Conducting vaccine clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa: Operational challenges and lessons learned from the Meningitis Vaccine Project
Introduction
Epidemic meningitis is a greatly feared disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the use of tens of millions of doses of meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines over the last 20–25 years, meningitis epidemics, largely due to group A Neisseria meningitidis, have continued to plague meningitis belt countries [1], [2], [3]. The Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP) was established in 2001 as a joint effort between WHO (World Health Organization) and PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health), with the aim to develop, test, license, and introduce meningococcal conjugate vaccines in sub-Saharan Africa [4], [5], [6]. As part of this mandate MVP developed a meningococcal group A conjugate vaccine that is manufactured by Serum Institute of India Ltd. (SIIL) and is now licensed, WHO prequalified, and used in mass vaccination campaigns in several meningitis belt countries [7], [13].
During the course of its clinical development, MenAfriVac™ was tested from phase 1 in India [8] to phase 2/3 in Africa (Mali, Senegal, The Gambia, Ghana) and in India [9]. The three trials conducted at the African sites were: (i) a phase 2, randomized, observer-blind, controlled study of the safety and immunogenicity of MenAfriVac™, enrolling 600 toddlers aged 12–23 months in Mali and The Gambia; (ii) a phase 2/3, randomized, observer-blind, controlled study of the safety and immunogenicity of MenAfriVac™, enrolling 900 subjects 2 to 29 years of age in Mali, The Gambia, and Senegal; and (iii) a phase 2, randomized, observer-blind study of the safety and immunogenicity of MenAfriVac™, enrolling 1200 infants in Ghana. The study methods and results have already been described elsewhere [9], [10].
The study sites are representative of different settings in the meningitis belt: the site in Mali was the Centre pour le Développement des Vaccins (CVD), located in the urban area of the capital city Bamako; the site in The Gambia was the Medical Research Council laboratories (MRC) rural field station in Basse, located 380 km east of the capital city Banjul; the site in Senegal was the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) rural field station in Niakhar, located 150 km south-east of the capital city Dakar; the site in Ghana was the Navrongo Health Research Center (NHRC), located in a rural district 800 km north of the capital city Accra, and close to the Burkina Faso border.
At all study sites, the population was under demographic surveillance as a result of either clinical trials performed in the previous years or long-established, demographic, longitudinal surveillance programs in operation (NHRC and IRD belong to the International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and Their Health in Developing Countries (INDEPTH), http://www.indepth-network.org/). The general perception of clinical research was highly positive in all study areas. The study staff maintained a continuous dialogue with the population on the research, organizing periodical meetings with the leaders and the communities, before study start, during study implementation, and after study completion.
As the three trials were conducted simultaneously in the four countries, the clinical team had to deal with several logistical and operational challenges in order to comply with ICH-GCP (International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice) standards and project timelines.
Section snippets
Need for site SOPs and source documents
The requirement for written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) is recognised by ICH-GCP [11]. It has been observed that development, review, and evaluation of SOPs at site level, prior to study start, is helpful in evaluating the preparedness and ability of the site to conduct the study. During the clinical trial preparation phase, time and resources were dedicated to the development of study-specific SOPs across the study sites. This joint exercise was found to be extremely helpful for the
Capacity building activities and site training
Meetings were held at each study site during the preparatory phase of the clinical trials. The first meeting was organized in October 2005 at IRD Niakhar Field station, Senegal, with clinical trial teams from Mali and Senegal. The objective of the meeting was to allow both teams to exchange their experiences with ethics, community relations, implementation of electronic data capture for demographic surveillance, and tools and methodology for the mapping of compounds. Since the Senegalese site
Supervision: site monitoring, independent audits, and comonitoring
Another key point is to ensure continuous support to study implementation by allocating monitors for frequent site visits (every two weeks during the recruitment period and at least once a month until the study is completed). To maintain an effective study monitoring system, monitors must be available and flexible. In West Africa travelling can be challenging and time-consuming. MVP chose, therefore, to delegate monitoring activities to a local organisation based in West Africa. Study monitors
Setup and training for laboratory procedures at study site
Because one of the expected effect of MenAfriVac™ is a reduction in group A carriage [12], the phase 2/3 study conducted in Mali, Gambia, and Senegal included the analysis of carriage of N. meningitidis throughout the study period. Study procedures included a tonsillopharyngeal swab to be obtained for all subjects at the time blood draws were proposed. This involved additional technical and logistical challenges for the sites. Standard procedures describing how to perform the swab, how to grow
Important logistical issues to be taken into account
The trials were conducted at all study sites in close collaboration with local national regulatory authorities. Meetings with national authorities were organized very early in the trial setup in order to understand the regulatory framework and seek governmental support. This was facilitated by a concomitant WHO initiative to strengthen capacity for regulatory oversight in Africa, enabling countries to develop their own regulations referring to ICH/GCP [14], [15]. Authorities frequently
Fieldwork issues and need for planning of adequate timelines
When the first African study started in Mali and The Gambia, it became apparent that fieldworkers (FW) would play a central role in addressing the logistic challenges of conducting clinical studies in African rural settings. FW were key in fostering relationships with local populations made up of complex and diverse communities living in remote rural areas with scarce resources.
When a clinical study is conducted in a rural area, the rate of subjects’ participation and compliance to study
Summary of lessons learned and suggestions for improvement
We found many operational challenges in successfully setting up and running vaccine trials at multiple trial sites located in low-resources settings in sub-Saharan Africa. The strong team approach taken by the sponsors, the local monitors, the study sites, the clinical collaborators, and the consultants made it possible to implement effective solutions in a timely manner. We summarize the main lessons learned along with suggestions for improvement in Table 1.
By working closely with study sites
Funding
Clinical studies and related operational activities were funded by the Meningitis Vaccine Project, a partnership between PATH and the World Health Organization (http://www.meningvax.org/), supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
Dr Prasad S. Kulkarni is employed by Serum Institute of India Ltd., the manufacturer of the study vaccine. The remaining authors have no conflicts to declare.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge all the investigators and coinvestigators, the study sites teams, the communities where the MVP trials were conducted, the trials monitors, the WHO country offices, the ministries of health, and all clinical partners of the Meningitis Vaccine Project whose commitment made the project a great achievement. We thank Dr. F. Marc LaForce (PATH/MVP, Ferney Voltaire, France) for his support to the MenAfriVac™ clinical development and Dr. Monique Berlier for critical
References (15)
Manson Lecture. Meningococcal meningitis in Africa
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg
(1999)- et al.
Epidemic meningitis, meningococcaemia, and Neisseria meningitidis
Lancet
(2007) - et al.
The Meningitis Vaccine Project
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
Safety, immunogenicity and antibody persistence of a new meningococcal group A conjugate vaccine in healthy Indian adults
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
Meningococcal carriage in the African meningitis belt
Lancet Infect Dis
(2007) - et al.
Effectively introducing a new meningococcal A conjugate vaccine in Africa: The Burkina Faso experience
Vaccine
(2012) - et al.
Regulatory oversight of clinical trials in Africa: Progress over the past 5 years
Vaccine
(2009)
Cited by (21)
COVID-19 vaccination in Africa: A case of unsatisfied expectation and ill-preparedness
2022, Vaccine: XCitation Excerpt :POD locations should be appropriately publicized, and populations should be educated about vaccination procedures and vaccine risks. Drive-through POD is an alternative way of improving vaccination coverage; however, this may also present additional challenges due to poor road and transportation networks across Africa [12]. Incorporating health incentives such as; bed nets, multivitamins, and deworming capsules into the COVID-19 mass vaccination program can also be a good way of meeting the grassroots populations' neglected needs.
Role of vaccine manufacturers in developing countries towards global healthcare by providing quality vaccines at affordable prices
2014, Clinical Microbiology and InfectionCitation Excerpt :The Serum Institute of India Ltd, a DCVMN member, was approached for development of this vaccine through partnerships with the Meningitis Vaccine project, PATH, WHO and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, USA (CBER) [23,24]. The vaccine was licensed and prequalified in 2010 and within 6 months of vaccine introduction in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, only four cases of meningitis A were reported, compared with 250 000 cases and 25 000 deaths in the worst ever epidemic in the year 1996–1997 [25,26]. By the end of 2012, more than 100 million people were vaccinated in ten countries in Africa and it has been reported that vaccination resulted in a 94% drop in rate of incidence during the meningitis season.
Evolving pharmacovigilance requirements with novel vaccines and vaccine components
2021, BMJ Global HealthPreclinical studies and clinical trials in determination of safety and efficacy of meningococcal vaccines: Present scenario
2021, Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research
- 1
These authors contributed equally to the research.
- 2
The author is a WHO staff member and is responsible for views expressed in this publication which do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the WHO.