MEETING REPORT

Global Ebola Vaccine

Implementation Team (GEVIT)
Regional Workshop
27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

Rev. 1

© World Health Organization 2016. All rights reserved.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World
Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published
material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the
material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.

WHO/EVD/Meet/HIS/16.1
Contents
Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations & acronyms .......................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
Session I: External factors that affect GEVIT’s work ................................................................... 6
Session II: Country situation and challenges for preparedness................................................. 10
Session III: Presentation of the GEVIT working groups’ work ................................................... 12
Session V: Review of GEVIT documents and materials............................................................ 15
Session VI: Agreement and next phase .................................................................................... 16

Annexes
Annex 1: Programme................................................................................................................ 17
Annex 2: List of Participants ..................................................................................................... 20

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 2

Abbreviations & acronyms
AEFI adverse event following immunization
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
CIG country implementation guide
DPLM Direction de la Prévention de la Lutte contre la Maladie
EPI Expanded Programme on Immunization
EUAL emergency use assessment and listing process
EV Ebola virus
EVD Ebola virus disease
FDA US Food and Drug Administration
GEVIT Global Ebola Vaccine Implementation Team
GMP Good Manufacturing Practices (WHO)
HCW health-care worker
ICC immunization inter-agency coordination committee
ICG International Coordinating Group
IDRS infectious disease reporting system
IDSR integrated disease surveillance and response
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IPV inactivated polio vaccine
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MoH Ministry of Health
MSF Médecins sans Frontières
MVA modified vaccinia-virus Ankara
NGO non-governmental organization
NRA National Regulatory Authority
PHEIC public-health emergency of international concern
ppt PowerPoint (presentation)
R&D research and development
RED reaching every district
SAGE Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization
tOPV-
bOPV trivalent-bivalent oral polio vaccine
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WG working group
WHO World Health Organization

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 3

Executive Summary
Between 27 and 29 October 2015, a Global Ebola Vaccine Implementation Team (GEVIT) regional
workshop was convened at the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva with the goal of
agreeing on the final steps required to complete, by December 2015, the development of a plan for future
Ebola vaccine use and to define a way forward for 2016 and beyond. The focus of this workshop was on
fostering technical discussions, and not issuing WHO recommendations. The meeting was an essential
milestone to obtain insights on the guidance documents developed to support the planning for the potential
deployment of Ebola vaccines, and to advance and integrate plans with the entire GEVIT team, including
countries and essential partners.
By means of plenary presentations, group discussions and a series of simulation exercises, the workshop
focused on the following three objectives: 1) to discuss draft documents and tools, among GEVIT members
and with country representatives, to ensure they are relevant, and to address feasible strategies to foreseen
challenges to Ebola vaccine use; 2) to ensure GEVIT is addressing all important steps for vaccine use in the
case of a future outbreak in the presence of a licensed product; 3) to discuss options for a way forward.
The main topics covered during the three-day workshop included:
• external factors that affected GEVIT’s work, such as clinical trials, progress and results;
• country situations and challenges for preparedness, including presentations from Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone;
• presentation and review of the GEVIT working groups’ work, including simulation exercises to
assess to what extent the different GEVIT materials would be useful and adequate, and the
changes required;
• agreements and way forward to finalize the GEVIT documents and accompanying materials.
During the course of the workshop, the following broad work priorities for GEVIT were proposed for 2016,
and beyond:
• Global, regional and country integration of the Ebola vaccination component with the overall Ebola
preparedness and response, as well as with the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI),
considering that preparatory activities could be organized before vaccine licensure.
• Consolidation of the International Coordinating Group (ICG) processes and related contingency funds.
• Coordination of regular reassessments, and updates of the GEVIT “Practical Guidance on the Use of
Ebola Vaccine in an Outbreak Response” and tools, as new information becomes available.
Technical assistance in the post-licensure period will require GEVIT to reconvene and strategize on how to
best provide cooperation to countries in light of the new information available.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 4

Introduction
Welcome address
Dr Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, Director Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals WHO headquarters, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Dr Okwo-Bele opened the meeting and highlighted the milestones achieved in the drive towards the end of
the exceptionally large 2014 to 2015 Ebola outbreak, including a full week without any new Ebola-confirmed
cases and the very encouraging interim results of a Phase 3 trial of an Ebola vaccine which demonstrated
the power of a partnership including national authorities, research institutions, donor agencies and vaccine
manufacturers. He also touched on the global expectation and the critical need to be ready if and when
another outbreak of Ebola strikes, commencing with the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on
Immunization (SAGE) provisional recommendations for use of Ebola vaccines and continuing with the work
undertaken by GEVIT to successfully deploy and use a licensed vaccine in, eventual, affected countries. He
finished by thanking partners and ministries of health of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, as well as those
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of Uganda, for taking time away from the many important
issues they are dealing with, and wished them a very productive workshop.

Context and objectives of the workshop

Dr Marie-Pierre Preziosi, Medical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research, Immunization, Vaccines and
Biologicals, WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
The regional workshop was an essential milestone to gain insights on the guidance documents developed to
support the planning for potential deployment of Ebola vaccines, to advance and to integrate plans together
with countries, the entire GEVIT team and essential partners. The overall goal of the workshop was to agree
on the final steps required to complete the development of a plan for future Ebola vaccine use, by December
2015, and to define a way forward for 2016 and beyond. By means of plenary presentations, group
discussions and a series of simulation exercises, the workshop focused on the following three objectives:
• To discuss draft documents and tools among GEVIT members and with country representatives, to
ensure they are relevant and address feasible strategies to foreseen challenges to Ebola vaccine
use.
• To ensure GEVIT is addressing all important steps for vaccine use through a simulation exercise of a
future outbreak in the presence of a licensed product.
• To discuss options for a way forward.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 5

Session I: External factors that affect GEVIT’s work
Progress and outcomes of Ebola vaccines clinical trials
Dr Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo, Medical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research, Immunization, Vaccines and
Biologicals, WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
No vaccine-related serious adverse events were observed to date in the Guinea trial of the rVSV ZEBOV
vaccine. All vaccinated participants who went on to develop the disease, experienced an onset of symptoms
within six days after vaccination, indicating that these cases were already infected before receiving the
vaccine. The Ring vaccination trial has been extended to Sierra Leone, with children from six years of age
and adolescents eligible to participate in the trial. This extension of age was also applied to the Guinea trial.
The vaccine is currently stored at -80°C at all times. These low temperatures were kept to ensure that
changes in temperature would not affect the results of the clinical trial.
The scientific rigour of the study was combined with the community communication and engagement. A
continuous and dynamic exchange with the community promoted community engagement and acceptance of
the vaccine.
Sierra Leone representatives noted that vaccine rejection in the communities frequently occurred and
confirmed that more and continuous community engagement and advocacy is required to increase vaccine
acceptance. They also communicated that, even though pregnant women were not eligible to participate in
the clinical trial, a few did receive the vaccine inadvertently and would need to be followed up.

Vaccination continues to be implemented in the context of the clinical trials, with contacts and contacts of
contacts being targeted for vaccination. Survivors and their contacts are not being vaccinated however. At
present, the objective is to make the vaccine available to the closest intimate partners of the survivors, but
further rigorous evaluation of this strategy is required within a clinical study context. The virus lingers in some
survivors and follow-up of survivors is taking place. There is limited information on how survivors become
sick once again, and recent investigation could not identify an obvious chain of transmission. Research is
ongoing in this regard.
At present, it is not known how long vaccine protection will last, and this is an important factor to consider
when planning vaccine introduction. Ebola, unlike afflictions such as measles, does not affect swathes of
people in a community, but rather it affects individuals and their close contacts. The disease can be
controlled and stopped, however, through effective public-health measures.

Emergency-use recommendation
Mr Olivier Lapujade, Scientist, Prequalification Team, Essential Medicines and Health Products, WHO
headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
The emergency-use assessment and listing process (EUAL) is not a WHO prequalification process. It is a
time-limited special circumstance procedure, where vaccines are assessed as fit for use in an emergency
situation, despite the fact that not all the data usually required is available. The criteria for the use of an
EUAL include a public-health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) declared by the WHO Director
General. The 2014 Ebola crisis highlighted the need for such an emergency process, and similar procedures
are now also available for medicines and vitro diagnostics.
EUAL is not a regulatory authorization, but rather a recommendation for countries to provide guidance in
their decision-making process as to whether to use the vaccine or not. The criteria required for an EUAL
include: a declared PHEIC; the lack of routine marketing authorization of a vaccine for the disease in
question; a vaccine manufactured in accordance with the WHO Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and
manufactured in a country whose National Regulatory Authority (NRA) is assessed as functional according
to the WHO vaccine regulatory standards, and an attestation from the producer of the intention to complete
the vaccine development and apply for WHO prequalification. All the documents required for a clinical trial
authorization are also needed for requesting an EUAL. These include technical documents relating to
vaccine safety and performance, including documentation of the consistency of vaccine batches.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 6

WHO may consider reviewing a candidate vaccine for EUAL that does not meet all these requirements.
EUAL applications are submitted to, and reviewed by, the WHO prequalification team. As new data on
vaccine quality, safety and efficacy emerge, they are submitted to WHO for re-evaluation. One condition for
reviewing data for a specific vaccine is the willingness of the manufacturer. Rolling submission is accepted
and the quality of the vaccine is a very important part of the assessment. The listing will generally remain
valid for a period of 12 months, whereas once a vaccine has been prequalified by WHO, the information will
be reviewed every 18 months.
rVSV ZEBOV vaccine storage at a temperature of -80°C is not compliant with the criteria for programmatic
suitability of vaccine candidates for WHO prequalification – the current storage conditions were maintained
strictly for the clinical trials. At present, insufficient data is available on vaccine stability for storage at -20°C
or higher; however, further stability evaluation is being undertaken by the manufacturers.
WHO recommends that the final decision with regard to the use of the vaccine be made within the country.
Countries are required to carefully analyse the proposed interventions and to be responsible for the use and
safety of the vaccine. For example, within four months, Sierra Leone received 18 expressions of interest for
potential clinical trials, which represented a challenge to expertly review them. When implementing EUAL,
WHO always involves the countries and ensures that training is conducted at country level. Public-health
agencies are active in training and advocacy at country level, and workshops and meetings are organized for
the NRAs when necessary. The risk/benefit analysis is key in the decision-making process and may vary
with factors such as the disease case-fatality case rate or the availability of treatment. Countries need to
make informed decisions at all levels in their preparedness to accept an EUAL vaccine.
Further information can be found at
http://www.who.int/medicines/news/public_consult_med_prods/en/.
(WHO public reports of EUAL assessments will be available on the WHO website).

Update on SAGE draft recommendations

Dr Thomas Cherian, Coordinator, Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, WHO headquarters, Geneva,
Switzerland. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
During its October 2015 meeting, SAGE concluded, based on available data, that vaccination is likely to
provide added value in controlling outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (EVD) caused by Zaire ebolavirus
(ZEBOV) species. Currently, there are no data to support any recommendations on vaccines against other
species of Ebolavirus. However, one leading candidate vaccine has a multivalent “boost” component (MVA),
and a bivalent ChAd3-vectored Zaire-Sudan ebolavirus vaccine is under development. SAGE noted that
candidate vaccines are currently only being used in the context of clinical trials (or in exceptional
circumstances in countries where no trial is ongoing) to respond to a new confirmed EVD case within the
context of expanded use of an investigational vaccine. Recommendations for use as an additional public-
health tool will depend on the vaccines receiving regulatory approval (i.e. full licensure, conditional licensure
or emergency-use authorization outside a clinical trial setting). In light of the emerging data on the
persistence of Ebola virus in survivors of EVD and transmission of infection to sexual contacts, SAGE also
noted that the expanded use of vaccines in contacts of survivors is under consideration within the context of
expanded use of an investigational vaccine as one element of a study.
Provisional recommendations:
Based on review of current data, SAGE made provisional recommendations that are not vaccine specific and
will be reviewed and revised in light of the emerging data from different Ebola vaccines. These provisional
recommendations are published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record; WER. 2015:90(50):681–700
available at (http://www.who.int/wer/2015/wer9050/en/).

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 7

Modelling the impact of vacination strategies
Dr Rosalind Eggo, Research Fellow, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, The United
Kingdom. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
Analysis of health-care workers vaccination strategy:
Health-care workers (HCW) are at very high risk, particularly at the outset of Ebola epidemics. They may
also play a role in amplifying initial disease spread. Therefore, vaccination of HCW has potential population-
level effects by limiting infection spread to the community.
The proposed model showed that vaccination of HCW can prevent cases in both HCW and in the
community, with the benefit that the number of vaccine doses needed is much smaller (900 doses for HCW
vaccination strategy versus 150 000 for the community vaccination strategy). A representative from the
Guinea trial mentioned that the experience also showed a positive impact of vaccinating all HCW, prior to
starting Ring vaccination in the community, as a means to set an example and demonstrate vaccine safety to
the community. An important point to highlight is that, without an early start of the HCW vaccination
campaign, the protection of HCW is significantly lower; even a delay of one month from the first confirmed
case to vaccination of HCW diminishes the effect significantly, both in HCW and the community.
Among the main limitations of the HCW model used, is the local definition of HCW, which may vary from the
definition used in the model, both geographically and through time. Also, the model does not consider the
depletion of HCW due to morbidity and mortality, or to HCW leaving posts, and the model assumes
homogeneous mixing of HCW and community members. Finally, the duration of protection of vaccine is a
key factor that is still unknown.
Analysis of Ring vaccination strategy:
The randomized clinical trial in Guinea gave the clearest evidence on the Ring vaccination strategy. It has
shown to be least effective if the cases who escape detection have a high reproduction number. It is worth
noting that the reproduction number can change over time. The strategy may have to consider the need to
widen Ring, or to be supplemented with more widespread vaccination, which then has stockpile implications.
The main limitations of the Ring vaccination model used include: the reliance on data from the early part of
the epidemic; the fact that clustering of cases and contacts is not included in the model, and that there is no
account of depletion of susceptibles in the model.
Analysis of Mass vaccination strategy (district, country):
Even though Ebola vaccination is not preventive but reactive, the effectiveness of a mass vaccination
campaign is highly dependent on its timing and, according to this model, is only appropriate if conducted in
the earliest possible timescale. Late vaccination has little impact and very high costs (in the number of doses
deployed).
The main limitations of the mass vaccination model include: vaccination in a district ends only when 70%
coverage is reached, or at the end of the simulation (one year) so the number of doses deployed in the
model is an upper limit; the importation of cases do not account for the region that imported cases are from
because those data are not available, and that the model assumes homogeneous mixing within a district,
again because data are not available at a lower spatial scale – although the observed epidemic in West
Africa did display spatial heterogeneity within districts. Similarly to the other analyses, the duration of
protection is unknown.

International Coordinating Group (ICG)

Mr Alejandro Costa, Scientist, Control of Epidemic Diseases, Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases, WHO
headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
The International Coordinating Group (ICG) on vaccine provision for epidemic disease control is currently
managing four vaccine stockpiles, respectively, for each of the following diseases: smallpox, meningitis,
yellow fever and cholera. An ICG mechanism is now under discussion for Ebola vaccine. The ICG was
established in 1997 as a result of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),
Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), UNICEF and WHO combined efforts to address an emergency situation in
1996, whereby, during the largest recorded outbreak of meningitis in Africa, the emergency response

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 8

exhausted international vaccine reserves. The objectives of the ICG include: ensuring rapid access to
vaccines together with injection devices for countries experiencing epidemics; promoting the optimal use of
these resources (especially when stock is limited), and coordinating international efforts in preparing for and
responding to epidemics.
The basic principles of the ICG include:
• timely arrival of vaccines for an effective outbreak response where most needed;
• fairest distribution of the vaccine, careful assessment of risks and benefits – global stock is managed
by an international partnership;
• work with manufacturers to ensure availability of an emergency stock of supplies at global level;
• use and promotion of epidemiological and operational criteria for vaccine release;
• standard operating procedures;
• established financial mechanisms to purchase emergency supplies and ensure sustainability.
The ICG mechanism components include stock management, storage, management of applications and
decision-making. The decision-making is conducted within 48 hours, based on consensus. When the
organizations are in disagreement, teleconferences are convened to reach consensus. The ICG decision can
be either approval, partial approval, more information needed, or no approval.
The conditions to release the vaccine for procurement and shipping include:
• evidence of an ongoing outbreak
• laboratory confirmation of the pathogen responsible
• feasibility of conducting a vaccination campaign (security, partners in the field)
• adequate storage conditions and resources
• plan of action for mass vaccination.
The target date for vaccine arrival onsite is seven days from request approval, which includes the vaccine to
be ready in 48 hours, plus five days for shipping it to the affected country.
The ICG has strategies in place to minimize the chances of a vaccine shortage in case of an outbreak. For
example, with meningitis, yellow fever and cholera, close collaboration with the manufacturers was
maintained over the years, instead of only interacting with them during the procurement process. The ICG
also encourages other manufacturers to produce vaccine so there are more options to produce extra
vaccines quickly if needed. With regard to efforts to shorten the ICG process for Ebola, it is important to note
that the main cause of delays is the time required to collect the necessary evidence. Countries may take one
month to submit an application and, when the vaccines arrive in country, it may result in an additional delay
of one month to initiate the vaccination campaign. The ICG partners have the responsibility to ensure that
the vaccines are deployed in such a way that they will yield the greatest impact. The ICG will always require
an application and the minimum information required, so an outline of the plan of action will not suffice. Once
the application is received and all the necessary information has been completed, the ICG can make a
decision within two hours. With regard to thermostability, at present there is insufficient stability data
available from the manufacturers. Minimal capacity for the most affected countries, including Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Uganda, is being planned on a global level by the GEVIT cold-chain and logistics
team.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 9

Session II: Country situation and challenges for preparedness
Epidemiological situation and preparedness to the introduction of Ebola vaccine in
Guinea
Dr Samah Yombouno, Chief of Vaccine Logistics, and Dr James Richard, Chief of Surveillance Section,
Ministry of Health, Conakry, Guinea. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
Given the magnitude of the current Ebola outbreak in Guinea, the country has been preparing for the
introduction of the Ebola vaccine. There are several management and coordination bodies currently in the
country, including an immunization inter-agency coordination committee (ICC), a crisis management
committee and a piloting committee at the central level, as well as support from non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and other entities (including media) at peripheral levels.
The Guinea vaccine trial has strengthened the technical and operational capacities and infrastructure of the
country. Communication strategies have also been enhanced through the trial, with advocacy efforts and
commitment of authorities at all levels.
There are several surveillance systems in place in the country, including a routine surveillance system for
specific diseases within the Direction de la Prévention de la Lutte contre la Maladie (DPLM), an EPI
surveillance system for EPI target diseases and a daily surveillance system for Ebola virus disease (EVD)
with a total of 38 national and international WHO experts teams. Additionally, a dedicated epidemiological
team investigates suspected cases and analyses the situation. In spite of this, surveillance remains a
challenge in Guinea. Guinea has developed a plan to strengthen surveillance, but currently there are
insufficient funds to implement it. One of the greatest negative factors for Ebola surveillance has been
contacts that flee to a neighbouring country; however, now there is a strategy to share information about
contacts between countries. A green (free) phone line “115” offers a solution for surveillance and
communication issues in the Ebola response. Surveillance systems are being strengthened for Ebola,
including immediate notification of new cases to the national level. Guinea will use this experience to
strengthen all future surveillance systems – including adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). Forms
are defined for each reporting level; district, regional and national.
With regard to EPI communication activities, the priority for all communication activities in 2014 and 2015
has focused on the Ebola epidemic. Messages focused heavily on resistance related to prevention, and
control measures, in relation to the Ebola epidemic. Guinea is currently trying to integrate EPI messages into
general communication strategies, for which a national communication plan, that includes Ebola and EPI, is
being developed and will be finalized soon.

Ebola surveillance overview in Sierra Leone

Dr Dennis Marke, EPI Programme Manager, and Mr Roland Conteh, National Surveillance Programme
Manager, Disease Prevention and Control (DPC), Ministry of Health and Sanitation, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
The Ebola response in Sierra Leone has been coordinated by a military-led command and control structure,
with strong political commitment. The implementation of a quarantine strategy has been very useful, i.e. by
keeping contacts in quarantined areas the country was able to contain transmission. Food supplies and
psychosocial support was provided, and social mobilization pillars were involved. The outbreak revealed the
need to strengthen the surveillance system, with incomplete or poor-quality data in some areas, staff
payment issues and insufficient personnel trained in disease surveillance. Other challenges identified include
slow behavioural change regarding disease perception, burial and other practices, and weak coordination
among response partners. Some strengths of the current system include a strong cold-chain infrastructure,
processes available for AEFI case reporting and data-collection tools and investigation forms at all levels,
among others. Some weaknesses include insufficient legislation, trained personnel and budget for
pharmacovigilance, and weak policy, guidelines and standard procedures for AEFI activities. Community
engagement also needs to be improved to address the issue of people moving between countries.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 10

Ebola has improved the country’s surveillance capacity, and it is now in the process of reorienting the
surveillance officers to focus on all vaccine-preventable diseases. Sierra Leone is in the middle of their 42-
day countdown to being declared Ebola-free. The focus is now on maintaining a sensitive surveillance
system, with integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) training being completed and focused on
community-based surveillance to identify cases. The country will move into new surveillance systems at zero
plus 90 days, with a focus on cross-border collaboration.

Liberia presentation
Mr Adolphus Clarke, Deputy EPI Manager, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Monrovia, Liberia.
Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
The country has many vaccination challenges coming up in 2016; campaigns, inactivated polio vaccine (IPV)
introduction, trivalent to bivalent oral polio vaccine (tOPV-bOPV) switch and rebuilding the EPI programme,
among others. The introduction of Ebola vaccine will be possible, but the country does not have capacity for
a -80°C cold chain.
A great lesson learned from the Ebola epidemic is that surveillance is not a stand-alone activity. The
surveillance system is moving towards a “One Health” approach with an integrated system within the
infectious disease reporting system (IDRS) for pharmacovigilance, vaccine-preventable diseases and Ebola.
A strong surveillance system will be crucial to quickly implement vaccination after detection of the first
confirmed case. Regarding social mobilization related to survivors, the country uses the reaching every
district (RED) strategy with the psychosocial support pillar to improve community ownership, working with
traditional healers and teachers, etc. Survivors were also part of this effort. After being declared Ebola-free,
Liberia had a new confirmed case, hence the EPI recovery plan is important. The country will need to use
the lessons learned from Ebola to move forward. There is a need to move away from vertical towards
integrated programmes.

Four decades of Ebola outbreaks’ experience in Democratic Republic of the Congo

Professor Jean-Jacques Muyembe Tamfum, Director of the National Institute of Biomedical Research
(INRB), Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
Democratic Republic of the Congo has suffered Ebola outbreaks since 1976, and these are increasingly
frequent due to a range of factors such as a better surveillance system and the habits for consumption and
handling of bush meats. The national strategy to implement public-health interventions for Ebola outbreak
control has evolved to include social mobilization, community engagement and dialogue, case management,
safe burials, psychosocial support, clean water, hygiene and sanitation, mobile laboratories, associated
research and epidemiological surveillance.
In Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola outbreaks are localized without significant expansion and may
be kept under control using simple public-health control measures based on a community approach. The
community approach aims at early community engagement and early ownership for implementing Ebola
prevention and control measures. The message to the community is particularly important, and it is
imperative to avoid any contradictions. At the outset, the messaging to the population was very challenging
but currently there is more clarity. The message needs to be in the local language, to be very precise and
detailed, and there is a particular need to explain why a person needs to go to the hospital when falling ill,
even though there is no treatment available. Counting on an adequate social mobilization to overcome the
socio-cultural aspects of EVD outbreak remains a challenge. Others include giving a safe and dignified
burial, the logistical challenge to reach the epicentre of the outbreak and challenges in the management of
cases.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 11

Session III: Presentation of the GEVIT working groups’ work
GEVIT Country Implementation Working Group
Dr Gavin Grant, Medical Officer, Accelerated Disease Control and Vaccine Preventable Diseases
Surveillance Branch/ Global Immunization Division, US Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, Atlanta,
USA. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
The main task of the working group (WG) has been to develop guidance for Ebola vaccine (EV) use among
the identified target groups. Countries will use the plans and materials that are familiar to national staff,
adapting them to EV activities, and the guidance will focus on EV specific issues. The process to develop
guides and tools included face-to-face discussions, regular conference calls, experience-sharing from other
campaigns and country visits.
The WG has developed ideal plans for EV use, focusing on areas that are unique to EV implementation. For
instance, one of the criteria to mobilize vaccine from the hub to the country is laboratory confirmation and,
depending on the country, its capability to confirm a diagnosis will vary. However, how the confirmation itself
will be carried out is not included in this guide, rather there is reference to the existing guidance and
enhancement of the need for coordination with the overall Ebola outbreak response.

GEVIT Surveillance, Monitoring & Impact Evaluation Working Group

Dr Jason Mwenda Mathiu, Coordinator, Routine Immunization and New Vaccines, Immunization, Vaccines
and Emergencies, Brazzaville, Congo. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
Country preparedness for Ebola vaccine use will require increased robustness of the general health-care
capabilities; the country should be able to respond as soon as possible, human resource capacity is key and
health systems in the most affected countries may be weak, but an EVD outbreak may represent an
opportunity for an improvement.
There seems to be some confusion as to the proposed integration of Ebola vaccine within other vaccination
programmes within countries, as opposed to a vertical Ebola-specific programme. Additionally, vaccination
activities should be linked in the overall Ebola Response Plan.

To this end, the WG developed the following draft guidelines:

• Subgroup 1: a monitoring plan during vaccine delivery, and an assessment plan after vaccine delivery.
• Subgroup 2: a range of proposals for field study designs for Ebola vaccine effectiveness, and changes
to the Ebola surveillance systems to incorporate use of vaccines in outbreak response.
• Subgroup 3: case definitions for AEFI and guidelines to strengthen AEFI and vaccine safety
surveillance.

The choice of the vaccination strategy to be implemented needs to be made in the light of the local context.
The choice of a vaccination strategy should be an operational decision based on the epidemiology of the
outbreak, and countries can combine different strategies depending on the number of cases and funding
available to purchase the vaccine. Strong political will at country level is imperative. An active communication
system needs to be established that provides accurate information in order to gain trust. Since the vaccines
are still in clinical trials, there is resistance to vaccination and this needs to be managed. For vaccine
introduction, countries should initiate the campaign from a communication perspective, i.e. preparing people
with clear communication messages regarding the type of vaccination strategy and the objectives prior to the
vaccination campaign, not after the campaign has started. Community engagement and involvement should
start two weeks prior to a vaccination campaign as it takes time to prepare the community. At present, this is
the last action on the list. Vaccination brings hope and the benefits of vaccine can build trust; therefore, the
community needs to understand what the benefits of the vaccine are.
The pros and cons of vaccination strategies, e.g. mass (geographic) vaccination versus Ring vaccination,
are discussed in the guide based on the knowledge currently available and consistent with SAGE’s
provisional recommendations.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 12

Session IV: A blueprint for research & development, and simulation
exercises
A blueprint for research and development
Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Innovation, WHO headquarters,
Geneva, Switzerland. Presentation available electronically.
Highlights
Everything discussed so far is hypothetical since no vaccine is, to date, actually licensed. There is extensive
ongoing discussion and consultation with SAGE regarding policies and with regulators, in particular with the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to see what kind of regulatory framework they could propose for
the immediate potential use of Ebola vaccine, but none of the strategies discussed here will be implemented
unless a vaccine is licensed.
There are several options currently on the table for the use of an unlicensed vaccine in specific
circumstances; specifically for the use of the rVSV vaccine, because for this vaccine there are interim
efficacy data and the largest safety data information available, due to the large number of people vaccinated.
However, the rVSV clinical trial has NOT yet shown statistically significant efficacy. The options referred to
include:
• Use of a vaccine in a clinical trial setting. This means adherence to a protocol and requirement of
written informed consent from all vaccinees, as is currently happening in Guinea and Sierra Leone.
The authorization for a trial is given in weeks to months and clinical trials are covered by insurance if
any adverse events occur. There is a protocol for a clinical trial among intimate and sexual partners of
survivors currently in discussion for Guinea at WHO, and this could be envisaged in other countries.
• Use of the vaccine under expanded use. This is still a study, not a mass vaccination or a vaccination
campaign. The current requirements are to precisely define a target population and to obtain written
informed consent from all vaccinees. The United Kingdom requested an expanded use (not a clinical
trial) authorization from an ethics committee and all volunteers signed the informed consent forms,
while the United Kingdom government took full liability for any AEFI that could occur in these
volunteers, whereas in case of a trial, this is covered by the trial insurance. This expanded-use access
was implemented in Scotland to vaccinate around 25 contacts of an ill nurse and this process took a
few days; however, governments need to take the juridical responsibility for this.
• Emergency use authorization (WHO has something similar called emergency use listing). Once a
country has authorization, written informed consent may not be needed but there is still clear need for
insurance. Receiving the authorization could take months and all aspects (preclinical, clinical, safety,
immunogenicity, etc.) need to be reviewed by regulators.
• Use after full vaccine licensure. The process could take at least 18 months, with licensure after full
review in the country of manufacture, and then from the national authorities in the most affected
countries.
GEVIT is working on the introduction of a registered vaccine.
The blueprint for research and development (R&D) aims to reduce the time lag between the declaration of an
international public-health emergency and the availability of effective medical technologies that can be used
to save lives and avert a crisis. The blueprint will encourage research to generate safety data from Phase 1
studies in man, for the most promising experimental products for priority infectious diseases, before the
outset of an outbreak. The R&D blueprint aims to map existing knowledge and good practices and to identify
gaps and establish a roadmap for R&D preparedness. Through an enabling environment in affected
countries, WHO and international partners are poised to address the challenge of developing and
implementing the R&D blueprint.
The R&D blueprint has five work-streams: 1) prioritization of pathogens – focus on global need; 2)
identification of research priorities – what is already available; 3) coordination of stakeholders and expansion
of capacity; 4) assessment of preparedness and impact of intervention; 5) innovative financing options.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 13

EVD outbreak Scenario A – country in West Africa
Scenarios A available electronically.
Notes have been collected by the coordinating rapporteur and summarized in the following:
• EBOLA VACCINE DEPLOYMENT TABLE-TOP EXERCISE, Scenario A – country in West Africa
(ppt presentation).

EVD outbreak Scenario B – Democratic Republic of the Congo

Scenario B available electronically.
Notes have been collected by the coordinating rapporteur and summarized in the following:
• EBOLA VACCINE DEPLOYMENT TABLE-TOP EXERCISE, Scenario B DRC
(ppt presentation).

AEFI for Scenario A and for Scenario B

AEFI for Scenario A and for Scenario B available electronically.
Notes have been collected by the coordinating rapporteur and summarized in the following:
• AEFI MONITORING AND RESPONSE TABLE-TOP EXERCISE, Scenario A and Scenario B
(ppt presentation).

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 14

Session V: Review of GEVIT documents and materials
Country Implementation Working Group documents
The document has some placeholders and areas that require further discussion and additional work,
including the definition of Ring vaccination, the clarification of criteria governing the choice of vaccine
strategy and improvement of the vaccination forecasting tools to be consistent with the ICG requirements.
The document also requires further editing to improve the flow for better clarity, especially around the
preparation for deployment, decision-making and implementation sections. It would also benefit from more
checklists and figures and it will finally need to be translated into French.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Working Group documents

A robust surveillance system is needed; for the Ring vaccination the rapid response teams identify the
contacts and so need the corresponding reporting tools and mobility capacity to follow the contacts. A
functional laboratory is needed for confirmation of cases within 24-hours.
The AEFI strategy should be prepared well in advance, adapting guidance to allow for existing systems. The
flow of information needs to be coordinated and it is advisable to have one focal point from the Ministry of
Health (MoH) to coordinate with and inform the international organizations and partner agencies.
In addition, the documents would need to be shortened to improve their user-friendliness, and titles could be
discussed as they do not include mention of deployment or use of the vaccine. A decision needs to be made
regarding whether these documents will remain high level, be general guidance materials, or whether they
will be made country-specific. Finally, a preparedness checklist should be developed (the team taking the
lead to work with other groups).

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 15

Session VI: Agreement and next phase
Proposed way forward for GEVIT in 2016 and beyond
Dr Marie-Pierre Preziosi, Medical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research, Immunization, Vaccines and
Biologicals, WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Highlights
The focus of this workshop was on fostering technical discussions, and NOT on issuing WHO
recommendations. Both the regulatory context (with no licensed vaccine) and the policy context are
challenging. SAGE has provided provisional guidance but this is a highly evolving context, as extensively
discussed throughout the workshop.
Additional feedback on the Country Implementation Guide (CIG) is requested by 10 November 2015.
Participants can provide feedback on sections relevant to their areas of expertise or on the entire document.
The next version of the CIG will be drafted by the end of the year. As per countries’ request, all documents
will then be translated into French. In terms of the distribution of tasks for revision of documents, it is agreed
that the WHO Secretariat will compile all comments and then focus on revising the main guide document
(CIG) and that each WG will focus on revising the corresponding appendices.
The following broad work priorities are proposed for 2016 and beyond, along the lines discussed among
countries and partners during the workshop.
• Global, regional and country integration of the Ebola vaccination component with the overall Ebola
preparedness and response, as well as with EPI. For example, some focused activities could be
organized in priority countries, and countries with past Ebola outbreak response experience could
provide assistance to less experienced countries. Preparatory activities could be organized before
rather than after vaccine licensure.
• Consolidation of the ICG processes and related contingency funds.
• Coordination of regular reassessments and updates of the CIG and tools. For instance: when new
information becomes available; e.g. SAGE guidance, trial data, vaccine stability data, additional
lessons learned or EVD expert group inputs: or when new comments are submitted, e.g. following
other countries’, partners’ and manufacturers’ reviews; or when deemed necessary, e.g. when a
licensed product will be available.
With regard to the documents, GEVIT volunteers will review the next version. Additional reviews could be
conducted by other countries, and other partners will also be invited to review.
With regard to integration and technical support, the first step will be to identify the priority countries at high
risk, as well as the countries with significant experience with Ebola. For overall and country preparedness,
financial support information and training materials will need to be developed. A method also needs to be
identified for integrating the guides into the overall Ebola response at global and national level. Initial ad hoc
country meetings could be organized to provide comments on the document through in-country committees.
At the coordinating level, WHO has many Ebola subject-matter experts, and some of them could be involved
in the review to ensure integration in the overall response.
With regard to ICG contingency funds, it was mentioned that some extra resources for preparedness might
be needed. Sierra Leone clarified that contingency funds would be needed and would be most valuable at
country level for preparedness, i.e. to be able to do the needed work ahead of time to achieve faster, more
effective implementation and avoidance of the inherent delays in authorizations for use of regular funds.
Technical assistance in the post-licensure period would require GEVIT to reconvene and work on the
documents in light of new information available. It would be valuable to provide a schedule for updating the
document as new trial information becomes available and in case licensure takes a long time. GEVIT could
work on updates to the document every six months and then when licensure happens there could be a
comprehensive update. The document to be finalized by early 2016 would still be in draft form and be posted
on the WHO website for comments. A release as “version 0” might be needed before any licensure.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 16

Annex 1: Programme
Background
As part of a comprehensive Ebola Research and Development effort, a multi-partner Global Ebola Vaccine
Implementation Team (GEVIT), created under WHO leadership, is actively working on the collaborative
planning for the potential introduction of Ebola vaccines.
GEVIT currently associates countries most affected by the current Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak
(Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone) and key partners, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi the
Vaccine Alliance, UNICEF, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States Agency
for International Development and WHO. GEVIT is led by a Steering Group (SG) with a structure consisting
of three Working Groups (WG): (1) Vaccine Supply, Allocation and Procurement; (2) Country
Implementation; and (3) Monitoring, Surveillance and Impact Evaluation.
The scope of work of GEVIT is to support affected countries in their efforts to plan for the potential
deployment of Ebola vaccines, in accordance with WHO recommendations, with the following two main
objectives:
1. To support development and dissemination of tools and guidelines, synthesis of evidence to inform
strategies and policies, including community engagement strategies; and
2. To provide capacity and work with Ministries of Health and partners to develop and implement their
country plans, and to enable and facilitate in-country planning, management, and coordination
mechanisms.
The GEVIT working groups are progressing steadily. The regional workshop will be an essential milestone to
advance and integrate plans together with countries, the entire GEVIT team and essential partners. The
workshop will focus on integrating country inputs into planning materials, using plenary presentations, small
group discussions and simulation exercises with various epidemiological scenarios.

Goal and objectives

The goal of the workshop is to agree on final steps required to complete the development of a plan for future
Ebola vaccine introduction by December 2015 and to define a way forward for 2016 and beyond.
The three main objectives of the workshop are:
1. To discuss draft documents and tools among GEVIT members and with country representatives, to
ensure they are relevant and address feasible strategies to foreseen challenges to Ebola vaccine
introduction;
2. To ensure GEVIT is addressing all important steps for vaccine introduction through a simulation
exercise of a future outbreak in the presence of a licensed product;
3. To discuss options for a way forward.

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 17

Agenda
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
08:30-09:00 Registration and coffee
09:00-09:15 Welcome address – Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele (WHO)
09:15-09:30 Introductions
09:30-09:50 Context and objectives of the workshop, review of the agenda – Marie-Pierre Preziosi
(WHO)
Session 1 External factors that affect GEVIT’s work
Moderator: Marie-Pierre Preziosi (WHO)
09:50-10:10 Progress and outcomes of Ebola vaccines clinical trials – Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo (WHO)
10:10-10:30 Discussion
10:30-10:50 Coffee
10:50-11:10 Emergency-use recommendations – Olivier Lapujade (WHO)
11:10-11:25 Discussion
11:25-11:45 Modelling the impact of vaccination strategies – Rosalind Eggo (London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine)
11:45-12:00 Discussion
12:00-12:20 Update on SAGE recommendations – Thomas Cherian (WHO)
12:20-12:30 Discussion
12:30-13:30 Lunch
Session 2 Country situation and challenges for preparedness
Moderator: Jason Mwenda Mathiu (WHO)
13:40-14:00 International Coordinating Group – Alejandro Costa (WHO)
14:00-14:20 Discussion
14:20-14:40 Guinea presentation – Country representative
14:40-15:00 Discussion
15:00-15:20 Coffee
15:20-15:40 Sierra Leone presentation
15:40-16:00 Discussion
16:00-16:20 Liberia Presentation
16:20-16:40 Discussion
16:40-17:00 DRC presentation
17:00-17:20 Discussion

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

Session 3 Presentation of GEVIT WGs work
Moderator: Imran Mirza (UNICEF)
09:00-09:30 Small-group discussions within WGs prior to presentations in plenary

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 18

09:30-09:40 Presentation of the Country Implementation Working Group – Gavin Grant (CDC)
09:40-09:50 Discussion
09:50-10:00 Presentation of the Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group – Jason Mwenda Mathiu
(WHO)
10:00-10:10 Discussion
10:10-10:30 Coffee
Session 4 WHO Assistant Director General’s welcome address and simulation exercises
Moderators: Madhava Balakrishnan (WHO) and Gavin Grant (CDC)
10:30-11:00 WHO Assistant Director General welcome address and overview of “A Blueprint for research
and development”, followed by discussion – Marie-Paule Kieny (WHO)
11:00-11:10 Introduction to simulation exercises – Isis Pluut (WHO) and James Stuart (WHO)
11:10-12:30 Simulation exercise, part I (EVD outbreak scenarios A and B)
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-15:00 Simulation exercise, continued
15:00-15:20 Coffee
15:20-16:30 Simulation exercises, part II (AEFI case scenarios A and B)
16:30-17:00 Discussion

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Session 5 Review of GEVIT documents and materials
Moderator: Blanche Anya (WHO)
09:00-09:35 EVD Outbreak Scenario A: presentation and outcomes of the simulation exercise – Alison
Brunier (WHO)
09:35-09:55 Discussion
09:55-10:40 EVD Outbreak Scenario B: presentation and outcomes of the simulation exercise – Lisa
Stockdale (WHO)
10:40-11:00 Coffee
11:00-11:20 Discussion
11:20-11:55 AEFI case scenarios A and B: presentation and outcomes of the simulation exercise –
Christine Maure (WHO)
11:55-12:30 Discussion
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-14:30 Group work
14:30-14:50 Coffee
Session 6 Agreement and next phase
Moderator: Adama Sawadogo (UNICEF)
14:50-15:40 Presentation of group work and report back to plenary – Working Group Leads
15:40-15:55 Proposed way forward for GEVIT in 2016 and beyond – Marie-Pierre Preziosi (WHO)
15:55-16:50 Discussion
17:00 Meeting closure

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 19

Annex 2: List of Participants
BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED
Andrew Jones* CROSS AND RED CRESCENT
Senior Program Officer, Vaccine Delivery & Amanda McClelland*
Integrated Delivery, Seattle Senior Officer Emergency Health, Water,
Sanitation and Emergency Health Unit, Health
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND Department, Geneva
PREVENTION
Frank Mahoney
Amy Callis Senior Immunization Officer, Geneva
Team Lead, Health Communications, Training
and Study Logistics, Atlanta LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND
Emily Cloessner TROPICAL MEDICINE
ASPPH Fellow, Global Immunization Division, Rosalind Eggo
Atlanta Research Fellow, Department of Infectious
Gavin Grant Disease Epidemiology, London
Medical Officer, Accelerated Disease Control and Elisabeth Smout
VPD Surveillance Branch/Global Immunization Research Fellow and Communication
Division, Atlanta Coordinator, EBOVAC-Salone, Department of
Jennifer Harris Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London
Epidemiologist, Global Immunization Division, MÉDICINS SANS FRONTIÈRES
Atlanta
Myriam Henkens
Katrina Kretsinger* International Medical Coordinator, Médecins sans
Medical Officer, Accelerated Disease Control and Frontières, Brussels
VPD Surveillance Branch/Global Immunization
Division, Atlanta UNICEF SUPPLY DIVISION
John Stevenson Jesus Barral-Guerin*
Epidemiologist, Program Operations Senior Manager, Vaccine Centre, Copenhagen
Branch/Immunization Services Division, Atlanta Heather Deehan*
Jenny Walldorf Chief Vaccine Centre, Copenhagen
Medical Officer, Atlanta Akthem Fourati
Susan Wang Partnership Specialist Vaccine Centre,
Medical Officer, Atlanta Copenhagen
GAVI, THE VACCINE ALLIANCE Gregory Kiluva*
Technical Specialist (Cold Chain), Copenhagen
Hamadou Dicko*
Project Manager, Vaccine Supply Chain, Vaccine Doreen Mulenga*
Implementation, Geneva Deputy Director Programme Supply, Copenhagen
Hope Johnson* Teshome Yemanu*
Head Outcomes and Impact, Geneva Technical Officer, Health and Technology Centre,
Copenhagen
Melissa Malhame*
Head Market Shaping Policy & Performance, UNICEF PROGRAM DIVISION / WCARO
Geneva Imran Mirza
Stefano Malvolti* Health Specialist, Program Division, New York
Director, Vaccine Implementation, Geneva Adama Sawadogo
Patience Musanhu Cold Chain & Logistics Specialist, Programme
Senior Manager, Pandemic and Epidemic Division, New York
Diseases, Vaccine Implementation, Geneva
UNICEF WCARO
Geert Vanden Bossche
Senior Programme Manager Ebola Vaccine, Juan Andres Gill
Vaccine Implementation, Geneva Consultant, Communications for Development
(C4D), Dakar
Stephanie Lapiere
Consultant Cold Chain and Logistics, Dakar

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 20

Marie-Therese Guigui Annet Kisakye*
Health Specialist for Measles, YF & Health National Professional Officer, EPI/Surveillance,
Emergencies (Epidemics), Dakar Kampala
Savita Navqi* Souleymane Kone
Regional Advisor, Communication for Technical Officer, Expanded Programme on
Development (C4D), Dakar Immunization Plus, Immunization, Vaccines and
Jonathan Shadid Biologicals, Geneva
Communications for Development (C4D) Olivier Lapujade
Specialist, WCARO, Dakar Scientist, Prequalification Team, Geneva
USAID Jacqueline Lee Endt
Sara Zizzo* Assistant, Initiative for Vaccine Research,
Senior Advisor for Vaccines and Immunization, Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, Geneva
Washington DC Christine Maure
Technical Officer, Safety and Vigilance,
WHO SECRETARIAT Regulation of Medicines and other Health
Blanche Anya Technologies, Geneva
Routine Immunization Officer, Routine Marc Mcdonald*
Immunization and New Vaccines, Immunization, Coordinator, Prequalification Team, Geneva
Vaccines and Emergencies, Brazzaville
Richard Mihigo*
Madhava Balakrishnan Medical Officer, Routine Immunization and New
Medical Officer, Safety and Vigilance, Regulation Vaccines, Brazzaville
of Medicines and other Health Technologies,
Geneva Pamela Mitula
Medical Officer, Epidemiologist, Freetown
Virginia Benassi
Technical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research, Vital Mondonge
Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, Geneva Disease Prevention and Control Officer, Kinshasa
Alison Brunier Vasee Morthy*
Communication Officer, Communication Capacity Medical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research,
Building, Department of Communications, Geneva Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, Geneva
Thomas Cherian Harou Moussa
Coordinator, Immunization, Vaccines and Technical Officer (Cold-Chain), Polio Eradication,
Biologicals, Geneva Libreville
Alejandro Costa Jason Mwenda Mathiu
Scientist, Control of Epidemic Diseases, Coordinator, Routine Immunization and New
Department of Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases, Vaccines, Immunization, Vaccines and
Geneva Emergencies, Brazzaville
Ernest Dabire Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele
Coordinator, Technical Units, Kinshasa Director, Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals,
Godwin Enwere Geneva
Medical Officer, Immunization, Vaccines and William Perea
Biologicals, Geneva Coordinator, Control of Epidemic Diseases,
Pierre Formenty Geneva
Scientist, Control of Epidemic Diseases, Geneva Isis Pluut
Ana Maria Henao Restrepo Technical Officer, Health Systems and Innovation,
Medical Officer, Immunization, Vaccines and Geneva
Biologicals, Geneva Marie-Pierre Preziosi
Raul Iraheta Medical Officer, Initiative for Vaccine Research,
Consultant, Immunization, Vaccines and Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, Geneva
Biologicals, Geneva Roland Tuopileyi II
Mouctar Kande Data Manager, Monrovia
National Professional Officer, Routine Jose Rovira Vilaplana
Immunization, Conakry Technical Officer, Global Preparedness,
Marie-Paule Kieny Surveillance and Response, Geneva
Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Zakary Wambai
Innovation, Geneva Technical Officer, Technical Units, Monrovia

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 21

COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES WHO SOCIAL MOBILIZATION
Democratic Republic of the Congo Issiaga Konate
Guylain Kaya National Professional Officer, Conakry, Guinea
EPI Deputy Director, Ministry of Public Health, Saffea Gborie*
Kinshasa Information Assistant, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Audry Wakamba Mulumba* Liliana Luwaga*
EPI Director, Ministry of Public Health, Kinshasa Consultant, Monrovia, Liberia
Ghana SOCIAL MOBILIZATION
George Bonsu* Guinea
National Programme Manager EPI, Ministry of Mamadou Rafi Diallo
Health, Accra General Director of National Service for Health
Guinea Promotion, Ministry of Health, Conakry
Souaré Kabiné Ada Pouye*
National Director of Laboratory and Pharmacy, Chief Section, Communication for Development
Ministry of Health, Conakry (C4D), UNICEF, Conakry
Richard James Liberia
Chief Section Surveillance, Ministry of Health, John B. Sumo
Conakry Health and Health Promotion Division, Ministry of
Samah Yombouno Health and Social Welfare, Monrovia
Chief Section Vaccine Logistics, Ministry of Soumitra Roy
Health, Conakry Co-Chair of the National Health Promotion
Liberia Technical Working Group, UNICEF, Monrovia
Adolphus Clarke Sierra Leone
Deputy EPI Manager, Ministry of Health and Lansana Conteh*
Social Welfare, Monrovia Programme Manager Social Mobilization Lead,
Roseline George Ministry of Health and Sanitation, Freetown
Deputy Director Disease Prevention and Control, Kshitij Joshi*
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Monrovia Chief of Communication for Development,
James DK Goteh UNICEF, Freetown
Pharmacovigilance Coordinator, Liberia Medical
and Health Regulatory Authority, Ministry of WHO CONSULTANTS
Health and Social Welfare, Monrovia Martine Denis
Independent Consultant, Brussels
Sierra Leone
Fabien Djeugabeng
Dennis Marke GEVIT Consultant, Ouagadougou
EPI Manager, Ministry of Health and Sanitation,
Freetown Amavi Edinam Agbenu
Independent Consultant, Ouagadougou
Roland Conteh
Manager Disease Prevention and Control, Lisa Stockdale
Ministry of Health and Sanitation, Freetown Independent Consultant, London
Wiltshire Johnson James Stuart
Registrar Pharmacy Board, Ministry of Health and Independent Consultant, London
Sanitation, Freetown Hermann Tchiyane
GEVIT Consultant, Monrovia
Uganda
Tieble Traore
Robert Mayanja* GEVIT Consultant, Brazzaville
UNEPI Programme Manager, Ministry of Health,
Kampala Daniel Yota
GEVIT Consultant, Freetown
Georges Kouatcho
GEVIT Consultant, Conakry

*unable to attend

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 22

GEVIT Regional Workshop Summary Report, 27 to 29 October 2015, Geneva, Switzerland 23