Effectiveness of two doses of Euvichol-plus oral cholera vaccine in response to the 2017/2018 outbreak: a matched case–control study in Lusaka, Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Zambia experienced a major cholera outbreak in 2017–2018, with more than 5905 cases reported countrywide, predominantly from the peri-urban slums of Lusaka city. The WHO recommends the use of oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) together with traditional control measures, including health promotion, provision of safe water and improving sanitation, in cholera endemic areas and during cholera outbreaks. In response to this outbreak, the Zambian government implemented the OVC campaign and administered the Euvichol-plus vaccine in the high-risk subdistricts of Lusaka. Although OCVs have been shown to be effective in preventing cholera infection in cholera endemic and outbreak settings, the effectiveness of the Euvichol-plus vaccine has not yet been evaluated in Zambia. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of two doses of OCV administered during the 2017/2018 vaccination campaign. Methods We conducted a matched case–control study involving 79 cases and 316 controls following the mass vaccination campaign in the four subdistricts of Lusaka (Chawama, Chipata, Kanyama and Matero). Matching of controls was based on the place of residence, age and sex. Conditional logistic regression was used for analysis. Adjusted OR (AOR), 95% CI and vaccine effectiveness (1-AOR) for two doses of Euvichol-plus vaccine and any dose were estimated (p < 0.05). Results The AOR vaccine effectiveness for two doses of Euvichol-plus OCV was 81.0% (95% CI 66.0% to 78.0%; p<0.01). Secondary analysis showed that vaccine effectiveness for any dose was 74.0% (95% CI 50.0% to 86.0%; p<0.01). Conclusion These findings show that two doses of Euvichol-plus OCV are effective in a cholera outbreak setting in Lusaka, Zambia. The findings also indicate that two doses are more effective than a single dose and thus support the use of two doses of the vaccine as part of an integrated intervention to cholera control during outbreaks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".