INTRODUCTION:

Cholera, a diarrheal disease that in its severe clinical form, choleragravis, is characterized by the passage of voluminous electrolyte-rich rice-water stools, can lead to dehydration, acute renal failure, and death, even in otherwise healthy adults, if prompt rehydration is not initiated. Serogroup O1of Vibrio cholera is currently responsible for >99% of all cholera cases worldwide ^[1–4] and two main serotypes are isolated, Inaba and Ogawa. There are also two V. cholera O1biotypes, classical and El Tor, defined by phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. Over the centuries, cholera has periodically spread in pandemic fashion. Since the 1960s, the world has experienced the progressive dissemination of a seventh pandemic, this one due to El Tor^[5].

More recently, El Tor hybrid strains’ have appeared consisting of V. cholera O1 El Tor expressing classical cholera enterotoxin and sometimes also exhibiting classical biotype toxin co-regulated pili (TCP), the protein organelles on the vibrio surface that foster colonization of the human proximal small intestine ^[6,7]. Reservoirs often erotoxigenic V. cholera O1 include persons with clinical and subclinical infection and certain brackish water environmental niches where the vibrios are attached to resident copepods (zooplankton), crustacea, and other chitinousfauna^[8]. Cholera causes explosive epidemics even in endemic areas where cholera is often highly seasonal and erupts in multiple foci simultaneously related to zooplankton blooms. One environmental niche exists in the Gulf of Mexico along the Texas and Louisiana coast where sporadic cases and Mini-outbreaks of cholera occur every few years due to a highly hemolytic El Tor strain^9,10]. A recent worldwide burden estimate indicates that 1.3–4.0million case of cholera and 21,000–143,000 deaths occur annually ^[11]. Bacteriologic methods to confirm cases are often unavailable in developing countries. Moreover, only~5–10% of cholera cases are actually reported because some countries, concerned over the impact on tourism and trade, Fail to report cholera in a timely way, if at all. The incidence of confirmed cholera among travelers from the USA who visit developing countries is generally low but is related to the geographic areas frequented. The number of cases rose markedly when cholera returned to South American 1991 (160 US cases from 1992 to 1994) ^[12]and during the 2010 Haiti epidemic (23 cases during the first 6 months of the epidemic ^[13]. Taylor et al. ^[14] established systematic bacteriologic culturing for V. cholera O1 among diarrhea cases attended in the US Embassy’s health clinic in Lima, Peru. Over the 3-year period 1992–1994, the mean annual attack rate for confirmed cholera among US citizens employed at the embassy was 5.3 cases/103 employees ^[14]. This amplified bacteriology laboratory-supported passive surveillance identified a cholera risk similar to incidence rates observed in adults in cholera-endemic Bangladesh. Patients ‘presented with a severe form of travelers’ diarrhea,’ although none required intravenous rehydration or hospitalization ^[14]. Cholera is transmitted through contaminated food or drinking-water, as well as by person-to person contact through the fecal-oral route. Sanitary conditions in the environment play an important role since the V. cholera bacterium survives and multiplies outside the human body and can spread rapidly where living conditions are crowded and water sources unprotected and where there is no safe disposal of faeces. These conditions are met in poor countries and in many Refugee camps. For example, in 1994 in a refugee camp in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, a major epidemic took place. An estimated 58 000–80 000 cases and 23 800 deaths Occurred within one month^[15].Epidemics of cholera-like diseases have been described by visitors to the Indian sub-continentas far back as the early sixteenth century and continuing through the nineteenth century. Beginning in 1817 cholera spread periodically to other parts of the world, in pandemic waves, retreating to its endemic area in South-East Asia between pandemics. The current seventh Pandemic caused by the El Tor biotype of V. cholera O1 began in 1961 in Sulawesi, Indonesia and spread rapidly to other countries in Asia, Europe and Africa and finally to Latin America in 1991, after almost a century without cholera. It spread very rapidly in Latin America causing nearly 400 000 reported cases and over 4000 reported deaths in 16 countries of the Americas that year. During the 1990s a new epidemic strain, V. cholera O139 Bengal was identified. It caused large Outbreaks in India and Bangladesh beginning in 1992. Until then only V. Cholera O1 was known to cause epidemic cholera. V. cholera O139 Bengal is still restricted to Asia. The seventh pandemic is still ongoing and shows signs of increasing further, rather than abating. Nearly 120 countries reported indigenous cases of cholera to WHO since 1991, and nearly half of those countries have reported cholera for at least five of the last eight years. This reflects the fact that cholera is a recurring problem in many areas, and it has become endemic in others. Research has shown that the El Tor biotype is more likely to ‘produce in apparent infections, Persist longer in the environment, multiply more rapidly following inoculation into foods, and evoke less complete immunity’ than the classical biotype. This has important implications for both the control of cholera, which will need to take into consideration both the potential of cholera to spread to new areas where there are susceptible populations causing large epidemics, as well as the need to control cholera in new areas of endemicity, such as parts of Africa and the Americas.

1 World Health Organization:

Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and

Response WHO/CDS/CSR/ISR/2000.1

Cholera vaccine: (vaxchora vaccine)

Indications:

· Immunization against vibrocholerae infection (cholera).

· Prevention of cholera (serogroup O1) in adults aged 18-64 years visiting cholera – affected areas.

Dosage:

· Oral cholera vaccine .

· 2 doses at least 14 days apart.

· 37% effective for 1 dose ;>50% effective for 2 doses.

_·Vaxchora: single liquid dose (3 OZ) at least 10 days before travel.

Mechanism of action:

Vaxchora contains live attenuated cholera bacteria that replicate in the gastrointestinal tract of the recipient.

Uses:

Cholera vaccine is use to adults to help prevent cholera .cholera is serious disease that can be cause death.

METHODS:

1] The Trial:

The trial was conducted in 3 wards of Kolkata, India with a population of approximately 109 000 individuals residing in 3933 dwellings, locally known as premises. Details of the study design and procedures have been described in further detail elsewhere ^[16,17]. In brief, a dwelling was defined as a hut (or a group of huts), or a multi story building where several households share water pipes, bathrooms, and latrines as assigned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation; and a household was defined as a group of individuals residing together who share the same cooking pot. Residents aged ≥1 year who were not pregnant were invited to participate. Eligible residents were cluster-randomized, by dwelling, and preassigned to receive 2-dose regimens of either OCV or placebo. Enrollment and administration of the preassigned agents was performed after acquisition of written informed consent by dosing teams in vaccination centers serving the population. Individuals≥18 years of age and parents or guardians of all 1- to 17-year-old participants provided written informed consent. Written assent was additionally obtained from children aged 12–17 years.

2] Selection of Neighborhood Size and Neighborhood-Level Vaccine Coverage:

To define an optimal neighborhood for the vaccine coverage, we investigated different scales of neighborhood from a minimum of 0.03 km2 (100-m radius), 2% of the size of a geographic Unit, to a maximum of 0.28 km2 (300-m radius), 15%of the size of the unit. The underlying assumption for defining an optimal neighborhood was that it should not be too small To get an unstable outcome and should not be too big where local detail is obscured. Hartley’s variance ratio (F max) test^[18] was used with different sizes of neighborhood, which Yielded 250 m as the optimum scale. The neighborhood level vaccine coverage was then calculated for each household as the number of vaccinated individuals (2-dose recipients) divided by the number of persons who were age-eligible for the trial within a 250-m radius of the household.

3] Analytic Strategies for Estimating Different Types of Vaccine Protection:

In cluster-randomized design approach, total (direct plus indirect) vaccine protection was estimated by comparing the incidences of cholera among individuals who received 2 doses of the vaccine in vaccine clusters and the incidences among individuals who received 2 doses of placebo in the placebo clusters. Indirect protection was estimated by comparing the incidences among nonrecipients of the vaccine in vaccine clusters and the incidences among nonrecipients of placebo in the placebo clusters. Overall protection was estimated by comparing the incidences coverage. To evaluate vaccine indirect protection among vaccine nonrecipients, we assessed whether the incidence of cholera among 2-dose placebo recipients declined as neighborhood- level vaccine coverage increased. To evaluate overall vaccine indirect protection in the community, we assessed incidence of the target outcome among all individuals in the clusters with higher vaccine coverage to the incidence of cholera among all individuals in the neighborhoods with lower vaccine coverage. Because the GIS-based analysis did not preserve the original randomization of clusters in the trial, it was necessary to study a bias-indicator outcome in addition to cholera. For this analysis, we selected dysentery, a syndrome that was not prevented by the vaccine but that shares many risk factors with cholera, as the bias-indicator outcome among all individuals in the vaccine clusters and the incidences among all individuals in the placebo clusters ^[20].In the GIS approach, indirect protection among vaccine recipients was assessed by correlating incidence of cholera among the 2-dose recipients and neighborhood-level vaccine.

Statistical Analysis:

In the cluster-randomized design approach, we used Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate vaccine Deaths, out migrations, and internal movements were treated as censoring events. We fitted both unadjusted and covariate adjusted models^[22,23]. Adjustment for the design effect of cluster randomization was done using a robust error variance^[24]. Covariates were adjusted for factors used to stratify the randomization (cluster size and ward of residence), as well as individual-level variables that were found to be associated with risk for cholera in our previous analyses^[16,17].In the GIS approach, the subjects were divided into quintiles according to the level of vaccine coverage. We calculated the protective efficacy (PE) by quintiles using the formula (1 −relative risk) × 100 and assessed whether there was an inverse relationship between the level of vaccine coverage in the neighborhood around an individual (coded directly as a percentage) and the occurrence of disease in the individual by using the Cochran-Armitage trend test^[25]. For more rigorous analyses of the association between level of vaccine coverage and disease incidence, we also controlled for the same variables that were used to analyze effectiveness using the cluster design approach described above. All statistical tests were interpreted in a 2-tailed fashion.

CONCLUSION:

From the above method it can be concluded that that the risk of cholera among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals is significantly lower in a high –vaccine –coverage area compared to that in a low- coverage area; confirming both direct and indirect benefits of the vaccine.

RESULT:

We observe a significant inverse relationship between the level of vaccine coverage and individuals risk of cholera in the model considering placebo, indicating an indirect effect of the cholera vaccine against cholera.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

1] Volunteers:

The volunteers consisted of 24 healthy adults 20 to 30 years of age with normal medical histories and physical examinations. Informed, witnessed consent was obtained from all participants. The volunteers were from middle-class and lower-middle-class backgrounds and included university students and graduates of a vocational school. To ensure the informed nature of the consent process, the volunteers had to pass a written examination consisting of approximately 20 true-or-false questions on all aspects of the study ^{(8, 14).} The 24 volunteers were randomized to receive a preparation coded A, B, C, or D, two of which were vaccine and the other two placebo. The study was carried out in the 24-bed research isolation ward maintained by the Vaccine Trial Centre in the Faculty of Tropical Medicine. The sewage system that drains the isolation ward is self contained. Meals for the volunteers came from the central kitchen of the Tropical Diseases Hospital. Volunteers were not allowed to prepare food on the ward.

Vaccine and placebo:

Pathogenic V. cholera 01 classical Inaba strain 569B is a potent producer of cholera toxin but does not express the Shiga-like toxin of V. cholera 01 ^(16); the pathogenicity of 569B has been clearly established in volunteer studies ^{(2, 10, 12).} Vaccine candidate strain CVD 103 was derived from 569B by deletion of the genes encoding the A subunit of cholera toxin by recombinant DNA techniques ^{(6, 10).} The introduction of a gene encoding resistance to Hg2" ⁽⁷⁾ into the HlyA locus of the chromosome of CVD 103 led to further derivative CVD 103-HgR. The formulation of the vaccine consisted of two sachets, one containing 5 x 108 lyophilized vaccine organisms and 25 mg of aspartame and the other containing a buffer to neutralize gastric contents (2.5 g of NaHCO₃ and 1.65 g of ascorbic acid).The placebo also consisted of two sachets, one containing 5 x 108 heat-killed rough Escherichia coli K-12 organisms and the other containing the identical buffer as used with the vaccine. After reconstitution (vide infra), the placebo and vaccine suspensions appeared similar. The vaccine and placebo were manufactured in Bern and hand carried to Bangkok maintaining a strict 4°C cold chain during the entire trip. In Bangkok, the sachets were stored at 4°C for several days until the day of inoculation

Administration of vaccine and placebo:

For each volunteer, the coded sachet containing lyophilized vaccine or placebo was mixed with the contents of the sachet containing buffer in a cup with 100 ml of distilled water; the suspension was then stirred and ingested by the volunteer. Volunteers fasted for 6 h before and 90 min after the single oral vaccination. Clinical surveillance for adverse reactions. The study was, carried out in double-blind fashion without the volunteers, the nursing staff, or the clinical investigators knowing the identity of the contents of the packets. A four-letter code for the packet was employed as an extra precaution to maintain double blindness. The volunteers were admitted to the isolation ward 2 days prior to vaccination for screening and acclimatization. For 5 consecutive days after receiving vaccine or placebo, the volunteers were interviewed and examined to elicit complaints of untoward effects including diarrhea, abdominal cramps or borborygmi, malaise, nausea, vomiting, fever, and headache. The results were recorded on a clinical flow sheet. After the 5 days of clinical observation following oral inoculation with vaccine or placebo, the volunteers were given a 5-day course of tetracycline (500 mg every 6 h) to eradicate intestinal carriage of the vaccine strain. Coprocultures of all volunteers had to be negative for the vaccine strain for at least 3 consecutive days prior to discharge. Stool collection. All stool specimens from all volunteers during the study were collected in specialized sterilizable plastic bedpans that fit on the commode ^{(8, 14).} Each stool was graded on a five-point scale as previously described ^(8,14): grade 1, formed; grade 2, soft but formed; grade 3, thick liquid; grade 4, opaque watery; grade 5, clear rice water. Loose stools (i.e., grades 3 to 5) were weighed. Diarrhea was defined as passage of at least two loose stools within 48 h with a combined weight of 200 g or a single loose stool of 300 g or greater ^{(8, 14).} After extracting a small amount of stool for bacteriological studies, the remainder of the stool was treated with disinfectant and flushed into a self-contained system. Bacteriology. Specimens of all stools were cultured. If no stool specimen was available in a 24-h period, a rectal swab was obtained. Stools and swabs were inoculated directly onto thiosulfate-citrate-bile salts-sucrose agar (BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.) and inoculated into alkaline peptone water enrichment broth ^(17). After overnight incubation, the enrichment broths were subculture into thiosulfate-citrate-bile salts-sucrose agar. Suspicious colonies were tested for agglutination with Inaba and Ogawa typing sera. Serology. Serum samples were collected from all volunteers before, and at 10, 21, and 28 days after oral inoculation. Vibriocidal antibody was measured against both classical V. cholera 01 serotype Inaba (strain 89) and Ogawa (strain 79) by a micro dilution technique as previously described ^{(5, 11);}fourfold-or-greater rises were considered significant. Immunoglobulin G cholera antitoxin was measured by enzyme linked Immunosorbent assay in sera diluted 1:50 ^(13); based on statistically derived criteria previously described ^(13), arise in net optical density of 0.15 or greater was considered significant.

CONCLUSION:

From the above method it can be concluded that first immunization with a single oral dose of recombinant A-B vaccine which stimulated prominent vibriocidal antibody responses, but no antitoxin; conferred 89% protection in volunteers challenged with fully toxinogenicv.choleral E1 Tor Inaba strain.

RESULT:

A significant rise in vibriocidal antibody against the heterologous serotype, v.cholerae ogawa was detected in 9 of the 12 vaccines. There was not a correlation between the height of rises of vibriocidal and antitoxic antibodies.

REFERENCES:

1. Karlsson SL, Thomson N, Mutreja A, et al. Retrospective analysis of serotype switching of vibrio cholera O1 in a cholera endemic region shows it is a non-random process. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Oct 5;10:e0005044.

2. Bhattacharya SK, Sur D, Ali M, et al. 5 year efficacy of a bivalent killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccine in Kolkata, India: a cluster randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13:1050–1056.

3. Qadri F, Ali M, Chowdhury F, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of oral cholera vaccine in an urban endemic setting in Bangladesh: a clusterrandomised open-label trial. Lancet. 2015;8:10–6736.

4. Qadri F, Wierzba TF, Ali M, et al. Efficacy of a single-dose, inactivated oral cholera vaccine in Bangladesh. N Engl J Med. 2016 May;5 (374):1723–1732.

5. Mutreja A, Kim DW, Thomson NR, et al. Evidence for several waves of global transmission in the seventh cholera pandemic. Nature. 2011 Aug;24(477):462–465.

6. Mukhopadhyay AK, Takeda Y, Balakrish NG. Cholera outbreaks in the El Tor biotype era and the impact of the new El Tor variants. Curr Top MicrobiolImmunol. 2014;379:17–47. DOI:10.1007/ 82_2014_363.:17-47

7. Nair GB, Qadri F, Holmgren J, et al. Cholera due to altered El Tor strains of Vibrio cholerae O1 in Bangladesh. J ClinMicrobiol. 2006;44:4211–4213.

8. MartinelliFilho JE, Lopes RM, Rivera IN, et al. Are natural reservoirs important for cholera surveillance? The case of an outbreak in a Brazilian estuary. LettApplMicrobiol. 2016 Sep;63:183–188.

9. Weissman JB, DeWitt WE, Thompson J, et al. A case of cholera in Texas, 1973. Am J Epidemiol. 1974;100:487–498.

10. Blake PA, Allegra DT, Snyder JD, et al. Cholera–a possible endemic focus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:305–309.

11. Ali M, Nelson AR, Lopez AL, et al. Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoSNegl Trop Dis. 2015 Jun;4(9):e0003832.

12. Mahon BE, Mintz ED, Greene KD, et al. Reported cholera in the United States, 1992-1994: a reflection of global changes in cholera epidemiology. Jama. 1996 Jul 24;276:307–312. • Cases of travelers’ cholera increase as cholera reaches areas that the US travelers visit frequently.

13. Newton AE, Heiman KE, Schmitz A, et al. Cholera in United States associated with epidemic in Hispaniola. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:2166–2168.

14. Taylor DN, Rizzo J, Meza R, et al. Cholera among Americans living in Peru. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22:1108–1109.

15. Clemens J, Shin S, Ali M. New approaches to the assessment of vaccine herd protection in vaccine trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11:482–7.

16. Whitney C, Farley M, Hadler J, et al. Decline in invasive pneumococcal disease after the introduction of protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccine. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1737–46.

17. Preziosi M, Yam A, Wassilak S, et al. Epidemiology of pertussis in a West African community before and after introduction of a widespread vaccination program. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 155:891–6.

18. McVernon J, Ramsay M, McLean A. Understanding the impact of Hib conjugate vaccine on transmission, immunity and disease in the United Kingdom. Epidemiol Infect 2008; 136:800–12.

19. Schlenker T, Baine C, Baaughman A, Hadler S. Measles herd immunity. The association of attack rates with immunization rates in preschool children. 7. Fox J. Herd immunity and measles. J Infect Dis 1983; 5:463–6.

20. Miller LW, Older J, Drake J, Zimmerman S. Diphtheria immunization: effect upon carriers and the control of outbreaks. Am J Dis Child 1972; 123:197–9.

21. Trotter C, Edmunds W. Re-assessing the cost-effectiveness of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MDD) vaccines using a transmission dynamic model. Med Decis Making 2006; 26:39–47.

22. Longini I, Nizam A, Ali M, Yunus M, Shenvi N, Clemens JD. Controlling endemic cholera with oral vaccines. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e336.

23. Halloran ME, Struchiner CJ, Longini IM Jr. Study designs for evaluating different efficacy and effectiveness aspects of vaccines. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 146:789–803.

Received on 03.01.2018 Modified on 11.02.2018

Res. J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech.2018; 10(1): 29-33.

DOI: 10.5958/0975-4377.2018.00006.X