The role of constraints and information gaps in driving risky medicine purchasing practices in four African countries.

Substandard and falsified (SF) medical products pose a major threat to public health and socioeconomic development, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In response, public education campaigns have been developed to alert consumers to the risks of SF medicines and provide guidance on 'safer' practices, along with other demand- and supply-side measures. However, little is currently known about the potential effectiveness of such campaigns while structural constraints to accessing quality-assured medicines persist. This paper analyses survey data on medicine purchasing practices, information and constraints from four African countries (Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Uganda; n>1000 per country). Using multivariate regression and structural equation modelling, we present what we believe to be the first attempt to tease apart, statistically, the effects of an information gap versus structural constraints in driving potential public exposure to SF medicines. The analysis confirms that less privileged groups (including, variously, those in rural settlements, with low levels of formal education, not in paid employment, often women, and households with a disability or long-term sickness) are disproportionately potentially exposed to SF medicines; these same demographic groups also tend to have lower levels of awareness and experience greater levels of constraint. Despite the constraints, however, our models suggest that public health education may have an important role to play in modifying some (but not all) risky practices. Appropriately-targeted public messaging can thus be a useful part of the toolbox in the fight against SF medicines, but it can only work effectively in combination with wider-reaching reforms to address higher-level vulnerabilities in pharmaceutical supply chains in Africa and expand access to quality-assured public-sector health services. [Abstract copyright: © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF DIFFERENT BRANDS OF ASCORBIC ACID IN FREETOWN, SIERRA LEONE

Objective: This study evaluates the registration status and the quality of nine brands of Vitamin C sold in Freetown, Sierra Leone, using official and non-official methods of analysis. Methods: The parameters taken into consideration during the study include non-official methods (friability and disintegration) and the official methods (identification test, uniformity of dosage unit, and assay by titrimetric and colorimetric tests). The different brands of vitamin C were selected and classified as registered and unregistered based on the data derived from the National Medicines Regulatory Authority. Results: One vitamin C product collected was unregistered at the National medicines regulatory authority (Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone). All nine vitamin C products met the requirements for uniformity of dosage unit. The vitamin C products also conformed to the BP specification for friability and identification test (retention factor). The identification test showed that each brand contained vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The disintegration test was not applicable for chewable tablets. Three of the four non-chewable vitamin C products complied with the BP specification for disintegration, while one failed and did not meet the requirement. The assay results for ascorbic acid using titration and colourimetric method were comparable and appropriate for determining vitamin C. Out of a total of nine samples; seven met the requirement for BP specification (Passed) for assay. In contrast, one product did not meet the BP requirement (failed), and one sample had more vitamin C than the Pharmacopoeia limit. Conclusion: Periodic quality evaluation and routine checks for pharmaceutical products can ascertain the quality of products, their storage conditions and identify potential counterfeit medications

Inconsistent country-wide reporting of adverse drug reactions to antimicrobials in Sierra Leone (2017–2021): A wake-up call to improve reporting

From MDPI via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2022-03-08, pub-electronic 2022-03-10Publication status: PublishedBackground: Monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to antimicrobials is important, as they can cause life-threatening illness, permanent disabilities, and death. We assessed country-wide ADR reporting on antimicrobials and their outcomes. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using individual case safety reports (ICSRs) entered into the national pharmacovigilance database (VigiFlow) during 2017−2021. Results: Of 566 ICSRs, inconsistent reporting was seen, with the highest reporting in 2017 and 2019 (mass drug campaigns for deworming), zero reporting in 2018 (reasons unknown), and only a handful in 2020 and 2021 (since COVID-19). Of 566 ICSRs, 90% were for antiparasitics (actively reported during mass campaigns), while the rest (passive reporting from health facilities) included 8% antibiotics, 7% antivirals, and 0.2% antifungals. In total, 90% of the reports took >30 days to be entered (median = 165; range 2−420 days), while 44% had 75% of all variables filled in (desired target = 100%). There were 10 serious ADRs, 18 drug withdrawals, and 60% of ADRs affected the gastrointestinal system. The patient outcomes (N-566) were: recovered (59.5%), recovering (35.5%), not recovered (1.4%), death (0.2%), and unknown (3.4%). There was no final ascertainment of ‘recovering’ outcomes. Conclusions: ADR reporting is inconsistent, with delays and incomplete data. This is a wake-up call for introducing active reporting and setting performance targets.19pubpub

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults