Causes of variation in BCG vaccine efficacy: examining evidence from the BCG REVAC cluster randomized trial to explore the masking and the blocking hypotheses.

BCG protection varies and in some places (nearest the equator) is low or absent. Understanding this variation can inform the efforts to develop new vaccines against tuberculosis. Two main hypotheses are used to explain this variation: under masking, new vaccines are unlikely to increase protection; under blocking new vaccines have a greater potential to be effective when BCG is not. We conducted a cluster randomized trial to explored the masking and blocking hypotheses by studying BCG vaccine efficacy of neonatal vaccination and when administered for the first or a second (revaccination) time at school age in two sites (Manaus close and Salvador further south from the equator). Seven hundred and sixty three state schools were matched on socio economic characteristics of the neighborhood and 239,934 children were randomized to vaccine (BCG vaccination at school age) or control group. Protection by first BCG vaccination at school age was high in Salvador (34%, 95% CI 7-53%, p=0.017) but low in Manaus (8%, 95% CI t0 39-40%, p=0.686). For revaccination at school age, protection was modest in Salvador (19%, 95% CI 3-33%, p=0.022) and absent in Manaus (1%, 95% CI to 27-23%, p=0.932). Vaccine efficacy for neonatal vaccination was similar in Salvador (40%, 95% CI 22-54%, p<0.001) and Manaus (36%, 95% CI 11-53%, p=0.008). Variation in BCG efficacy was marked when vaccine was given at school age but absent at birth, which points towards blocking as the dominant mechanism. New tuberculosis vaccines that overcome or by pass this blocking effect could confer protection in situations where BCG is not protective

Public health triangulation: approach and application to synthesizing data to understand national and local HIV epidemics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public health triangulation is a process for reviewing, synthesising and interpreting secondary data from multiple sources that bear on the same question to make public health decisions. It can be used to understand the dynamics of HIV transmission and to measure the impact of public health programs. While traditional intervention research and metaanalysis would be ideal sources of information for public health decision making, they are infrequently available, and often decisions can be based only on surveillance and survey data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The process involves examination of a wide variety of data sources and both biological, behavioral and program data and seeks input from stakeholders to formulate meaningful public health questions. Finally and most importantly, it uses the results to inform public health decision-making. There are 12 discrete steps in the triangulation process, which included identification and assessment of key questions, identification of data sources, refining questions, gathering data and reports, assessing the quality of those data and reports, formulating hypotheses to explain trends in the data, corroborating or refining working hypotheses, drawing conclusions, communicating results and recommendations and taking public health action.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Triangulation can be limited by the quality of the original data, the potentials for ecological fallacy and "data dredging" and reproducibility of results.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Nonetheless, we believe that public health triangulation allows for the interpretation of data sets that cannot be analyzed using meta-analysis and can be a helpful adjunct to surveillance, to formal public health intervention research and to monitoring and evaluation, which in turn lead to improved national strategic planning and resource allocation.</p

An approach to addressing governance from a health system framework perspective

As countries strive to strengthen their health systems in resource constrained contexts, policy makers need to know how best to improve the performance of their health systems. To aid these decisions, health system stewards should have a good understanding of how health systems operate in order to govern them appropriately. While a number of frameworks for assessing governance in the health sector have been proposed, their application is often hindered by unrealistic indicators or they are overly complex resulting in limited empirical work on governance in health systems. This paper reviews contemporary health sector frameworks which have focused on defining and developing indicators to assess governance in the health sector. Based on these, we propose a simplified approach to look at governance within a common health system framework which encourages stewards to take a systematic perspective when assessing governance. Although systems thinking is not unique to health, examples of its application within health systems has been limited. We also provide an example of how this approach could be applied to illuminate areas of governance weaknesses which are potentially addressable by targeted interventions and policies. This approach is built largely on prior literature, but is original in that it is problem-driven and promotes an outward application taking into consideration the major health system building blocks at various levels in order to ensure a more complete assessment of a governance issue rather than a simple input-output approach. Based on an assessment of contemporary literature we propose a practical approach which we believe will facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of governance in health systems leading to the development of governance interventions to strengthen system performance and improve health as a basic human right

Parasites and vectors carry no passport: how to fund cross-border and regional efforts to achieve malaria elimination

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Documents and proposals were extracted and reviewed from two main sources, the Global Fund website and Aidspan.org. Documents and reports from the Global Fund Technical Review Panel, Board, and Secretariat documents such as guidelines and proposal templates were reviewed to establish the type of policies enacted and guidance provided from the Global Fund on multi-country initiatives and applications. From reviewing this information, the researchers created 29 variables according to eight dimensions to use in a review of Round 10 applications. All Round 10 multi-country applications (for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and all malaria multi-country applications (6) from Rounds 1 – 10 were extracted from the Global Fund website. A blind review was conducted of Round 10 applications using the 29 variables as a framework, followed by a review of four of the six successful malaria multi-country grant applications from Rounds 1 – 10.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>During Rounds 3 – 10 of the Global Fund, only 5.8% of grants submitted were for multi-country initiatives. Out of 83 multi-country proposals submitted, 25.3% were approved by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for funding, compared to 44.9% of single-country applications. The majority of approved multi-country applications were for HIV (76.2%), followed by malaria (19.0%), then tuberculosis (4.8%). TRP recommendations resulted in improvements to application forms, although guidance was generally vague. The in-depth review of Round 10 multi-country proposals showed that applicants described their projects in one of two ways: a regional ‘network approach’ by which benefits are derived from economies of scale or from enhanced opportunities for mutual support and learning or the development of common policies and approaches; or a ‘cross-border’ approach for enabling activities to be more effectively delivered towards border-crossing populations or vectors. In Round 10, only those with a ‘network approach’ were recommended for funding. The Global Fund has only ever approved six malaria multi-country applications. Four approved applications stated strong arguments for a multi-country initiative, combining both ‘cross-border’ and ‘network’ approaches.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>With the cancellation of Round 11 and the proposal that the Global Fund adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to funding, the time is opportune for the Global Fund to develop a clear consensus about the key factors and criteria for funding malaria specific multi-country initiatives. This study found that currently there was a lack of guidance on the key features that a successful multi-country proposal needs to be approved and that applications directed towards the ‘network’ approach were most successful in Round 10. This type of multi-country proposal may favour other diseases such as HIV, whereas the need for malaria control and elimination is different, focusing on cross-border coordination and delivery of interventions to specific groups. The Global Fund should seek to address these issues and give better guidance to countries and regions and investigate disease-specific calls for multi-country and regional applications.</p