Background The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) is a WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform primary register, which caters for clinical trials conducted in Africa. PACTR is the first and, at present, the only member of the Network of WHO Primary Registers in Africa. The aim is to describe and report on the trends of trial records registered in PACTR. Methods PACTR was established in 2007 as the AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Clinical Trials Registry. The scope of the registry was then expanded in 2009 to include all diseases. This is a cross-sectional study of trials registered in PACTR from inception to 18 August 2021. A descriptive analysis of the use and trends of the following data fields: study intervention, disease condition, sex of the participants, sample size, ethics, funding and availability of results was conducted using Microsoft Excel. Results The number of trials registered has increased year on year, reaching 606 trials registered in 2020. The total number of trials registered at the time of the analysis was 2998. More than half of the trials in the registry (1655 of 2998, ie, 55%) were prospectively registered. Ethical approval was received by 90% (2691 of 2998) of the registered trials. Factorial assignment as an intervention model was in 20% (589 of 2998) of the trials registered. There were 36% (1083 of 2998) completed trials, of which 3% (94 of 1083) had results available in the registry. The most dominant funding source indicated was self-funding in 23% (693 of 2998) of the registered trials, and 55% (1639 of 2998) had no funding. Conclusion Registration on PACTR continues to grow; however, our analysis shows that researchers’ capacity-building is needed to understand the importance of the registry and how this information informs healthcare decisions. Promoting prospective trial registration remains critical to avoid selective reporting bias to inform research gaps.

Clinical research is important in establishing the effects of health care interventions. Vaccine clinical trials are to examine the effectiveness and safety of vaccines for the prevention of diseases. Africa has a high burden of infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and Ebola virus disease. Here we report a database surveillance study of vaccine-related clinical trials conducted in Africa. An objective is to address and profile vaccine clinical trials conducted in Africa. Data were extracted from the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 22 July 2018 and updated on 05 September 2019. We found that 61% of the 377 clinical trials were registered prospectively and 35% registered retrospectively. About 72% of trials were single-country studies and within the country, most trials (86%) were single center studies. The proportion of trials involving multiple African countries was 11% and that of trials involving countries outside of Africa was 16%. The biggest funder of the vaccine trials (34%) was industry, followed by governments (25%) and universities (21%). The most studied diseases were malaria (20%), HIV/AIDS (15%), tuberculosis (7%), and Ebola virus disease (6%). Most of the vaccine trials were conducted in adults (42%). The trials ranged from phase I to phase IV, with most of the trials being in phase I (18%) and phase III (18%). The conduct of vaccine clinical trials in Africa seeks to address the disease epidemics faced by the continent. There is a need for more investments from governmental bodies towards vaccine research in Africa. Further, African country collaborations are needed in efforts to find African solutions to the current infectious disease threats faced by the continent.

The use of mobile and wireless digital technologies – mobile health (mhealth)- is increasingly been adopted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to improve data visibility, improve decision-making, and consequently help ensure availability of health commodities in health facilities. In a bid to improve availability of medicines in primary health care facilities, the South African department of Health launched the Stock Visibility Solution (SVS), a mobile application developed for the purpose of capturing and monitoring stock levels of medicines including vaccines using mobile phones. The stock levels of medicines in facilities are usually uploaded to the central stock management system so that managers can act promptly to address stock-out situations. Pilot studies show that the SVS has the potential to reduce stock-outs from occurring. This study aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of the SVS system amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) who are involved with managing stock levels of medicines in primary health care facilities in the Eastern Cape Province. This will help identify potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the system and contribute to the development of strategies to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. A qualitative research design was employed, including semi-structured interviews with 64 HCWs working in primary health care facilities in the OR Tambo district, Eastern Cape Province in South Africa. Data was transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Most HCWs understood the SVS as a system for reporting stock levels to managers and conveyed commitment to ensuring the system works. However, they highlighted a number of factors that demotivated efficient usage of the system: inadequate training, staff shortages and high staff turnover, lack of responses from the managers, the extra workload that comes with the system, amongst others. HCWs made various suggestions for how the system might be improved, most pertinently the need for more pharmacists and pharmacy assistants and for these cadres to be primarily in-charge of stock management and the use of the SVS. While HCWs are committed to addressing vaccine stock-outs, they face various barriers to an effective and efficient implementation of the SVS system. We make various recommendations for how these barriers might be addressed.

Introduction Ebola virus disease is one of the most devastating infectious diseases in the world with up to 90% case fatality observed. There are at least 13 candidate vaccines developed and being tested to prevent the occurrence of the Ebola virus disease. While none of these candidate vaccines has received regulatory approval for use, one candidate vaccine (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) has been granted access for emergency use. Two other candidate vaccines (GamEvac-Combi and Ad5-EBOV) have been licensed for emergency use in their countries of origin. The objective of this systematic review is to summarise the effects of the Ebola candidate vaccines in humans. Methods and analysis We will search for potentially eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and reference lists of relevant publications. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE) will be searched for related reviews. Two review authors will independently screen search records, assess study eligibility, perform data extraction, and assess the risk of bias; and reconcile their findings. We will pool data from similar studies using Mantel-Haenszel’s fixed-effect model. Ethics and dissemination This study is exempted from ethical consideration since the data collected are publicly available and at no point will confidential information from human participants be used. We will disseminate our results through publications in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018110505.

Cholera has been one of the world's biggest public health challenges for centuries. The presence of this disease brings into focus the social determinants of health in different parts of the world. Research and development efforts to find safe and effective Cholera vaccines are critical to decreasing the disease burden from Vibrio cholerae. We searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 5 March 2023. We included all registered randomized trials studying Cholera vaccines. We used Microsoft Excel to perform a descriptive analysis of the source registry, geographic distribution, recruitment status, phase of trials, and type of trial sponsor and presented the findings using tables and graphs. The search of ICTRP yielded 84 trials, and 315 trials were identified from CENTRAL. Seventy-four trials were included in the analysis. Most of the trials (66%, n = 49) were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, followed by Clinical Trials Registry - India (9%, n = 7) and the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (8%, n = 6). The geographical distribution of the trials indicates that 48% (n = 36) of the trials were conducted in Asia, followed by 23% (n = 17) in North America, 15% (n = 11) in Africa, and 11% (n = 8) in Europe. Results further indicate that 81% (n = 60) of trials have a recruitment status "Not recruiting," followed by 12% (n = 9) with a status "recruiting." With the recent surge in Cholera cases and the limited supply of Cholera vaccines, research indicates the need for Cholera vaccine trials to ensure the availability of vaccines, especially in populations affected.

Background: Immunization is a highly effective intervention for controlling over 20 life-threatening infectious diseases, significantly reducing both morbidity and mortality rates. One notable achievement in vaccination efforts was the global eradication of smallpox, which the World Health Assembly declared on 8 May 1980. Additionally, there has been a remarkable 99.9% reduction in wild poliovirus cases since 1988, decreasing from more than 350,000 cases that year to just 30 cases in 2022. Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of various interventions designed to increase vaccination uptake among adults. Search Methods: A thorough search was conducted in the CENTRAL, Embase Ovid, Medline Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus databases for primary studies. This search was conducted in August 2021 and updated in November 2024. Selection Criteria: Randomized trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, regardless of publication status or language. Data Analysis: Two authors independently screened the search outputs to select potentially eligible studies. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each randomized controlled trial (RCT). A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Main Results: A total of 35 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, with the majority conducted in the United States. The interventions targeted adults aged 18 and older who were eligible for vaccination, involving a total of 403,709 participants. The overall pooled results for interventions aimed at increasing influenza vaccination showed a risk ratio of 1.41 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.73). Most studies focused on influenza vaccination (18 studies), while the remaining studies examined various other vaccines, including those for hepatitis A, COVID-19, hepatitis B, pneumococcal disease, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap), herpes zoster, and human papillomavirus (HPV). The results indicate that letter reminders were slightly effective in increasing influenza vaccination uptake compared to the control group (RR: 1.75, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.16; 6 studies; 161,495 participants; low-certainty evidence). Additionally, participants who received education interventions showed increased levels of influenza vaccination uptake compared to those in the control group (RR: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.61, 5.76; 3 studies; 1318 participants; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, tracking and outreach interventions also led to an increase in influenza vaccination uptake (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.78, 4.46; 2 studies; 33,752 participants; low-certainty evidence). Conclusions: Letter reminders and educational interventions targeted at recipients are effective in increasing vaccination uptake compared to control groups.