Amanda K. Debes
Johns Hopkins University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Amanda K. Debes.
BMC Public Health | 2013
Amanda K. Debes; Anjalee Kohli; Neff Walker; Karen Edmond; Luke C. Mullany
BackgroundEarly breastfeeding is defined as the initiation of breastfeeding within twenty four hours of birth. While the benefits of breastfeeding have been known for decades, only recently has the role of time to initiation of breastfeeding in neonatal mortality and morbidity been assessed.ObjectiveTo review the evidence for early breastfeeding initiation practices and to estimate the association between timing and neonatal outcomes.MethodsWe systematically reviewed multiple databases from 1963 to 2011. Standardized abstraction tables were used and quality was assessed for each study utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Three meta-analyses were conducted for mortality among babies surviving to 48 hours.ResultsWe identified 18 studies reporting a direct association between early breastfeeding initiation and neonatal mortality and morbidity outcomes. The results of random effects analyses of data from 3 studies (from 5 publications) demonstrated lower risks of all-cause neonatal mortality among all live births (RR = 0.56 [95% CI: 0.40 – 0.79]) and among low birth weight babies (RR=0.58 [95% CI: 0.43 – 0.78]), and infection-related neonatal mortality (RR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.36 – 0.84]). Among exclusively breastfed infants, all-cause mortality risk did not differ between early and late initiators (RR = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.27 – 1.75]).ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that early breastfeeding initiation is a simple intervention that has the potential to significantly improve neonatal outcomes and should be universally recommended. Significant gaps in knowledge are highlighted, revealing a need to prioritize additional high quality studies that further clarify the specific cause of death, as well as providing improved understanding of the independent or combined effects of early initiation and breastfeeding patterns.
The Lancet Global Health | 2016
Andrew S. Azman; Lucy Anne Parker; John Rumunu; Fisseha Tadesse; Francesco Grandesso; Lul L. Deng; Richard Laku Lino; Bior K. Bior; Michael Lasuba; Anne Laure Page; Lameck Ontweka; Augusto E. Llosa; Sandra Cohuet; Lorenzo Pezzoli; Dossou Vincent Sodjinou; Abdinasir Abubakar; Amanda K. Debes; Allan M. Mpairwe; Joseph F. Wamala; Christine Jamet; Justin Lessler; David A. Sack; Marie Laure Quilici; Iza Ciglenecki; Francisco J. Luquero
BACKGROUND Oral cholera vaccines represent a new effective tool to fight cholera and are licensed as two-dose regimens with 2-4 weeks between doses. Evidence from previous studies suggests that a single dose of oral cholera vaccine might provide substantial direct protection against cholera. During a cholera outbreak in May, 2015, in Juba, South Sudan, the Ministry of Health, Médecins Sans Frontières, and partners engaged in the first field deployment of a single dose of oral cholera vaccine to enhance the outbreak response. We did a vaccine effectiveness study in conjunction with this large public health intervention. METHODS We did a case-cohort study, combining information on the vaccination status and disease outcomes from a random cohort recruited from throughout the city of Juba with that from all the cases detected. Eligible cases were those aged 1 year or older on the first day of the vaccination campaign who sought care for diarrhoea at all three cholera treatment centres and seven rehydration posts throughout Juba. Confirmed cases were suspected cases who tested positive to PCR for Vibrio cholerae O1. We estimated the short-term protection (direct and indirect) conferred by one dose of cholera vaccine (Shanchol, Shantha Biotechnics, Hyderabad, India). FINDINGS Between Aug 9, 2015, and Sept 29, 2015, we enrolled 87 individuals with suspected cholera, and an 898-person cohort from throughout Juba. Of the 87 individuals with suspected cholera, 34 were classified as cholera positive, 52 as cholera negative, and one had indeterminate results. Of the 858 cohort members who completed a follow-up visit, none developed clinical cholera during follow-up. The unadjusted single-dose vaccine effectiveness was 80·2% (95% CI 61·5-100·0) and after adjusting for potential confounders was 87·3% (70·2-100·0). INTERPRETATION One dose of Shanchol was effective in preventing medically attended cholera in this study. These results support the use of a single-dose strategy in outbreaks in similar epidemiological settings. FUNDING Médecins Sans Frontières.
PLOS Medicine | 2016
Mohammad Ali; Amanda K. Debes; Francisco J. Luquero; Deok Ryun Kim; Je Yeon Park; Laura Digilio; Byomkesh Manna; Suman Kanungo; Shanta Dutta; Dipika Sur; Sujit K. Bhattacharya; David A. Sack
Introduction Vaccinating a buffer of individuals around a case (ring vaccination) has the potential to target those who are at highest risk of infection, reducing the number of doses needed to control a disease. We explored the potential vaccine effectiveness (VE) of oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) for such a strategy. Methods and Findings This analysis uses existing data from a cluster-randomized clinical trial in which OCV or placebo was given to 71,900 participants in Kolkata, India, from 27 July to 10 September 2006. Cholera surveillance was then conducted on 144,106 individuals living in the study area, including trial participants, for 5 y following vaccination. First, we explored the risk of cholera among contacts of cholera patients, and, second, we measured VE among individuals living within 25 m of cholera cases between 8 and 28 d after onset of the index case. For the first analysis, individuals living around each index case identified during the 5-y period were assembled using a ring to define cohorts of individuals exposed to cholera index cases. An index control without cholera was randomly selected for each index case from the same population, matched by age group, and individuals living around each index control were assembled using a ring to define cohorts not exposed to cholera cases. Cholera attack rates among the exposed and non-exposed cohorts were compared using different distances from the index case/control to define the rings and different time frames to define the period at risk. For the VE analysis, the exposed cohorts were further stratified according to the level of vaccine coverage into high and low coverage strata. Overall VE was assessed by comparing the attack rates between high and low vaccine coverage strata irrespective of individuals’ vaccination status, and indirect VE was assessed by comparing the attack rates among unvaccinated members between high and low vaccine coverage strata. Cholera risk among the cohort exposed to cholera cases was 5–11 times higher than that among the cohort not exposed to cholera cases. The risk gradually diminished with an increase in distance and time. The overall and indirect VE measured between 8 and 28 d after exposure to a cholera index case during the first 2 y was 91% (95% CI 62%–98%) and 93% (95% CI 44%–99%), respectively. VE persisted for 5 y after vaccination and was similar whether the index case was a young child (<5 y) or was older. Of note, this study was a reanalysis of a cholera vaccine trial that used two doses; thus, a limitation of the study relates to the assumption that a single dose, if administered quickly, will induce a similar level of total and indirect protection over the short term as did two doses. Conclusions These findings suggest that high-level protection can be achieved if individuals living close to cholera cases are living in a high coverage ring. Since this was an observational study including participants who had received two doses of vaccine (or placebo) in the clinical trial, further studies are needed to determine whether a ring vaccination strategy, in which vaccine is given quickly to those living close to a case, is feasible and effective. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00289224
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene | 2016
Amanda K. Debes; Jerome Ateudjieu; Etienne Guenou; Walter Ebile; Isaac Tadzong Sonkoua; Anthony Chebe Njimbia; Peter Steinwald; Malathi Ram; David A. Sack
Biological confirmation of the presence of Vibrio cholerae in clinical and environmental samples is often constrained due to resource- and labor-intensive gold standard methods. To develop low-cost, simple, and sustainable surveillance techniques, we modified previously published specimen sampling and culture techniques and applied the use of enriched dipstick testing in conjunction with the use of filter paper for DNA specimen preservation during clinical and environmental surveillance in the Far North of Cameroon from August 2013 to October 2014. The enriched dipstick methodology during routine use in a remote setting demonstrated a specificity of 99.8% compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The novel application of filter paper as a preservation method for cholera DNA specimens reduced the need for cold chain storage and allowed for PCR characterization and confirmation of V. cholerae. The application of basic technologies such as the enriched dipstick, the use of simplified gauze filtration for environmental sample collection, and the use of filter paper for sample preservation enabled early case identification with reduced logistics and supply cost while reporting minimal false-positive results. Simplified laboratory and epidemiological methodologies can improve the feasibility of cholera surveillance in rural and resource-constrained areas, facilitating early case detection and rapid response implementation.
PLOS ONE | 2016
Lameck Ontweka; Lul O. Deng; Jean Rauzier; Amanda K. Debes; Fisseha Tadesse; Lucy Anne Parker; Joseph F. Wamala; Bior K. Bior; Michael Lasuba; Abiem Bona But; Francesco Grandesso; Christine Jamet; Sandra Cohuet; Iza Ciglenecki; Micaela Serafini; David A. Sack; Marie Laure Quilici; Andrew S. Azman; Francisco J. Luquero; Anne Laure Page
Cholera rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) could play a central role in outbreak detection and surveillance in low-resource settings, but their modest performance has hindered their broad adoption. The addition of an enrichment step may improve test specificity. We describe the results of a prospective diagnostic evaluation of the Crystal VC RDT (Span Diagnostics, India) with enrichment step and of culture, each compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), during a cholera outbreak in South Sudan. RDTs were performed on alkaline peptone water inoculated with stool and incubated for 4–6 hours at ambient temperature. Cholera culture was performed from wet filter paper inoculated with stool. Molecular detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 by PCR was done from dry Whatman 903 filter papers inoculated with stool, and from wet filter paper supernatant. In August and September 2015, 101 consecutive suspected cholera cases were enrolled, of which 36 were confirmed by PCR. The enriched RDT had 86.1% (95% CI: 70.5–95.3) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI: 94.4–100) specificity compared to PCR as the reference standard. The sensitivity of culture versus PCR was 83.3% (95% CI: 67.2–93.6) for culture performed on site and 72.2% (95% CI: 54.8–85.8) at the international reference laboratory, where samples were tested after an average delay of two months after sample collection, and specificity was 98.5% (95% CI: 91.7–100) and 100% (95% CI: 94.5–100), respectively. The RDT with enrichment showed performance comparable to that of culture and could be a sustainable alternative to culture confirmation where laboratory capacity is limited.
PLOS ONE | 2016
Thomas R. Laws; Tinatin Kuchuloria; Nazibriola Chitadze; Stephen F. Little; Wendy M. Webster; Amanda K. Debes; Salome Saginadze; Nikoloz Tsertsvadze; Mariam Chubinidze; Robert G. Rivard; Shota Tsanava; Edward Hugh Dyson; Andrew J. H. Simpson; Matthew J. Hepburn; Nino Trapaidze
Several different human vaccines are available to protect against anthrax. We compared the human adaptive immune responses generated by three different anthrax vaccines or by previous exposure to cutaneous anthrax. Adaptive immunity was measured by ELISPOT to count cells that produce interferon (IFN)-γ in response to restimulation ex vivo with the anthrax toxin components PA, LF and EF and by measuring circulating IgG specific to these antigens. Neutralising activity of antisera against anthrax toxin was also assayed. We found that the different exposures to anthrax antigens promoted varying immune responses. Cutaneous anthrax promoted strong IFN-γ responses to all three antigens and antibody responses to PA and LF. The American AVA and Russian LAAV vaccines induced antibody responses to PA only. The British AVP vaccine produced IFN-γ responses to EF and antibody responses to all three antigens. Anti-PA (in AVA and LAAV vaccinees) or anti-LF (in AVP vaccinees) antibody titres correlated with toxin neutralisation activities. Our study is the first to compare all three vaccines in humans and show the diversity of responses against anthrax antigens.
International Journal of Epidemiology | 2016
Amanda K. Debes; Mohammad Ali; Andrew S. Azman; Mohammad Yunus; David A. Sack
Background : Cholera remains a serious public health threat in Asia, Africa and in parts of the Americas. Three World health Organization (WHO) pre-qualified oral cholera vaccines are now available but their supply is limited, so current supplies must be administered strategically. This requires an improved understanding of disease transmission and control strategies. Methods : We used demographics and disease surveillance data collected from 1991 to 2000 in Matlab, Bangladesh, to estimate the spatial and temporal extent of the zone of increased risk around cholera cases. Specifically, we compare the cholera incidence among individuals living close to cholera cases with that among individuals living close to those without medically-attended cholera in this rural endemic setting. Results : Those living within 50 m of a confirmed cholera case had 36 times (95% confidence interval: 23-56) the risk of becoming a cholera case in the first 3 days (after case presentation) compared with risk elsewhere in the community. The relative risk gradually declined in space and time, but remained significantly high up to 450 me away within 3 days of case presentation, and up to 150 m away within 23 days from the date of presentation of the case. Conclusion : These findings suggest that, if conducted rapidly, vaccinating individuals living close to a case (ring vaccination) could be an efficient and effective strategy to target vaccine to a high-risk population in an endemic setting.
Lancet Infectious Diseases | 2017
Mohammad Ali; Allyson R. Nelson; Francisco J. Luquero; Andrew S. Azman; Amanda K. Debes; Maurice M'bang'ombe; Linly Seyama; Evans Kachale; Kingsley Zuze; Desire Malichi; Fatima Zulu; Kelias Phiri Msyamboza; Storn Kabuluzi; David A. Sack
Summary Background Pregnancy increases the risk of harmful effects from cholera for both mothers and their fetuses. A killed oral cholera vaccine, Shanchol (Shantha Biotechnics, Hydrabad, India), can protect against the disease for up to 5 years. However, cholera vaccination campaigns have often excluded pregnant women because of insufficient safety data for use during pregnancy. We did an observational cohort study to assess the safety of Shanchol during pregnancy. Methods This observational cohort study was done in two adjacent districts (Nsanje and Chikwawa) in Malawi. Individuals older than 1 year in Nsanje were offered oral cholera vaccine during a mass vaccination campaign between March 30 and April 30, 2015, but no vaccines were administered in Chikwawa. We enrolled women who were exposed to oral cholera vaccine during pregnancy in Nsanje district, and women who were pregnant in Chikwawa district (and thus not exposed to oral cholera vaccine) during the same period. The primary endpoint of our analysis was pregnancy loss (spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth), and the secondary endpoints were neonatal deaths and malformations. We evaluated these endpoints using log-binomial regression, adjusting for the imbalanced baseline characteristics between the groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02499172. Findings We recruited 900 women exposed to oral cholera vaccine and 899 women not exposed to the vaccine between June 16 and Oct 10, 2015, and analysed 835 in each group. 361 women exposed to the vaccine and 327 not exposed to the vaccine were recruited after their pregnancies had ended. The incidence of pregnancy loss was 27·54 (95% CI 18·41–41·23) per 1000 pregnancies among those exposed to the vaccine and 21·56 (13·65–34·04) per 1000 among those not exposed. The adjusted relative risk for pregnancy loss among those exposed to oral cholera vaccine was 1·24 (95% CI 0·64–2·43; p=0·52) compared with those not exposed to the vaccine. The neonatal mortality rate was 11·78 (95% CI 5·92–23·46) per 1000 livebirths for infants whose mothers were exposed to oral cholera vaccine versus 8·91 (4·02–19·77) per 1000 livebirths for infants whose mothers were not exposed to the vaccine (crude relative risk 1·32, 95% CI 0·46–3·84; p=0·60). Only three newborn babies had malformations, two in the vaccine exposure group and one in the no-exposure group, yielding a relative risk of 2·00 (95% CI 0·18–22·04; p=0·57), although this estimate is unreliable because of the small number of outcomes. Interpretation Our study provides evidence that fetal exposure to oral cholera vaccine confers no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss, neonatal mortality, or malformation. These data, along with findings from two retrospective studies, support use of oral cholera vaccine in pregnant women in cholera-affected regions. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases | 2016
Amanda K. Debes; Jerome Ateudjieu; Etienne Guenou; Anna Lena Lopez; Mark Philip Bugayong; Pearl Joy Retiban; Marcelino Garrine; Inacio Mandomando; Shan Li; O. Colin Stine; David A. Sack
Background Vibrio cholerae is endemic in South Asia and Africa where outbreaks of cholera occur widely and are particularly associated with poverty and poor sanitation. Knowledge of the genetic diversity of toxigenic V. cholerae isolates, particularly in Africa, remains scarce. The constraints in improving this understanding is not only the lack of regular cholera disease surveillance, but also the lack of laboratory capabilities in endemic countries to preserve, store and ship isolates in a timely manner. We evaluated the use of simplified sample preservation methods for molecular characterization using multi-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) for differentiation of Vibrio cholerae genotypes. Methods and Findings Forty-seven V. cholerae isolates and 18 enriched clinical specimens (e.g. stool specimens after enrichment in broth) from cholera outbreaks in Cameroon were preserved on Whatman filter paper for DNA extraction. The samples were collected from two geographically distinct outbreaks in the Far North of Cameroon (FNC) in June 2014 and October 2014. In addition, a convenience sample of 14 isolates from the Philippines and 8 from Mozambique were analyzed. All 87 DNAs were successfully analyzed including 16 paired samples, one a cultured isolate and the other the enriched specimen from which the isolate was collected. Genotypic results were identical between 15 enriched specimens and their culture isolates and the other pair differed at single locus. Two closely related, but distinct clonal complexes were identified among the Cameroonian specimens from 2014. Conclusions Collecting V. cholerae using simplified laboratory methods in remote and low-resource settings allows for subsequent advanced molecular characterization of V. cholerae O1. These simplified DNA preservation methods identify V. cholerae and make possible timely information regarding the genetic diversity of V. cholerae; our results set the stage for continued molecular epidemiological research to better understand the transmission and dissemination of V. cholerae in Africa and elsewhere worldwide.
Lancet Infectious Diseases | 2016
Jacqueline L. Deen; Lorenz von Seidlein; Francisco J. Luquero; Christopher Troeger; Rita Reyburn; Anna Lena Lopez; Amanda K. Debes; David A. Sack
Oral cholera vaccination could be deployed in a diverse range of situations from cholera-endemic areas and locations of humanitarian crises, but no clear consensus exists. The supply of licensed, WHO-prequalified cholera vaccines is not sufficient to meet endemic and epidemic needs worldwide and so prioritisation is needed. We have developed a scenario approach to systematically classify situations in which oral cholera vaccination might be useful. Our scenario approach distinguishes between five types of cholera epidemiology based on experiences from around the world and provides evidence that we hope will spur the development of detailed guidelines on how and where oral cholera vaccines could, and should, be most rationally deployed.