Search

Background: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer-associated mortality among women in India, with 96,922 new cases and 60,078 deaths each year, almost one-fifth of the global burden. In 2018, Sikkim state in India introduced human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for 9-13-year-old girls, primarily through school-based vaccination, targeting approximately 25,000 girls. We documented the program's decision-making and implementation processes., Methods: We conducted a post-introduction evaluation in 2019, concurrent with the second dose campaign, by interviewing key stakeholders (state, district, and local level), reviewing planning documents, and observing cold chain sites in two purposefully-sampled community areas in each of the four districts of Sikkim. Using standard questionnaires, we interviewed health and education officials, school personnel, health workers, community leaders, and age-eligible girls on program decision-making, planning, training, vaccine delivery, logistics, and communication., Results: We conducted 279 interviews and 29 observations in eight community areas across four districts of Sikkim. Based on reported administrative data, Sikkim achieved >95% HPV vaccination coverage among targeted girls for both doses via two campaigns; no severe adverse events were reported. HPV vaccination was well accepted by all stakeholders; minimal refusal was reported. Factors identified for successful vaccine introduction included strong political commitment, statewide mandatory school enrollment, collaboration between health and education departments at all levels, and robust social mobilization strategies., Conclusions: Sikkim successfully introduced the HPV vaccine to multiple-age cohorts of girls via school-based vaccination, demonstrating a model that could be replicated in other regions in India or similar low- and middle-income country settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: After global oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) currently recommends a two-dose schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) beginning ≥14-weeks of age to achieve at least 90% immune response. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of three different two-dose IPV schedules started before or at 14-weeks of age., Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, inequality trial at two sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants at 6-weeks of age were randomized into one of five arms to receive two-dose IPV schedules at different ages with and without OPV. The three IPV-only arms are presented: Arm C received IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months; Arm D received IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months; and Arm E received IPV at 6 and 14-weeks. The primary outcome was immune response defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) to seropositive (≥1:8) after vaccination, or a four-fold rise in antibody titers and median reciprocal antibody titers to all three poliovirus types measured at 10-months of age., Findings: Of the 987 children randomized to Arms C, D, and E, 936 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 10-months, participants in Arm C (IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months) had ≥99% cumulative immune response to all three poliovirus types which was significantly higher than the 77-81% observed in Arm E (IPV at 6 and 14-weeks). Participants in Arm D (IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months) had cumulative immune responses of 98-99% which was significantly higher than that of Arm E (p value < 0.0001) but not different from Arm C., Interpretation: Results support current SAGE recommendations for IPV following OPV cessation and provide evidence that the schedule of two full IPV doses could begin as early as 6-weeks., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)