Healthcare Providers' and Frontline Workers' Experiences of an Ebola Vaccine Trial in the Boende Health District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This study explored the experiences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and frontline workers who were involved in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers interviewed a total of 99 participants (HCPs and frontline workers) living and working in the Boende health district during the period of the study, from February to March 2022. These individuals included a mix of trial participants and non-trial participants (staff of the trial, local health authorities, and head nurses of health centers). In-depth individual interviews, as well as focus group discussions (FGDs), were used to understand interviewees' experiences and perceptions. The data were analyzed to identify the main themes. The findings unveiled a multitude of positive experiences among interviewees/FGD participants. The commitment of the trial investigators to improve the study site and to equip the volunteers with necessary skills and knowledge greatly contributed to a positive trial experience. However, some interviewees felt that the reimbursement for time and travel expenses during their trial visits was insufficient in comparison with their expectations. Additionally, there were expressions of worry about the frequency of blood draws during scheduled trial visits. Our findings emphasize the critical importance of addressing and continuously considering the perspectives and concerns of trial participants before designing and implementing vaccine trials. By actively incorporating their inputs, researchers can mitigate concerns and tailor communication strategies, potentially enhancing the overall success and impact of the vaccine trial.

Understanding the views of adult migrants around catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations to define strategies to improve coverage: A UK in-depth interview study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030 emphasises ensuring equitable access to vaccination across the life course. This includes placing an emphasis on migrant populations who may have missed key childhood vaccines, doses, and boosters due to disrupted healthcare systems and the migration process, or differing vaccination schedules in home countries. Guidelines exist in the UK for offering catch-up vaccinations to adolscent and adult migrants with incomplete or uncertain vaccination status (including MMR, Td-IPV, MenACWY, HPV), but emerging evidence suggests awareness and implementation in primary care is poor. It is unclear whether patient-level barriers to uptake of catch-up vaccinations also exist. We explored experiences and views around catch-up vaccination among adult migrants from a range of backgrounds, to define strategies for improving catch-up vaccination policy and practice. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in two phases with adult migrant populations (refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, those with no recourse to public funds) on views and experiences around vaccination, involving a team of peer researchers from specific migrant communities trained through the study. In Phase 1, we conducted remote interviews with migrants resident in the UK for < 10 years, from diverse backgrounds. In Phase 2, we engaged specifically Congolese and Angolan migrants as part of a community-based participatory study. Topic guides were developed iteratively and piloted. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowball sampling methods. Interviews were conducted in English (interpreters offered), Lingala or French and were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach in NVivo 12. RESULTS: 71 participants (39 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2) were interviewed (Mean age 43.6 [SD:12.4] years, 69% female, mean 9.5 [SD:7] years in the UK). Aside from COVID-19 vaccines, most participants reported never having been offered vaccinations or asked about their vaccination history since arriving in the UK as adults. Few participants mentioned being offered specific catch-up vaccines (e.g. MMR/Td-IPV) when attending a healthcare facility on arrival in the UK. Vaccines such as flu vaccines, pregnancy-related or pre-travel vaccination were more commonly mentioned. In general, participants were not aware of adult catch-up vaccination but regarded it positively when it was explained. A few participants expressed concerns about side-effects, risks/inconveniences associated with access (e.g. links to immigration authorities, travel costs), preference for natural remedies, and hesitancy to engage in further vaccination campaigns due to the intensity of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Trust was a major factor in vaccination decisions, with distinctions noted within and between groups; some held a healthcare professional's recommendation in high regard, while others were less trusting towards the healthcare system because of negative experiences of the NHS and past experiences of discrimination, injustice and marginalisation by wider authorities. CONCLUSIONS: The major barrier to adult catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations and doses in migrant communities in the UK is the limited opportunities, recommendations or tailored vaccination information presented to migrants by health services. This could be improved with financial incentives for provision of catch-up vaccination in UK primary care, alongside training of healthcare professionals to support catch-up immunisation and raise awareness of existing guidelines. It will also be essential to address root causes of mistrust around vaccination, where it exists among migrants, by working closely with communities to understand their needs and meaningfully involving migrant populations in co-producing tailored information campaigns and culturally relevant interventions to improve coverage.

The inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials: An overview of late-stage clinical trials' records between 2018 and 2023.

Pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical research over safety concerns. However, demands to include them in clinical vaccine development have intensified after recent COVID-19, Ebola, and Lassa fever outbreaks given the disproportionate effect of these diseases on pregnant women and/or their foetuses. Numerous studies highlighted the scarcity of safety data for therapeutic interventions in pregnant women. Nevertheless, only a small number have assessed the number of vaccine trials including this population. Therefore, we searched for phase 3 and 4 vaccine clinical trials in healthy populations registered between 2018 and 2023 in clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. Out of 400 registered vaccine trials matching our inclusion criteria, 217 (54 %) were industry-sponsored, and 222 (56 %) had COVID-19 as a target. We found 22 studies (6 %) that either were designed for pregnant women or included them as part of a larger population. Out of these 22 trials, 13 were designed specifically for pregnant women; seven of these were maternal vaccines aiming at protecting the foetus, namely pertussis (3), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (3), and meningitis plus tetanus (1) vaccines, and six others targeted either flu (3), COVID-19 (2) or Ebola (1). Only the RSV and Ebola vaccine trials were industry-sponsored. We also found that nine studies targeting the general population included pregnant women. These focused on COVID-19 (3), flu (2), COVID-19 + flu (2), Ebola (1), and Hepatitis B (1). None of these studies was industry-sponsored. Our findings show that a gap still exists in terms of pregnant women's inclusion in vaccine trials. Such a gap needs to be tackled urgently to minimise the devastating effects that a future infectious disease outbreak could have on this population. This study can inform future demands for increased inclusion, especially in industry-sponsored trials, as it provides an overview of the current vaccine trials scene.

Simultaneous carriage of multiple serotypes of Group B Streptococcus: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies evaluating the distribution of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) serotypes are crucial for serotype-specific vaccine development and post-licensure surveillance. However, there is a paucity of data about the prevalence of simultaneous carriage of multiple serotypes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of three databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed) to identify studies reporting GBS serotype co-carriage at the same anatomical site (multiple serotypes in one sample) or different anatomical sites (paired samples from one individual with different serotypes). We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of co-carriage. RESULTS: 18 articles met the inclusion criteria, representing at least 12,968 samples from 14 countries. In a random-effects meta-analysis, we identified that 10 % (95 % CI: 4-19) of the positive samples taken from one anatomical site have more than one serotype, and 11 % (95 % CI: 5-20) of positive participants with samples taken from two anatomical sites carried different serotypes. When reported, the number of serotypes simultaneously carried ranged from 1 to 4. The serotypes most often associated with co-carriage are III (20.3 %), V (20.3 %) and Ia (19.5 %). CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that co-carriage is a minor but definite phenomenon, but the data are too limited to give a precise picture of the current epidemiology. Co-colonisation detection needs to be taken into consideration in the design and methods of future GBS carriage surveillance studies to estimate and evaluate the potential for serotype replacement once vaccines are introduced.