaire uploaded on an electronic tablet (ODK V.1.12.2) was used for data collection. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarise respondents' characteristics and OCV coverage per dose. Bivariate analysis (χ2 test) was conducted to stratify OCV coverage according to age and sex for each round (p<0.05).

RESULTS

The overall coverage for the first, second and two doses were 81.3% (95% CI 79.24% to 83.36%), 72.1% (95% CI 69.58% to 74.62%) and 66% (95% CI 63.22% to 68.78%), respectively. The drop-out rate was 18.8% (95% CI 14.51% to 23.09%). Of the 81.3% who received the first dose, 58.8% were female. Among those who received the second dose, the majority (61.0%) were females aged between 5 and 14 years (42.6%) and 15 and 35 years (27.7%). Only 15.5% of the participants aged between 36 and 65 and 2.5% among those aged above 65 years received the second dose.

CONCLUSION

These findings confirm the 2018 OCV campaign coverage and highlight the need for follow-up surveys to validate administrative coverage estimates using population-based methods. Reliance on health facility data alone may mask low coverage and prevent measures to improve programming. Future public health interventions should consider sociodemographic factors in order to achieve optimal vaccine coverage.

Delayed second dose of oral cholera vaccine administered before high-risk period for cholera transmission: Cholera control strategy in Lusaka, 2016

BACKGROUND

In April 2016, an emergency vaccination campaign using one dose of Oral Cholera Vaccine (OCV) was organized in response to a cholera outbreak that started in Lusaka in February 2016. In December 2016, a second round of vaccination was conducted, with the objective of increasing the duration of protection, before the high-risk period for cholera transmission. We assessed vaccination coverage for the first and second rounds of the OCV campaign.

METHODS

Vaccination coverage was estimated after each round from a sample selected from targeted-areas for vaccination using a cross-sectional survey in to establish the vaccination status of the individuals recruited. The study population included all individuals older than 12 months residing in the areas targeted for vaccination. We interviewed 505 randomly selected individuals after the first round and 442 after the second round. Vaccination status was ascertained either by vaccination card or verbal reporting. Households were selected using spatial random sampling.

RESULTS

The vaccination coverage with two doses was 58.1% (25/43; 95%CI: 42.1-72.9) in children 1-5 years old, 59.5% (69/116; 95%CI: 49.9-68.5) in children 5-15 years old and 19.9% (56/281; 95%CI: 15.4-25.1) in adults above 15 years old. The overall dropout rate was 10.9% (95%CI: 8.1-14.1). Overall, 69.9% (n = 309/442; 95%CI: 65.4-74.1) reported to have received at least one OCV dose.

CONCLUSIONS

The areas at highest risk of suffering cholera outbreaks were targeted for vaccination obtaining relatively high vaccine coverage after each round. However, the long delay between doses in areas subject to considerable population movement resulted in many individuals receiving only one OCV dose. Additional vaccination campaigns may be required to sustain protection over time in case of persistence of risk. Further evidence is needed to establish a maximum optimal interval time of a delayed second dose and variations in different settings.