An ancillary care policy in a vaccine trial conducted in a resource-constrained setting: evaluation and policy recommendations.
Cohort study
Global Health
Health policy
Vaccines
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jun 2024
10 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
02
02
2024
accepted:
22
05
2024
medline:
11
6
2024
pubmed:
11
6
2024
entrez:
10
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clear guidelines to implement ancillary care (AC) in clinical trials conducted in resource-constrained settings are lacking. Here, we evaluate an AC policy developed for a vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and formulate policy recommendations. To evaluate the AC policy, we performed a longitudinal cohort study, nested in an open-label, single-centre, randomised Ebola vaccine trial conducted among healthcare personnel. Participants' demographic information, residence distance to the study site and details on the financial and/or medical support provided for any (serious) adverse events ((S)AE) were combined and analysed. To assess the feasibility of the AC policy, an expenditure analysis of the costs related to AC support outcomes was performed. Enrolment in this evaluation study started on 29 November 2021. The study lasted 11 months and included 655 participants from the Ebola vaccine trial. In total, 393 participants used the AC policy, mostly for AE management (703 AE and 94 SAE) via medication provided by the study pharmacy (75.3%). Men had a 35.2% (95% CI 4.0% to 56.6%) lower likelihood of reporting AE compared with women. Likewise, this was 32.3% lower (95% CI 5.8% to 51.4%) for facility-based compared with community-based healthcare providers. The daily AE reporting was 78.8% lower during the passive vs the active trial stage, and 97.4% lower during unscheduled vs scheduled visits (p<0.001). Participants living further than 10 km from the trial site more frequently reported the travel distance as a reason for not using the policy (p<0.04). In practice, only 1.1% of the operational trial budget was used for AC policy support. The trial design, study population and local health system impacted the use of the AC policy. Nonetheless, the AC policy implementation in this remote and resource-constrained setting was feasible, had negligible budgetary implications and contributed to participants' healthcare options and well-being.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38857947
pii: bmjgh-2024-015259
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015259
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ebola Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.