Pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the safety and immunogenicity of pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis (including accelerated schedules, co-administration with other vaccines and booster doses), its cost-effectiveness and recommendations for use, particularly in high-risk settings. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases for papers on pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis published between 2007 and 29 January 2016. We reviewed field data from pre-exposure prophylaxis campaigns in Peru and the Philippines. FINDINGS: Pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis was safe and immunogenic in children and adults, also when co-administered with routine childhood vaccinations and the Japanese encephalitis vaccine. The evidence available indicates that shorter regimens and regimens involving fewer doses are safe and immunogenic and that booster intervals could be extended up to 10 years. The few studies on cost suggest that, at current vaccine and delivery costs, pre-exposure prophylaxis campaigns would not be cost-effective in most situations. Although pre-exposure prophylaxis has been advocated for high-risk populations, only Peru and the Philippines have implemented appropriate national programmes. In the future, accelerated regimens and novel vaccines could simplify delivery and increase affordability. CONCLUSION: Pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis is safe and immunogenic and should be considered: (i) where access to postexposure prophylaxis is limited or delayed; (ii) where the risk of exposure is high and may go unrecognized; and (iii) where controlling rabies in the animal reservoir is difficult. Pre-exposure prophylaxis should not distract from canine vaccination efforts, provision of postexposure prophylaxis or education to increase rabies awareness in local communities.

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 process of changing national malaria treatment policy: lessons from country-level studies.

Widespread resistance of Plasmodium falciparum parasites to commonly used antimalarials, such as chloroquine, has resulted in many endemic countries considering changing their malaria treatment policy. Identifying and understanding the key influences that affect decision-making, and factors that facilitate or undermine policy implementation, is critical for improving the policy process and guiding resource allocation during this process. A historical review of archival documents from Malawi and data obtained from in-depth policy studies in four countries (Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya and Peru) that have changed malaria treatment policy provides important lessons about decision-making, the policy cycle and complex policy environment, while specifically identifying strategies successfully employed to facilitate policy-making and implementation. Findings from these country-level studies indicate that the process of malaria drug policy review should be institutionalized in endemic countries and based on systematically collected data. Key stakeholders need to be identified early and engaged in the process, while improved communication is needed on all levels. Although malaria drug policy change is often perceived to be a daunting task, using these and other proven strategies should assist endemic countries to tackle this challenge in a systematic fashion that ensures the development and implementation of the rational malaria drug policy.