COVID-19 in Punjab, India: Epidemiological patterns, laboratory surveillance and contact tracing of COVID-19 cases, March-May 2020.

BACKGROUND: In Punjab, first COVID-19 case was detected on March 5, 2020 followed by multiple clusters. Understanding the epidemiology of reported COVID-19 cases helps decision makers in planning future responses. We described the epidemiological patterns, laboratory surveillance and contact tracing of COVID-19 cases in Punjab. METHODS: We analysed state's COVID-19 data from March-May 2020 to describe time, place and person distribution. We analysed the laboratory surveillance and contact tracing reports to calculate frequency of testing, sample positivity rate (PR) and contacts traced per case. FINDINGS: A total of 2256 cases were reported from March-May 2020 (attack rate 75 cases/million and case fatality rate 2%). Attack rate was higher among males (81 cases/million males) and maximum affected age group was 60-69 years (164∙5 cases/million). Five of 22 districts reported almost half cases in May's first week. Mortality rate was highest among individuals >60 years (six deaths/million) and males (two deaths/million males). Of 45 deaths, 41 reported comorbidities [(hypertension (42%), diabetes (40%)]. COVID-19 testing increased from 46 samples/day (PR: 2%) in March's first week to 4000 samples/day (PR: 2∙5%) by May's end (2752 tests/million). Amritsar conducted 2035 tests/million (highest PR: 6∙5%) while Barnala conducted 4158 tests/million (lowest PR: 1%). For 2256 cases, 19,432 contacts were traced (nine contacts/case) with 11% positivity rate. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 in Punjab mostly affected males, >60 years of age and individuals with comorbid conditions. Many districts with less testing and contact tracing had higher positivity rate. We recommended to implement and ensure adequate testing and contact tracing in all the districts of Punjab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25-30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safety-engineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India. METHODS: A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated-reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian National Rupee (INR) 61,028 (US$939), INR 7,768,215 (US$119,511) and INR 196,135 (US$3017) per QALY gained, respectively. A total of 96,296 HBV, 44,082 HCV and 5632 HIV deaths are estimated to be averted due to RUP in 20 years. RUP has an 84% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The RUP syringe can become cost saving at a unit price of INR 1.9. Similarly, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes can be cost-effective at a unit price of less than INR 1.2 and INR 5.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: RUP syringes are estimated to be cost-effective in the Indian context. SIP and RUP + SIP syringes are not cost-effective at the current unit prices. Efforts should be made to bring down the price of SES to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Current status of human papillomavirus vaccination in India's cervical cancer prevention efforts.

Efforts are being made to scale up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adolescent girls in India. Bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines were licensed in the country in 2008, and a nonavalent vaccine was licensed in 2018. Demonstration projects initiated in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2009 introduced HPV vaccination in public health services in India. Following a few deaths in these projects, although subsequently deemed unrelated to vaccination, HPV vaccination in research projects was suspended. This suspension by default resulted in some participants in a trial evaluating two versus three doses receiving only one dose. Since 2016, the successful introduction of HPV vaccination in immunisation programmes in Punjab and Sikkim (with high coverage and safety), government-sponsored opportunistic vaccination in Delhi, prospects of a single dose providing protection, and future availability of an affordable Indian vaccine shows promise for future widespread implementation and evaluation of HPV vaccination in India.

Delivery of Multiple Child and Maternal Health Interventions during Supplementary Immunization Campaign in Rwanda, 2013: Lessons Learnt.

OBJECTIVE: This paper assesses and describes the estimated coverage of the Measles Rubella (MR) campaign in each district; the national estimate of coverage for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination campaign and Vitamin A supplementation simultaneously implemented in 2013. METHODS: We applied descriptive statistics and epidemiological tools to the outcomes of the campaigns to assess the coverage achieved on the different child and maternal health interventions. We also assessed the Adverse Events following Immunization (AEFI) where the evaluation was used at the same time to assess the routine immunization performance coverage for children 12-24 months for all childhood antigens, Tetanus Toxoid coverage among mothers of infants, combined with routine immunization performance evaluation, skilled delivery and bed nets use in Rwanda. RESULTS: Results indicated that among the eligible targets, 97.5% received MR vaccine, 91% received HPV doses, and 83% got Vitamin A. The integrated vaccination of MR with HPV did not result in any serious AEFI. Coverage for antigens and doses given early in life was above 95% with card retention of 80%. BCG to measles dropout by card was 8.5%. Main reasons for non-vaccination indicated need for more specific immunization education. About 96.8% of mothers delivered in health institutions and 95% of the mothers slept under bed nets the night before the survey. CONCLUSION: Rwanda successfully implemented an integrated coverage evaluation survey of the integrated vaccination campaign and routine immunization with statistically valid estimates. We drew lessons that information on routine immunization can be collected during post campaign survey evaluations. The district estimates should guide the programme performance improvement.