Microbiological contamination of improved water sources, Mozambique

Objective To assess if water from improved sources are microbiologically safe in Niassa province, Mozambique, by examining the presence of total coliforms in different types of water sources. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional household survey in two rural districts of Niassa province during the dry season, from 21 August to 4 October 2019. We observed water sources and conducted microbiological water quality tests and structured household interviews. Findings We included 1313 households, of which 812 (61.8%) used water from an improved source. There was no significant difference in presence of total coliforms between water sampled at improved and unimproved water sources, 62.7% (509 samples) and 65.7% (329 samples), respectively (P-value = 0.267). Households using improved water sources spent significantly longer time collecting water (59.1 minutes; standard deviation, SD: 55.2) than households using unimproved sources (49.8 minutes; SD: 58.0; P-value < 0.001). A smaller proportion of households using improved sources had access to water sources available 24 hours per day than that of households using unimproved sources, 71.7% (582 households) versus 94.2% (472 households; P-value < 0.001). Of the 240 households treating water collected from improved sources, 204 (85.4%) had total coliforms in their water, while treated water from 77 of 107 (72.0%) households collecting water from an unimproved source were contaminated. Conclusion Current access to an improved water source does not ensure microbiological safety of water and thereby using access as the proxy indicator for safe drinking and cooking water is questionable. Poor quality of water calls for the need for integration of water quality assessment into regular monitoring programmes

Immunogenicity of Reduced-Dose Monovalent Type 2 Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in Mocuba, Mozambique

Funding Information: This work was supported by Rotary International, through a grant from the World Health Organization (grant 2019/889177-2). Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2020.Background. The monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) stockpile is low. One potential strategy to stretch the existing mOPV2 supply is to administer a reduced dose: 1 drop instead of 2. Methods. We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial (10% margin) to compared immunogenicity after administration of 1 versus 2 drops of mOPV2. We enrolled 9–22-month-old infants from Mocuba district of Mozambique. Poliovirus neutralizing antibodies were measured in serum samples collected before and 1 month after mOPV2 administration. Immune response was defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) at baseline to seropositive (≥1:8) after vaccination or boosting titers by ≥4-fold for those with titers between 1:8 and 1:362 at baseline. The trial was registered at anzctr.org.au (no. ACTRN12619000184178p). Results. We enrolled 378 children, and 262 (69%) completed per-protocol requirements. The immune response of mOPV2 was 53.6% (95% confidence interval, 44.9%–62.1%) and 60.6% (52.2%–68.4%) in 1-drop and 2-drop recipients, respectively. The noninferiority margin of the 10% was not reached (difference, 7.0%; 95% confidence interval, −5.0% to 19.0%). Conclusion. A small loss of immunogenicity of reduced mOPV2 was observed. Although the noninferiority target was not achieved, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization recommended the 1-drop strategy as a dose-sparing measure if mOPV2 supplies deteriorate further.publishersversionpublishe

Oral cholera vaccine coverage during a preventive door-to-door mass vaccination campaign in Nampula, Mozambique.

BACKGROUND:In addition to improving water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) measures and optimal case management, the introduction of Oral cholera vaccine (OCV) is a complementary strategy for cholera prevention and control for vulnerable population groups. In October 2016, the Mozambique Ministry of Health implemented a mass vaccination campaign using a two-dose regimen of the Shanchol™ OCV in six high-risk neighborhoods of Nampula city, in Northern Mozambique. Overall 193,403 people were targeted by the campaign, which used a door-to-door strategy. During campaign follow-up, a population survey was conducted to assess: (1) OCV coverage; (2) frequency of adverse events following immunization; (3) vaccine acceptability and (4) reasons for non-vaccination. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:In the absence of a household listing and clear administrative neighborhood delimitations, we used geospatial technology to select households from satellite images and used the support of community leaders. One person per household was randomly selected for interview. In total, 636 individuals were enrolled in the survey. The overall vaccination coverage with at least one dose (including card and oral reporting) was 69.5% (95%CI: 51.2-88.2) and the two-dose coverage was 51.2% (95%CI: 37.9-64.3). The campaign was well accepted. Among the 185 non-vaccinated individuals, 83 (44.6%) did not take the vaccine because they were absent when the vaccination team visited their houses. Among the 451 vaccinated individuals, 47 (10%) reported minor and non-specific complaints, and 78 (17.3%) mentioned they did not receive any information before the campaign. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:In spite of overall coverage being slightly lower than expected, the use of a mobile door-to-door strategy remains a viable option even in densely-populated urban settings. Our results suggest that campaigns can be successfully implemented and well accepted in Mozambique in non-emergency contexts in order to prevent cholera outbreaks. These findings are encouraging and complement the previous Mozambican experience related to OCV