Who is missed in a community-based survey: Assessment and implications of biases due to incomplete sampling frame in a community-based serosurvey, Choma and Ndola Districts, Zambia, 2022

Community-based serological studies are increasingly relied upon to measure disease burden, identify population immunity gaps, and guide control and elimination strategies; however, there is little understanding of the potential for and impact of sampling biases on outcomes of interest. As part of efforts to quantify measles immunity gaps in Zambia, a community-based serological survey using stratified multi-stage cluster sampling approach was conducted in Ndola and Choma districts in May-June 2022, enrolling 1245 individuals. We carried out a follow-up study among individuals missed from the sampling frame of the serosurvey in July-August 2022, enrolling 672 individuals. We assessed the potential for and impact of biases in the community-based serosurvey by i) estimating differences in characteristics of households and individuals included and excluded (77% vs 23% of households) from the sampling frame of the serosurvey and ii) evaluating the magnitude these differences make on healthcare-seeking behavior, vaccination coverage, and measles seroprevalence. We found that missed households were 20% smaller and 25% less likely to have children. Missed individuals resided in less wealthy households, had different distributions of sex and occupation, and were more likely to seek care at health facilities. Despite these differences, simulating a survey in which missed households were included in the sampling frame resulted in less than a 5% estimated bias in these outcomes. Although community-based studies are upheld as the gold standard study design in assessing immunity gaps and underlying community health characteristics, these findings underscore the fact that sampling biases can impact the results of even well-conducted community-based surveys. Results from these studies should be interpreted in the context of the study methodology and challenges faced during implementation, which include shortcomings in establishing accurate and up-to-date sampling frames. Failure to account for these shortcomings may result in biased estimates and detrimental effects on decision-making.

Post-campaign coverage evaluation of a measles and rubella supplementary immunization activity in five districts in India, 2019-2020

BACKGROUND

In alignment with the Measles and Rubella (MR) Strategic Elimination plan, India conducted a mass measles and rubella vaccination campaign across the country between 2017 and 2020 to provide a dose of MR containing vaccine to all children aged 9 months to 15 years. We estimated campaign vaccination coverage in five districts in India and assessed campaign awareness and factors associated with vaccination during the campaign to better understand reasons for not receiving the dose.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Community-based cross-sectional serosurveys were conducted in five districts of India among children aged 9 months to 15 years after the vaccination campaign. Campaign coverage was estimated based on home-based immunization record or caregiver recall. Campaign coverage was stratified by child- and household-level risk factors and descriptive analyses were performed to assess reasons for not receiving the campaign dose. Three thousand three hundred and fifty-seven children aged 9 months to 15 years at the time of the campaign were enrolled. Campaign coverage among children aged 9 months to 5 years documented or by recall ranged from 74.2% in Kanpur Nagar District to 90.4% in Dibrugarh District, Assam. Similar coverage was observed for older children. Caregiver awareness of the campaign varied from 88.3% in Hoshiarpur District, Punjab to 97.6% in Dibrugarh District, Assam, although 8% of children whose caregivers were aware of the campaign were not vaccinated during the campaign. Failure to receive the campaign dose was associated with urban settings, low maternal education, and lack of school attendance although the associations varied by district.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of the MR vaccination campaign was high; however, campaign coverage varied by district and did not reach the elimination target of 95% coverage in any of the districts studied. Areas with lower coverage among younger children must be prioritized by strengthening the routine immunization programme and implementing strategies to identify and reach under-vaccinated children.

Comparison of measles IgG enzyme immunoassays (EIA) versus plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) for measuring measles serostatus: a systematic review of head-to-head analyses of measles IgG EIA and PRNT

BACKGROUND

As countries move towards or achieve measles elimination status, serosurveillance is an important public health tool. However, a major challenge of serosurveillance is finding a feasible, accurate, cost-effective, and high throughput assay to measure measles antibody concentrations and estimate susceptibility in a population. We conducted a systematic review to assess, characterize, and - to the extent possible - quantify the performance of measles IgG enzyme-linked assays (EIAs) compared to the gold standard, plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT).

METHODS

We followed the PRISMA statement for a systematic literature search and methods for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommended by the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. We identified studies through PubMed and Embase electronic databases and included serologic studies detecting measles virus IgG antibodies among participants of any age from the same source population that reported an index (any EIA or multiple bead-based assays, MBA) and reference test (PRNT) using sera, whole blood, or plasma. Measures of diagnostic accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were abstracted for each study result, where reported.

RESULTS

We identified 550 unique publications and identified 36 eligible studies for analysis. We classified studies as high, medium, or low quality; results from high quality studies are reported. Because most high quality studies used the Siemens Enzygnost EIA kit, we generate individual and pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates for this assay separately. Median sensitivity of the Enzygnost EIA was 92.1% [IQR = 82.3, 95.7]; median specificity was 96.9 [93.0, 100.0]. Pooled sensitivity and specificity from studies using the Enzygnost kit were 91.6 (95%CI: 80.7,96.6) and 96.0 (95%CI: 90.9,98.3), respectively. The sensitivity of all other EIA kits across high quality studies ranged from 0% to 98.9% with median (IQR) = 90.6 [86.6, 95.2]; specificity ranged from 58.8% to 100.0% with median (IQR) = 100.0 [88.7, 100.0].

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of currently available measles IgG EIAs is variable, insufficient, and may not be fit for purpose for serosurveillance goals. Additional studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of measles EIAs, including MBAs, should be conducted among diverse populations and settings (e.g., vaccination status, elimination/endemic status, age groups).

Evaluating the effect of measles and rubella mass vaccination campaigns on seroprevalence in India: a before-and-after cross-sectional household serosurvey in four districts, 2018-2020

Background

India did phased measles–rubella supplementary immunisation activities (MR-SIAs; ie, mass-immunisation campaigns) targeting children aged 9 months to less than 15 years. We estimated measles–rubella seroprevalence before and after the MR-SIAs to quantify the effect on population immunity and identify remaining immunity gaps.

Methods

Between March 9, 2018 and March 19, 2020 we did community-based, cross-sectional serosurveys in four districts in India before and after MR-SIAs. 30 villages or wards were selected within each district, and one census enumeration block from each was selected as the survey cluster. Households were enumerated and 13 children in the younger age group (9 months to <5 years) and 13 children in the older ager group (5 to <15 years) were randomly selected by use of computer-generated random numbers. Serum samples were tested for IgG antibodies to measles and rubella viruses by enzyme immunoassay.

Findings

Specimens were collected from 2570 children before the MR-SIA and from 2619 children afterwards. The weighted MR-SIA coverage ranged from 73·7% to 90·5% in younger children and from 73·6% to 93·6% in older children. Before the MR-SIA, district-level measles seroprevalence was between 80·7% and 88·5% among younger children in all districts, and between 63·4% and 84·5% among older children. After the MR-SIA, measles seroprevalence among younger children increased to more than 90% (range 91·5 to 96·0) in all districts except Kanpur Nagar, in which it remained unchanged 80·4%. Among older children, measles seroprevalence increased to more than 90·0% (range 93·7% to 96·5%) in all districts except Hoshiarpur (88·7%). A significant increase in rubella seroprevalence was observed in all districts in both age groups, with the largest effect in Dibrugarh, where rubella seroprevalence increased from 10·6% to 96·5% among younger children.

Interpretation

Measles–rubella seroprevalence increased substantially after the MR-SIAs but the serosurvey also identified remaining gaps in population immunity.

Funding

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Indian Council of Medical Research.

Implementing Serosurveys in India: Experiences, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations

Serological surveillance for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles and rubella, can provide direct measures of population immunity across age groups, identify gaps in immunity, and document changes in immunity over time. Rigorously conducted, representative household serosurveys provide high-quality estimates with minimal bias. However, they can be logistically challenging, expensive, and have higher refusal rates than vaccine coverage surveys. This article shares lessons learned through implementing nine measles and rubella household serosurveys in five districts in India—the challenges faced, the potential impact on results, and recommendations to facilitate the conduct of serosurveys. Specific lessons learned arose from challenges related to community mobilization owing to lack of cooperation in certain settings and populations, limitations of outdated census information, nonresponse due to refusal or unavailability during survey enumeration and enrollment, data collection issues, and specimen collection and handling issues. Although some experiences are specific to serosurveys in India, these lessons are generalizable to other household surveys, particularly vaccination coverage and serosurveys conducted in low- and middle-income settings.

Using pneumococcal and rotavirus surveillance in vaccine decision-making: A series of case studies in Bangladesh, Armenia and the Gambia

Pneumonia and diarrhea are the leading causes of child morbidity and mortality globally and are vaccine preventable. The WHO-coordinated Global Rotavirus and Invasive Bacterial Vaccine-Preventable Disease Surveillance Networks support surveillance systems across WHO regions to provide burden of disease data for countries to make evidence-based decisions about introducing vaccines and to demonstrate the impact of vaccines on disease burden. These surveillance networks help fill the gaps in data in low and middle-income countries where disease burden and risk are high but support to sustain surveillance activities and generate data is low. Through a series of country case studies, this paper reviews the successful use of surveillance data for disease caused by pneumococcus and rotavirus in informing national vaccine policy in Bangladesh, Armenia and The Gambia. The case studies delve into ways in which countries are leveraging and building capacity in existing surveillance infrastructure to monitor other diseases of concern in the country. Local institutions have been identified to play a critical role in making surveillance data available to policymakers. We recommend that countries review local or regional surveillance data in making vaccine policy decisions. Documenting use of surveillance activities can be used as advocacy tools to convince governments and external funders to invest in surveillance and make it a priority immunization activity.