Covid-19 pandemic and equity of global human papillomavirus vaccination: descriptive study of World Health Organization-Unicef vaccination coverage estimates.

Objective: To analyse progress in global vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) during the covid-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on equity. Design: Descriptive study of World Health Organization-Unicef vaccination coverage estimates. Setting: WHO-Unicef estimates of global, regional, and national HPV vaccination coverage, before (2010-19) and during (2020-21) the covid-19 pandemic. Participants: Girls aged 9-14 years who received a HPV vaccine globally before (12.3 million in 2019) and during (2020-21) the covid-19 pandemic (10.6 million in 2021). Main outcome measures: Mean programme and population adjusted coverage for first dose HPV vaccine (HPV1) by country, country income (World Bank income categories), sex, and WHO region, before (2010-19) and during (2020-21) the covid-19 pandemic, based on WHO-Unicef estimates of HPV vaccination coverage. Annual number of national HPV vaccine programme introduced since the first HPV vaccine licence was granted in 2006, based on data reported to WHO-Unicef. Number of girls vaccinated before (2019) versus during (2020-21) the covid-19 pandemic period. Results: Mean coverage of HPV vaccination programmes among girls decreased from 65% in 2010-19 to 50% in 2020-21 in low and middle income countries compared with an increase in high income countries from 61% to 69% for the same periods. Population adjusted HPV1 coverage was higher among girls in high income countries before and during the covid-19 pandemic than in girls in low and middle income countries. During the covid-19 pandemic, population adjusted HPV1 coverage among boys in high income countries was higher and remained higher than coverage among girls in low and middle income countries. Globally, 23 countries recorded a severe reduction in their HPV programme (≥50% reduction in coverage), and another 3.8 million girls globally did not receive a HPV vaccine in countries with existing HPV vaccination programmes in 2020-21 compared with 2019. A reduction was seen in the annual rate of new introductions of national HPV vaccine programmes during 2020-21, affecting countries in all income categories, followed by an increase in introductions during 2022. During the second half of 2023, several low and middle income countries with large birth cohorts and a high relative burden of cervical cancer have yet to introduce HPV vaccination. Conclusions: Although HPV vaccines have been available for more than 15 years, global HPV vaccination coverage is low. During the covid-19 pandemic period (2020-21 globally), worsening coverage, delayed introductions of national vaccine programmes, and an increase in missed girls globally (ie, girls who did not receive a HPV vaccine compared with the previous year in countries with an existing HPV vaccination programme) that disproportionately affected girls in low and middle income countries were found. Urgent and innovative recovery efforts are needed to accelerate national introduction of HPV vaccination programmes and achieve high coverage of HPV vaccination worldwide.

Vaccination information, motivations, and barriers in the context of meningococcal serogroup A conjugate vaccine introduction: A qualitative assessment among caregivers in Burkina Faso, 2018.

BACKGROUND: In March 2017, Burkina Faso introduced meningococcal serogroup A conjugate vaccine (MACV) into the Expanded Programme on Immunization. MACV is administered to children aged 15-18 months, concomitantly with the second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2). One year after MACV introduction, we assessed the sources and content of immunization information available to caregivers and explored motivations and barriers that influence their decision to seek MACV for their children. METHODS: Twenty-four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with caregivers of children eligible for MACV and MCV2. Data collection occurred in February-March 2018 in four purposively selected districts, each from a separate geographic region; within each district, caregivers were stratified into groups based on whether their children were unvaccinated or vaccinated with MACV. FGDs were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified many different sources and content of information about MACV and MCV2 available to caregivers. Healthcare workers were most commonly cited as the main sources of information; caregivers also received information from other caregivers in the community. Caregivers' motivations to seek MACV for their children were driven by personal awareness, engagements with trusted messengers, and perceived protective benefits of MACV against meningitis. Barriers to MACV and MCV2 uptake were linked to the unavailability of vaccines, immunization personnel not providing doses, knowledge gaps about the 15-18 month visit, practical constraints, past negative experiences, sociocultural influences, and misinformation, including misunderstanding about the need for MCV2. CONCLUSIONS: MACV and MCV2 uptake may be enhanced by addressing vaccination barriers and effectively communicating vaccination information and benefits through trusted messengers such as healthcare workers and other caregivers in the community. Educating healthcare workers to avoid withholding vaccines, likely due to fear of wastage, may help reduce missed opportunities for vaccination.

Seasonal influenza vaccination in middle-income countries: Assessment of immunization practices in Belarus, Morocco, and Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines for the control of seasonal influenza are recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for use in specific risk groups, but their use requires operational considerations that may challenge immunization programs. Several middle-income countries have recently implemented seasonal influenza vaccination. Early program evaluation following vaccine introduction can help ascertain positive lessons learned and areas for improvement. METHODS: An influenza vaccine post-introduction evaluation (IPIE) tool was developed jointly by WHO and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide a systematic approach to assess influenza vaccine implementation processes. The tool was used in 2017 in three middle-income countries: Belarus, Morocco and Thailand. RESULTS: Data from the three countries highlighted a number of critical factors: Health workers (HWs) are a key target group, given their roles as key influencers of acceptance by other groups, and for ensuring vaccine delivery and improved coverage. Despite WHO recommendations, pregnant women were not always prioritized and may present unique challenges for acceptance. Target group denominators need to be better defined, and vaccine coverage should be validated with vaccine distribution data, including from the private sector. There is a need for strengthening adverse events reporting and for addressing potential vaccine hesitancy through the establishment of risk communication plans. The assessments led to improvements in the countries' influenza vaccination programs, including a revision of policies, changes in vaccine management and coverage estimation, enhanced strategies for educating HWs and intensified collaboration between departments involved in implementing seasonal influenza vaccination. CONCLUSION: The IPIE tool was found useful for delineating operational strengths and weaknesses of seasonal influenza vaccination programs. HWs emerged as a critical target group to be addressed in follow-up action. Findings from this study can help direct influenza vaccination programs in other countries, as well as contribute to pandemic preparedness efforts. The updated IPIE tool is available on the WHO website http://www.who.int/immunization/research/development/influenza/en/index1.html.

Differences between coverage of yellow fever vaccine and the first dose of measles-containing vaccine: A desk review of global data sources.

INTRODUCTION: The strategy to Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) is a global initiative that includes all countries with risk of yellow fever (YF) virus transmission. Of these, 40 countries (27 in Africa and 13 in the Americas) are considered high-risk and targeted for interventions to increase coverage of YF vaccine. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that YF vaccine be given concurrently with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) in YF-endemic settings, estimated coverage for MCV1 and YF vaccine have varied widely. The objective of this study was to review global data sources to assess discrepancies in YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage and identify plausible reasons for these discrepancies. METHODS: We conducted a desk review of data from 34 countries (22 in Africa, 12 in Latin America), from 2006 to 2016, with national introduction of YF vaccine and listed as high-risk by the EYE strategy. Data reviewed included procured and administered doses, immunization schedules, routine coverage estimates and reported vaccine stock-outs. In the 30 countries included in the comparitive analysis, differences greater than 3 percentage points between YF vaccine and MCV1 coverage were considered meaningful. RESULTS: In America, there were meaningful differences (7-45%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 6 (67%) of the 9 countries. In Africa, there were meaningful differences (4-27%) in coverage of the two vaccines in 9 (43%) of the 21 countries. Nine countries (26%) reported MVC1 stock-outs while sixteen countries (47%) reported YF vaccine stock-outs for three or more years during 2006-2016. CONCLUSION: In countries reporting significant differences in coverage of the two vaccines, differences may be driven by different target populations and vaccine availability. However,these were not sufficient to completely explain observed differences. Further follow-up is needed to identify possible reasons for differences in coverage rates in several countries where these could not fully be explained.

Descriptive assessment of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis procurement, distribution, monitoring, and reporting in four Asian countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka, 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: There are approximately 35,000 human deaths from rabies in Asia annually. Rabies can be prevented through timely post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) consisting of wound washing, rabies vaccine, and in some cases, rabies immunoglobulin (RIG). However, access to rabies PEP often remains limited to urban areas and is cost-prohibitive. There is little information on procurement, distribution, monitoring, and reporting of rabies PEP. METHODS: We interviewed key informants in the public sector from various levels in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka between March 2017 and May 2018 using a descriptive assessment tool to obtain information on procurement, distribution, monitoring, and reporting of rabies PEP. These four countries in Asia were chosen to showcase a range of rabies PEP systems. National rabies focal points were interviewed in each country and focal points helped identify additional key informants at lower levels. RESULTS: A total of 22 key informants were interviewed at various levels (central level to health facility level) including national rabies focal points in each country. Each country has a unique system for managing rabies PEP procurement, distribution, monitoring, and reporting. There are varying levels of PEP access for those with potential rabies exposures. Rabies PEP is available in select health facilities throughout the country in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. In Cambodia, rabies PEP is limited to two urban centers. The availability of RIG in all four countries is limited. In these four countries, most aspects of the rabies PEP distribution system operate independently of systems for other vaccines. However, in Bhutan, rabies PEP and Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) vaccines share cold chain space in some locations at the lowest level. All countries have a monitoring system in place, but there is limited reporting of data, particularly to the central level. CONCLUSION: Systems to procure, deliver, monitor, and report on rabies PEP are variable across countries. Sharing information on practices more widely among countries can help programs to increase access to this life-saving treatment.

Cluster anxiety-related adverse events following immunization (AEFI): An assessment of reports detected in social media and those identified using an online search engine.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) arising from anxiety have rarely been reported as a cluster(s) in the setting of a mass vaccination program. Reports of clusters of anxiety-related AEFIs are understudied. Social media and the web may be a resource for public health investigators. METHODS: We searched Google and Facebook separately from Atlanta and Geneva to identify reports of cluster anxiety-related AEFIs. We reviewed a sample of reports summarizing year, country/setting, vaccine involved, patient symptoms, clinical management, and impact to vaccination programs. RESULTS: We found 39 reports referring to 18 unique cluster events. Some reports were only found based on the geographic location from where the search was performed. The most common vaccine implicated in reports was human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (48.7%). The majority of reports (97.4%) involved children and vaccination programs in school settings or as part of national vaccination campaigns. Five vaccination programs were reportedly halted because of these cluster events. In this study, we identified 18 cluster events that were not published in traditional scientific peer-reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS: Social media and online search engines are useful resources for identifying reports of cluster anxiety-related AEFIs and the geographic location of the researcher is an important factor to consider when conducting these studies. Solely relying upon traditional peer-reviewed journals may seriously underestimate the occurrence of such cluster events.

Critical issues in implementing a national integrated all-vaccine preventable disease surveillance system.

In 2007, the World Health Organization published the Global Framework for Immunization Monitoring and Surveillance (GFIMS) outlining measures to enhance national surveillance for vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs). The GFIMS emphasized that VPD surveillance should be integrated and placed in a 'unified framework' building upon the strengths of existing surveillance systems to prevent duplication of activities common to all surveillance systems and to minimize human resource and supply expenditures. Unfortunately, there was little experience in actually developing integrated VPD surveillance. We describe the process of developing operational guidance for ministries of health to implement such an integrated surveillance system for multiple VPDs.

New vaccine introductions: assessing the impact and the opportunities for immunization and health systems strengthening.

In 2010, global immunization partners posed the question, "Do new vaccine introductions (NVIs) have positive or negative impacts on immunization and health systems of countries?" An Ad-hoc Working Group was formed for WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) to examine this question through five approaches: a published literature review, a grey literature review, in-depth interviews with regional and country immunization staff, in-depth studies of recent NVIs in 3 countries, and a statistical analysis of the impact of NVI on DTP3 coverage in 176 countries. The WHO Health System Framework of building blocks was used to organize the analysis of these data to assess potential areas of impact of NVI on health systems. In April 2012, the Ad-hoc Working Group presented its findings to SAGE. While reductions in disease burden and improvements in disease and adverse events surveillance, training, cold chain and logistics capacity and injection safety were commonly documented as beneficial impacts, opportunities for strengthening the broader health system were consistently missed during NVI. Weaknesses in planning for human and financial resource needs were highlighted as a concern. Where positive impacts on health systems following NVI occurred, these were often in areas where detailed technical guidance or tools and adequate financing were available. SAGE supported the Ad-hoc Working Group's conclusion that future NVI should explicitly plan to optimize and document the impact of NVI on broader health systems. Furthermore, opportunities for improving integration of delivery of immunization services, commodities, and messages with other parts of the health system should be actively sought with the recognition that integration is a bidirectional process. To avoid the gaps in planning for NVI that can compromise existing immunization and health systems, donors and partners should provide sufficient and timely support to facilitate country planning. Areas for future research were also identified. Finally, to support countries in using NVI as an opportunity to strengthen immunization and health systems, the WHO guidance for countries on new vaccine introduction is being updated to reflect ways this might be accomplished.

The impact of new vaccine introduction on immunization and health systems: a review of the published literature.

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to examine the impact of new vaccine introduction on countries' immunization and broader health systems. Six publication databases were searched using 104 vaccine and health system-related search terms. The search yielded 15,795 unique articles dating from December 31, 1911 to September 29, 2010. Based on review of the title and abstract, 654 (4%) of these articles were found to be potentially relevant and were referred for full review. After full review, 130 articles were found to be relevant and included in the analysis. These articles represented vaccines introduced to protect against 10 different diseases (hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b disease, human papilloma virus infection, influenza, Japanese encephalitis, meningococcal meningitis, Streptococcus pneumoniae disease, rotavirus diarrhea and typhoid), in various formulations and combinations. Most reviewed articles (97 [75%]) reported experiences in high-income countries. New vaccine introduction was most efficient when the vaccine was introduced into an existing delivery platform and when introduced in combination with a vaccine already in the routine childhood immunization schedule (i.e., as a combination vaccine). New vaccine introduction did not impact coverage of vaccines already included in the routine childhood immunization schedule. The need for increased cold chain capacity was frequently reported. New vaccines facilitated the introduction and widespread use of auto-disable syringes into the immunization and the broader health systems. The importance of training and education for health care workers and social mobilization was frequently noted. There was evidence in high-income countries that new vaccine introduction was associated with reduced health-care costs. Future evaluations of new vaccine introductions should include the systematic and objective assessment of the impacts on a country's immunization system and broader health system, especially in lower-income countries.