Cholera Deaths During Outbreaks in Uvira, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 10-35 Months After Mass Vaccination.

Our understanding of the burden and drivers of cholera mortality is hampered by limited surveillance and confirmation capacity. Leveraging enhanced clinical and laboratory surveillance in the cholera-endemic community of Uvira, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, we describe cholera deaths across 3 epidemics between September 2021 and September 2023 following mass vaccination.

Effectiveness of case-area targeted interventions including vaccination on the control of epidemic cholera: protocol for a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Cholera outbreaks in fragile settings are prone to rapid expansion. Case-area targeted interventions (CATIs) have been proposed as a rapid and efficient response strategy to halt or substantially reduce the size of small outbreaks. CATI aims to deliver synergistic interventions (eg, water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions, vaccination, and antibiotic chemoprophylaxis) to households in a 100-250 m 'ring' around primary outbreak cases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We report on a protocol for a prospective observational study of the effectiveness of CATI. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) plans to implement CATI in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Cameroon, Niger and Zimbabwe. This study will run in parallel to each implementation. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of cholera in each CATI ring. CATI will be triggered immediately on notification of a case in a new area. As with most real-world interventions, there will be delays to response as the strategy is rolled out. We will compare the cumulative incidence among rings as a function of response delay, as a proxy for performance. Cross-sectional household surveys will measure population-based coverage. Cohort studies will measure effects on reducing incidence among household contacts and changes in antimicrobial resistance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics review boards of MSF and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have approved a generic protocol. The DRC and Niger-specific versions have been approved by the respective national ethics review boards. Approvals are in process for Cameroon and Zimbabwe. The study findings will be disseminated to the networks of national cholera control actors and the Global Task Force for Cholera Control using meetings and policy briefs, to the scientific community using journal articles, and to communities via community meetings.

Identifying transferable lessons from cholera epidemic responses by Médecins Sans Frontières in Mozambique, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015-2018: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Cholera epidemics occur frequently in low-income countries affected by concurrent humanitarian crises. Evaluations of these epidemic response remains largely unpublished and there is a need to generate evidence on response efforts to inform future programmes. This review of MSF cholera epidemic responses aimed to describe the main characteristics of the cholera epidemics and related responses in these three countries, to identify challenges to different intervention strategies based on available data; and to make recommendations for epidemic prevention and control practice and policy. METHODS: Case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi and Mozambique were purposively selected by MSF for this review due to the documented burden of cholera in each country, frequency of cholera outbreaks, and risk of humanitarian crises. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the epidemics; time between alert and response; and, the delivery of health and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions. A Theory of Change for cholera response programmes was built to assess factors that affected implementation of the responses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 20 epidemic response reports were identified, 15 in DRC, one in Malawi and four in Mozambique. All contexts experienced concurrent humanitarian crises, either armed conflict or natural disasters. Across the settings, median time between the date of alert and date of the start of the response by MSF was 23 days (IQR 14-41). Almost all responses targeted interventions community-wide, and all responses implemented in-patient treatment of suspected cholera cases in either established health care facilities (HCFs) or temporary cholera treatment units (CTUs). In three responses, interventions were delivered as case-area targeted interventions (CATI) and four responses targeted households of admitted suspected cholera cases. CATI or delivery of interventions to households of admitted suspected cases occurred from 2017 onwards only. Overall, 74 factors affecting implementation were identified including delayed supplies of materials, insufficient quantities of materials and limited or lack of coordination with local government or other agencies. Based on this review, the following recommendations are made to improve cholera prevention and control efforts: explore improved models for epidemic preparedness, including rapid mobilisation of supplies and deployment of trained staff; invest in and strengthen partnerships with national and local government and other agencies; and to standardise reporting templates that allow for rigorous and structured evaluations within and across countries to provide consistent and accessible data.

Effectiveness of hygiene kit distribution to reduce cholera transmission in Kasaï-Oriental, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2018: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Household contacts of cholera cases are at a greater risk of Vibrio cholerae infection than the general population. There is currently no agreed standard of care for household contacts, despite their high risk of infection, in cholera response strategies. In 2018, hygiene kit distribution and health promotion was recommended by Médecins Sans Frontières for admitted patients and accompanying household members on admission to a cholera treatment unit in the Democratic Republic of Congo. METHODS: To investigate the effectiveness of the intervention and risk factors for cholera infection, we conducted a prospective cohort study and followed household contacts for 7 days after patient admission. Clinical surveillance among household contacts was based on self-reported symptoms of cholera and diarrhoea, and environmental surveillance through the collection and analysis of food and water samples. RESULTS: From 94 eligible households, 469 household contacts were enrolled and 444 completed follow-up. Multivariate analysis suggested evidence of a dose-response relationship with increased kit use associated with decreased relative risk of suspected cholera: household contacts in the high kit-use group had a 66% lower incidence of suspected cholera (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03, p=0.055), the mid-use group had a 53% lower incidence (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, p=1.44) and low-use group had 22% lower incidence (aRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.53, p=0.684), compared with household contacts without a kit. Drinking water contamination was significantly reduced among households in receipt of a kit. There was no significant effect on self-reported diarrhoea or food contamination. CONCLUSION: The integration of a hygiene kit intervention to case-households may be effective in reducing cholera transmission among household contacts and environmental contamination within the household. Further work is required to evaluate whether other proactive localised distribution among patients and case-households or to households surrounding cholera cases can be used in future cholera response programmes in emergency contexts.