Submitted:
08 February 2024
Posted:
09 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Recruitment and Enrolment
2.3. Study Procedures
2.4. Laboratory Procedures
2.5. Statistical Analyses
2.6. Ethical Statement
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characterisitics of the Enrolled Participants
3.2. Kinetics of Vibriocidal Antibody Titre 90 Days after Re-Vaccination
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Competing interests
References
- H. Ngombe et al. Immunogenicity and waning immunity from the oral cholera vaccine (ShancholTM) in adults residing in Lukanga Swamps of Zambia. PLoS One 2022, 17, 1–11. [CrossRef]
- J. Mwaba et al. Serum vibriocidal responses when second doses of oral cholera vaccine are delayed 6 months in Zambia. Vaccine 2021, 39, 4516–4523. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- C. C. Luchen et al. Effect of HIV status and retinol on immunogenicity to oral cholera vaccine in adult population living in an endemic area of Lukanga Swamps, Zambia. PLoS One 2021, 16, 1–12. [CrossRef]
- C. C. Chisenga et al. Assessment of the influence of ABO blood groups on oral cholera vaccine immunogenicity in a cholera endemic area in Zambia. BMC Public Health 2023, 23. [CrossRef]
- malawi cholera outbreak 2022-23.
- Tanzania cholera.
- C. Outbreak -Zimbabwe et al. Notes from the Field: Cholera Outbreak — Zimbabwe, September 2018–March 2019. 2018. [Online]. Available online: https://www.who.int/cholera/task_.
- “Mozambique cholera”.
- “Cholera DR CONGO”.
- et al. Mwape et al. Immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix TM ) in infants with environmental enteric dysfunction. [CrossRef]
- M. A. Sayeed et al. A Cholera Conjugate Vaccine Containing O-specific Polysaccharide (OSP) of V. cholerae O1 Inaba and Recombinant Fragment of Tetanus Toxin Heavy Chain (OSP:rTTHc) Induces Serum, Memory and Lamina Proprial Responses against OSP and Is Protective in Mice. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015, 9, e0003881. [CrossRef]
- R. C. Kauffman et al. Single-Cell Analysis of the Plasmablast Response to Vibrio cholerae Demonstrates Expansion of Cross-Reactive Memory B Cells. mBio 2016, 7. [CrossRef]
- F. Qadri et al. Comparison of the Vibriocidal Antibody Response in Cholera due to Vibrio cholerae O139 Bengal with the Response in Cholera due to Vibrio cholerae O1. 1995. [Online]. Available online: https://journals.asm.org/journal/cdli.
- D. T. Leung et al. Memory B cell and other immune responses in children receiving two doses of an oral killed cholera vaccine compared to responses following natural cholera infection in Bangladesh. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 2012, 19, 690–698. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- J. M. Nam, “A simple approximation for calculating sample sizes for detecting linear trend in proportions. Biometrics 1987, 43, 701–705. [CrossRef]
- S. Kanungo et al. Flexibility of Oral Cholera Vaccine Dosing—A Randomized Controlled Trial Measuring Immune Responses Following Alternative Vaccination Schedules in a Cholera Hyper-Endemic Zone. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015, 9, e0003574. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- J. B. Harris, “Cholera: Immunity and prospects in vaccine development. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2018, 218, S141–S146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R. A. Johnson et al. Comparison of immune responses to the O-specific polysaccharide and lipopolysaccharide of Vibrio cholerae O1 in Bangladeshi adult patients with cholera. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 2012, 19, 1712–1721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- J. D. Clemens, G. B. Ahmed, and T. Qadri, ↓ save. 2017, 390, 1539–1549.
- B. A. Muzembo, K. Kitahara, D. Mitra, A. Ohno, and S. I. Miyoshi, Long-Term Kinetics of Serological Antibodies against Vibrio cholerae Following a Clinical Cholera Case: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19. [CrossRef]
- F. Chowdhury et al. Augmented immune responses to a booster dose of oral cholera vaccine in Bangladeshi children less than 5 years of age: Revaccination after an interval of over three years of primary vaccination with a single dose of vaccine. Vaccine 2020, 38, 1753–1761. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- B. Sit, B. Fakoya, T. Zhang, G. Billings, and M. K. Waldor, Dissecting serotype-specific contributions to live oral cholera vaccine efficacy. [CrossRef]
- B. Falkard et al. Bivalent oral cholera vaccination induces a memory B cell response to the V. cholerae O1-polysacchide in Haitian adults. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019, 13. [CrossRef]
- S. Mukhopadhyay, B. Nandi, and A. C. Ghose, “ Antibodies (IgG) to lipopolysaccharide of Vibrio cholerae O1 mediate protection through inhibition of intestinal adherence and colonisation in a mouse model. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2000, 185, 29–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R. T. Perry et al. A single dose of live oral cholera vaccine CVD 103-HgR is safe and immunogenic in HIV-infected and HIV-noninfected adults in Mali. 1998.




| Characteristic | Frequency (N = 182) |
0 Dose (n = 56, 30.8%) |
1 Dose (n = 70, 38.5%) |
2 Doses (n = 56, 30.8%) |
P-value |
| n (% of total) | n (% of total) | n (% of total) | n (% of total) | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 68 (37.4) | 11 (19.6) | 29 (41.4) | 28 (50.0) | 0.003 |
| Female | 114 (62.6) | 45 (80.4) | 41 (58.6) | 28 (50.0) | |
| Age | |||||
| 15-25 | 56 (30.8) | 26 (46.4) | 21 (30.0) | 9 (16.1) | 0.002 |
| 26-45 | 64 (35.2) | 19 (33.9) | 27 (38.6) | 18 (32.1) | |
| 46 + | 62 (34.1) | 11 (19.6) | 22 (31.4) | 29 (51.8) | |
| Education | |||||
| None | 31 (17.0) | 14 (25.0) | 13 (18.6) | 4 (7.1) | 0.141 |
| Primary | 104 (57.1) | 28 (50.0) | 41 (58.6) | 35 (62.5) | |
| Secondary | 47 (25.8) | 14 (25.0) | 16 (22.9) | 17 (30.4) | |
| Occupation | |||||
| Unemployed | 127 (69.8) | 35 (62.5) | 50 (71.4) | 42 (75.0) | 0.313 |
| Informal sector (self-employed) | 33 (18.1) | 10 (17.9) | 14 (20.0) | 9 (16.1) | |
| Formal sector (office worker) | 22 (12.1) | 11 (19.6) | 6 ( 8.6) | 5 ( 8.9) | |
| Floor Material | |||||
| Cement | 15 (8.2) | 4 (7.1) | 4 (5.7) | 7 (12.5) | 0.364 |
| Mud | 167 (91.8) | 52 (92.9) | 66 (94.3) | 49 (87.5) | |
| Source of Drinking Water | |||||
| Unimproved1 | 97 (53.3) | 31 (55.4) | 40 (57.1) | 26 (46.4) | 0.455 |
| Improved2 | 85 (46.7) | 25 (44.6) | 30 (42.9) | 30 (53.6) | |
| Type of Toilet facility | |||||
| Unimproved3 | 119 (65.4) | 39 (69.6) | 48 (68.6) | 32 (57.1) | 0.295 |
| Improved4 | 63 (34.6) | 17 (30.4) | 22 (31.4) | 24 (42.9) | |
| HIV Status | |||||
| Negative | 142 (78.0) | 38 (67.9) | 58 (82.9) | 46 (82.1) | 0.087 |
| Positive | 40 (22.0) | 18 (32.1) | 12 (17.1) | 10 (17.9) | |
| Group | Frequency (N = 182) |
Seroconverted | P-value | Risk Ratio | P-value | *Adjusted Risk Ratio | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (% of total) | n (% of row total) | RR (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) | ||||
| Day 15 | |||||||
| 0 Dose | 56 (30.77) | 34 (60.7) | ref | ref | ref | ||
| 1 Dose | 70 (38.46) | 35 (50.0) | 0.230 | 0.82 (0.60, 1.13) | 0.227 | 0.69 (0.50, 0.93) | 0.017 |
| 2 Doses | 56 (30.77) | 30 (53.6) | 0.445 | 0.88 (0.64, 1.22) | 0.446 | 0.66 (0.48, 0.93) | 0.017 |
| Day 30 | |||||||
| 0 Dose | 56 (30.77) | 30 (53.6) | ref | ref | ref | ||
| 1 Dose | 70 (38.46) | 32 (45.7) | 0.381 | 0.85 (0.60, 1.21) | 0.379 | 0.96 (0.67, 1.37) | 0.813 |
| 2 Doses | 56 (30.77) | 32 (57.1) | 0.704 | 1.07 (0.76, 1.49) | 0.704 | 1.26 (0.86, 1.84) | 0.237 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).