Sepsis among Neonates Admitted to a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in a Tertiary Care Centre.

Introduction: Neonatal sepsis is a condition that carries a high risk for mortality as neonates rapidly transition to extra-uterine life and are subjected to various risk factors. Sepsis prevalence can be reduced by good antenatal care, early detection and treatment of risk factors. The study aimed to find out the prevalence of sepsis among neonates admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit in a tertiary care centre. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted among neonates admitted to the neonatal care unit of a tertiary care centre after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional Review Committee. Data of patients admitted from 12 December 2022 to 30 June 2023 was collected from hospital records. Symptomatic patients admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit were included and those with incomplete data were excluded from the study. A convenience sampling method was used. The point estimate was calculated at a 95% Confidence Interval. Results: Among 379 neonates, the prevalence of sepsis was 138 (36.41%) (28.38-44.44, 95% Confidence Interval). A total of 98 (71.01%) had early-onset neonatal sepsis and 40 (28.99%) had late-onset neonatal sepsis. Conclusions: The prevalence of neonatal sepsis was found to be lower than other studies done in similar settings. Keywords: neonate; neonatal sepsis; prematurity; prevalence.

Safety and immunogenicity of the Euvichol-S oral cholera vaccine for prevention of Vibrio cholerae O1 infection in Nepal: an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In October, 2017, WHO launched a strategy to eliminate cholera by 2030. A primary challenge in meeting this goal is the limited global supply capacity of oral cholera vaccine and the worsening of cholera outbreaks since 2021. To help address the current shortage of oral cholera vaccine, a WHO prequalified oral cholera vaccine, Euvichol-Plus was reformulated by reducing the number of components and inactivation methods. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of Euvichol-S (EuBiologics, Seoul, South Korea) compared with an active control vaccine, Shanchol (Sanofi Healthcare India, Telangana, India) in participants of various ages in Nepal. METHODS: We did an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at four hospitals in Nepal. Eligible participants were healthy individuals aged 1-40 years without a history of cholera vaccination. Individuals with a history of hypersensitivity reactions to other preventive vaccines, severe chronic disease, previous cholera vaccination, receipt of blood or blood-derived products in the past 3 months or other vaccine within 4 weeks before enrolment, and pregnant or lactating women were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by block randomisation (block sizes of two, four, six, or eight) to one of four groups (groups A-D); groups C and D were stratified by age (1-5, 6-17, and 18-40 years). Participants in groups A-C were assigned to receive two 1·5 mL doses of Euvichol-S (three different lots) and participants in group D were assigned to receive the active control vaccine, Shanchol. All participants and site staff (with the exception of those who prepared and administered the study vaccines) were masked to group assignment. The primary immunogenicity endpoint was non-inferiority of immunogenicity of Euvichol-S (group C) versus Shanchol (group D) at 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose, measured by the seroconversion rate, defined as the proportion of participants who had achieved seroconversion (defined as ≥four-fold increase in V cholerae O1 Inaba and Ogawa titres compared with baseline). The primary immunogenicity endpoint was assessed in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participants who received all their planned vaccine administrations, had no important protocol deviations, and who provided blood samples for all immunogenicity assessments. The primary safety endpoint was the number of solicited adverse events, unsolicited adverse events, and serious adverse events after each vaccine dose in all ages and each age stratum, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of the Euvichol-S or Shanchol. Non-inferiority of Euvichol-S compared with Shanchol was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the seroconversion rates in Euvichol-S group C versus Shanchol group D was above the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10%. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04760236. FINDINGS: Between Oct 6, 2021, and Jan 19, 2022, 2529 healthy participants (1261 [49·9%] males; 1268 [50·1%] females), were randomly assigned to group A (n=330; Euvichol-S lot number ES-2002), group B (n=331; Euvichol-S ES-2003), group C (n=934; Euvichol-S ES-2004]), or group D (n=934; Shanchol). Non-inferiority of Euvichol-S versus Shanchol in seroconversion rate for both serotypes at 2 weeks after the second dose was confirmed in all ages (difference in seroconversion rate for V cholerae O1 Inaba -0·00 [95% CI -1·86 to 1·86]; for V cholerae O1 Ogawa -1·62 [-4·80 to 1·56]). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 244 (9·7%) of 2529 participants in the safety analysis set, with a total of 403 events; 247 events were reported among 151 (9·5%) of 1595 Euvichol-S recipients and 156 events among 93 (10·0%) of 934 Shanchol recipients. Pyrexia was the most common adverse event in both groups (57 events among 56 [3·5%] of 1595 Euvichol-S recipients and 37 events among 35 [3·7%] of 934 Shanchol recipients). No serious adverse events were deemed to be vaccine-related. INTERPRETATION: A two-dose regimen of Euvichol-S vaccine was non-inferior to the active control vaccine, Shanchol, in terms of seroconversion rates 2 weeks after the second dose. The simplified formulation and production requirements of the Euvichol-S vaccine have the potential to increase the supply of oral cholera vaccine and reduce the gap between the current oral cholera vaccine supply and demand. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Nepali translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immune non-interference and safety study of Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine with a measles, mumps and rubella containing vaccine in 9-15 months old Nepalese infants.

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever is a common disease in developing countries especially in the Indian subcontinent and Africa. The available typhoid conjugate vaccines (TCV) have been found to be highly immunogenic in infants and children less than 2 years of age. Many countries are planning to adopt TCV in their routine EPI programs around 9 months of age when measles containing vaccines are given. Therefore, Vi-DT TCV was tested in 9-15 months aged healthy infants in Nepal to demonstrate non-interference with a measles containing vaccine. METHODS: This was a randomized, open label, phase III study to assess the immune non-interference, safety, and reactogenicity of Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine when given concomitantly with measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. A total of 360 participants aged 9-15 months were enrolled and randomized equally into Vi-DT + MMR (180 participants) or MMR alone (180 participants) group and were evaluated for immunogenicity and safety 28 days post vaccination. RESULTS: Using the immunogenicity set, difference between proportions (95% CI) of the Vi-DT + MMR group vs MMR alone group were -2.73% (-8.85, 3.38), -3.19% (-11.25, 4.88) and 2.91% (-3.36, 9.18) for sero-positivity rate of anti-measles, anti-mumps and anti- rubella, respectively. Only the lower bound of the range in difference of the proportions for sero-positivity rate of anti-mumps did not satisfy the non-inferiority criteria as it was above the -10% limit, which may not be of clinical significance. These results were confirmed in the per protocol set. There were no safety concerns reported from the study and both Vi-DT + MMR and MMR alone groups were comparable in terms of solicited and unsolicited adverse events . CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that there is non-interference of MMR vaccine with Vi-DT and Vi-DT conjugate vaccine could be considered as an addition to the EPI schedule among children at risk of contracting typhoid.

Safety and immunogenicity of the Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine in healthy volunteers in Nepal: an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever is an endemic disease in many low-income and middle-income countries. The 2018 WHO position paper recommends that countries should consider typhoid vaccination in high-risk groups and for outbreak control. To address the typhoid vaccine supply and demand gap, a typhoid Vi polysaccharide-diphtheria toxoid (Vi-DT) conjugate vaccine development effort was undertaken to achieve WHO prequalification and contribute to the global supply of typhoid conjugate vaccine. The main aim of this study was to show immune non-inferiority of the Vi-DT vaccine compared with the WHO prequalified Vi polysaccharide-tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) conjugate vaccine (Typbar TCV; Bharat Biotech India, Hyderabad, India) in participants of various ages from an endemic country. METHODS: We did an observer-blind, active-controlled, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at four hospitals in Kathmandu, Dhulikhel, Dharan, and Nepalgunj in Nepal. Eligible participants were healthy individuals aged 6 months to 45 years for whom informed consent was obtained, were willing to follow the study procedures and were available for the duration of the study. Patients with an acute or chronic illness that could interfere with interpretation of the study endpoints, or who were involved in any other clinical trial were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by block randomisation (block size of four and eight), stratified by age (6 months to <2 years, 2 years to <18 years, and 18 years to 45 years), into one of four groups (A-D). Participants in groups A-C received a single dose (25 µg; 0·5 mL) of Vi-DT test vaccine via intramuscular injection from one of three good manufacturing practice lots (group A received lot 1, group B received lot 2, and group C received lot 3), and those in group D received a single dose (25 µg; 0·5 mL) of the Vi-TT vaccine via intramuscular injection. All participants, site staff (except for those who administered the study vaccines), and those assessing the outcomes were masked to group assignment. The co-primary endpoints were: (1) non-inferiority of immunogenicity of the Vi-DT vaccine (pooled groups A-C) versus the Vi-TT vaccine (group D), measured by the anti-Vi IgG seroconversion rate at 4 weeks after vaccination; and (2) the lot-to-lot consistency of the Vi-DT vaccine, measured by immune equivalence of the anti-Vi IgG geometric mean titre (GMT) at 4 weeks after receipt of the three Vi-DT vaccine lots (lot 1 vs lot 2, lot 1 vs lot 3, and lot 2 vs lot 3). Non-inferiority of the Vi-DT vaccine compared with the Vi-TT vaccine was shown if the lower limit of the 97·5% CI for the difference between the seroconversion rates in Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C combined versus Vi-TT vaccine group D was above the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10%. Lot-to-lot immune equivalence was shown if the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 99·17% CI around the GMT ratio for each pairwise lot-to-lot comparison was between 0·67 and 1·50, which is the predefined equivalence margin recommended by WHO. The co-primary immunogenicity endpoints were assessed in all randomised participants who had received their assigned vaccine and had completed at least one post-baseline immunogenicity assessment. Safety was descriptively summarised by group and age strata, and was assessed in all participants who had received one dose of the investigational vaccine. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03933098. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, 1854 individuals were screened, of whom 1800 were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups A-D (450 participants in each group). 1786 (99·2%; 443 in group A, 450 in group B, 447 in group C, and 446 in group D) were included in the immunogenicity assessments at 4 weeks post vaccination, and all 1800 participants were included in the safety analysis. In the immunogenicity analysis, the anti-Vi-IgG seroconversion rate in all age strata was 99·33% (97·5% CI 98·61 to 99·68; 1331 of 1340 participants) in Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C and 98·88% (97·10 to 99·57; 441 of 446) in Vi-TT vaccine group D. The difference in seroconversion rates between Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C combined versus Vi-TT group D was 0·47% (97·5% CI -0·68 to 1·61), indicating non-inferiority of the Vi-DT vaccine. Anti-Vi-IgG GMT ratios at 4 weeks post-vaccination were 1·02 (99·17% CI 0·85 to 1·22) for lot 1 versus lot 2, 1·02 (0·85 to 1·23) for lot 1 versus lot 3, and 1·01 (0·84 to 1·21) for lot 2 versus lot 3, indicating lot-to-lot equivalence according to the predefined, WHO-recommended equivalence margin. The proportion of participants reporting adverse events was similar between Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C and Vi-TT vaccine group D; 260 (19·3%) of 1350 participants in Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C and 115 (25·6%) of 450 in Vi-TT vaccine group D reported solicited adverse events within 7 days after vaccination, and 208 (15·4%) in Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C and 76 (16·9%) in Vi-TT vaccine group D reported unsolicited adverse events within 4 weeks after vaccination. Seven serious adverse events (four [0·3%] participants in Vi-DT vaccine groups A-C and three [0·7%] in Vi-TT vaccine group D), including one death in the Vi-TT vaccine group, were reported during the 24-week follow-up period, none of which were considered related to the investigational product. INTERPRETATION: When administered as a single dose, the Vi-DT test vaccine was safe, immunogenic, and non-inferior to the Vi-TT vaccine at 4 weeks post vaccination. Equivalent immunogenicity of the three lots of Vi-DT vaccine was also shown, supporting the manufacturing process of this vaccine. Once prequalified by WHO, this vaccine could be an option for purchase by UN agencies. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Nepali translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Challenges and opportunities in setting up a phase III vaccine clinical trial in resource limited settings: Experience from Nepal.

Clinical trials are complicated, time-consuming and costly. From the initial screening, informed consent and recruitment of the participants' to study completion, the sponsor must undertake a wide array of complex and closely monitored operations, complying with international standards for human subject research and local requirements. Conducting these studies in an underdeveloped country, with limited resources, infrastructure, and experience with regulated clinical trials adds to this complexity. The initial site selection, set up and preparatory activities for the clinical trial are crucial to minimizing the risks to both participants and to successful completion during the subsequent study execution.In this paper, we describe the experience and lessons learned of building clinical trial site capacity in terms of infrastructure and human resource development for a Phase III vaccine clinical trial. We believe that sharing the experience of setting up a clinical trial in a resource-limited country will enable other entities contemplating clinical research in these countries, to prepare and plan ahead, to minimize the impact of barriers, and to contribute to bringing more studies to the countries where people live with the burden of vaccine-preventable, poverty-associated diseases.