A descriptive assessment of the National Institute of Public Health’s role in supporting the COVID-19 response in Cambodia, 2020–2021

@#Objective: This paper examines the contributions made by the National Institute of Public Health to Cambodia’s response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic during 2020–2021. Methods: The activities conducted by the Institute were compared with adaptations of the nine pillars of the World Health Organization’s 2020 COVID-19 strategic preparedness and response plan. To gather relevant evidence, we reviewed national COVID-19 testing data, information about COVID-19-related events documented by Institute staff, and financial and technical reports of the Institute’s activities. Results: The main contributions the Institute made were to the laboratory pillar and the incident management and planning pillar. The Institute tested more than 50% of the 2 575 391 samples for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and provided technical advice about establishing 18 new laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 testing in the capital city of Phnom Penh and 11 provinces. The Institute had representatives on many national committees and coauthored national guidelines for implementing rapid COVID-19 testing, preventing transmission in health-care facilities and providing treatment. The Institute contributed to six other pillars, but had no active role in risk communication and community engagement. Discussion: The Institute’s support was essential to the COVID-19 response in Cambodia, especially for laboratory services and incident management and planning. Based on the contributions made by the Institute during the COVID-19 pandemic, continued investment in it will be critical to allow it to support responses to future health emergencies in Cambodia.

A rapid assessment of health system preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Guinea

Epidemic-prone diseases have high adverse impacts and pose important threats to global health security. This study aimed to assess levels of health facility preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Guinea. This was a cross-sectional study in public and private health facilities/services across 13 Guinean health districts. Managers and healthcare workers (HCWs) from departments in each facility/service were interviewed. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were presented using Pearson's Chi-Squared Test or Fischer exact test. Totally, 197 managers and 1020 HCWs participated in the study. Guidance documents and dedicated spaces for management/isolation of suspected COVID-19 cases were available only in 29% and 26% of facilities, respectively. Capacities to collect (9%) and safely transport (14%) samples were low. Intensive care units (5%), dedicated patient beds (3%), oxygenators (2%), and respirators (0.6%) were almost lacking. While 36% of facilities/services had received infection prevention and control supplies, only 20% had supplies sufficient for 30 days. Moreover, only 9% of HCWs had received formal training on COVID-19. The main sources of information for HCWs were the media (90%) and the internet (58%). Only 30% of HCWs had received personal protective equipment, more in the public sector (p<0.001) and in Conakry (p=0.022). This study showed low levels of preparedness of health facilities/services in Guinea and highlighted a lack of confidence among HCWs who felt unsafe at their workplace. Better governance to improve and maintain the capacity of the Guinean health system to respond to current and future epidemics is needed.

Safety and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine candidate: interim results of a phase 1/2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be controlled by an efficacious vaccine. Multiple vaccines are in development, but no efficacious vaccine is currently available. METHODS We designed a multi-center phase 1/2a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study to assesses the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S, a non-replicating adenovirus 26 based vector expressing the stabilized pre-fusion spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. Ad26.COV2.S was administered at a dose level of 5x1010 or 1x1011 viral particles (vp) per vaccination, either as a single dose or as a two-dose schedule spaced by 56 days in healthy adults (18-55 years old; cohort 1a & 1b; n= 402 and healthy elderly >65 years old; cohort 3; n=394). Vaccine elicited S specific antibody levels were measured by ELISA and neutralizing titers were measured in a wild-type virus neutralization assay (wtVNA). CD4+ T-helper (Th)1 and Th2, and CD8+ immune responses were assessed by intracellular cytokine staining (ICS). RESULTS We here report interim analyses after the first dose of blinded safety data from cohorts 1a, 1b and 3 and group unblinded immunogenicity data from cohort 1a and 3. In cohorts 1 and 3 solicited local adverse events were observed in 58% and 27% of participants, respectively. Solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 64% and 36% of participants, respectively. Fevers occurred in both cohorts 1 and 3 in 19% (5% grade 3) and 4% (0% grade 3), respectively, were mostly mild or moderate, and resolved within 1 to 2 days after vaccination. The most frequent local adverse event (AE) was injection site pain and the most frequent solicited AEs were fatigue, headache and myalgia. After only a single dose, seroconversion rate in wtVNA (50% inhibitory concentration - IC50) at day 29 after immunization in cohort 1a already reached 92% with GMTs of 214 (95% CI: 177; 259) and 92% with GMTs of 243 (95% CI: 200; 295) for the 5x1010 and 1x1011vp dose levels, respectively. A similar immunogenicity profile was observed in the first 15 participants in cohort 3, where 100% seroconversion (6/6) (GMTs of 196 [95%CI: 69; 560]) and 83% seroconversion (5/6) (GMTs of 127 [95% CI: <58; 327]) were observed for the 5x1010 or 1x1011 vp dose level, respectively. Seroconversion for S antibodies as measured by ELISA (ELISA Units/mL) was observed in 99% of cohort 1a participants (GMTs of 528 [95% CI: 442; 630) and 695 (95% CI: 596; 810]), for the 5x1010 or 1x1011 vp dose level, respectively, and in 100% (6/6 for both dose levels) of cohort 3 with GMTs of 507 (95% CI: 181; 1418) and 248 (95% CI: 122; 506), respectively. On day 14 post immunization, Th1 cytokine producing S-specific CD4+ T cell responses were measured in 80% and 83% of a subset of participants in cohort 1a and 3, respectively, with no or very low Th2 responses, indicative of a Th1-skewed phenotype in both cohorts. CD8+ T cell responses were also robust in both cohort 1a and 3, for both dose levels. CONCLUSIONS The safety profile and immunogenicity after only a single dose are supportive for further clinical development of Ad26.COV2.S at a dose level of 5x1010 vp, as a potentially protective vaccine against COVID-19. Trial registration number: NCT04436276