Developing and testing solutions.
How can vaccines, treatments, and community interventions be made safe, effective, and implementable in real-world settings? I work with universities, public health agencies, clinicians, communities, and civil-society partners to design, implement, and evaluate public health interventions.
View this project portfolio ↓- Health and abuse among homeless young men in Delhi
- Understanding and mitigating cholera risk in India
- Research priorities for zoonoses control
- Peri-urban human–animal–environment interfaces
- Fluoroquinolone resistance in diarrheal E. coli
- National Surveillance System for Enteric Fever in India
- SaniPath Typhoid study in urban slums
- Rotavirus vaccine interchangeability trial
- PLACID convalescent plasma trial
- HCQ prophylaxis and SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers
- Evaluation of typhoid conjugate vaccine introduction in Navi Mumbai
- AMR surveillance assessment tool for Southeast Asia
- AMR situation analysis for India
- National Task Force on COVID-19 secretariat
Project portfolio
I test public health interventions where they will be used.
My work examines whether an intervention delivers the outcomes that matter in practice. I use randomized trials and epidemiologic studies to compare alternatives, assess benefits and harms, and interpret findings in light of how and where the research was conducted.
Select a project to read its study record.
Official project titleImmunogenicity and Safety of Rotavac® and Rotasiil® Administered in an Interchangeable Dosing Schedule among Healthy Indian Infants: A Multicentric, Phase IV, Open-Labeled, Randomized, Controlled Trial (RVICS)
I designed RVICS and led its implementation as Co-Investigator, taking the study from its initial concept through field deployment. This six-arm Phase IV trial compared the safety and immune response of mixed and single-product Rotavac and Rotasiil schedules in healthy Indian infants.
- Project period
- May 2018–May 2020
- Funding agency
- Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India
- Total funding
- ₹57,600,000
approximately US$850,000 - My role
- Co-Investigator
- Study design
- Multicenter, six-arm, open-label, randomized, controlled Phase IV non-inferiority trial
- Participants
- 1,979 healthy infants randomized at two Indian sites
- Trial registration
- CTRI/2018/08/015317
- Primary comparison
- Mixed Rotavac/Rotasiil schedules versus single-product schedules
The question
India’s Universal Immunization Programme used both Rotavac and Rotasiil, but evidence on mixed schedules was limited. The Ministry commissioned the trial to compare seroresponse and safety when infants received interchangeable vaccine schedules rather than the same product for all three doses.
My role and responsibilities
- Designed the trial and developed its protocol, statistical analysis plan, and data-collection instruments.
- Led regulatory and ethics submissions, coordinating with partner institutions, CTRI, the DSMB, and DCGI.
- Set up the field operation, trained and supervised the site team, and oversaw implementation and quality control.
- Contributed to data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript preparation.
What the study found
The mixed schedules met the prespecified non-inferiority criterion for seroresponse compared with single-product schedules. The publication reported no vaccine-related serious adverse events or intussusception and concluded that Rotavac and Rotasiil could be used interchangeably in routine immunization.
Why the evidence mattered
The findings supported greater flexibility when product availability changes, including during supply constraints and for mobile populations. The evidence informed national policy on vaccine interchangeability and program delivery.
Peer-reviewed publication
-
Kanungo S, Chatterjee P, Bavdekar A, Murhekar M, Babji S, Garg R, Samanta S, Nandy RK, Kawade A, Boopathi K, Kanagasabai K, Kamal VK, Kumar VS, Gupta N, Dutta S. Safety and immunogenicity of the Rotavac and Rotasiil rotavirus vaccines administered in an interchangeable dosing schedule among healthy Indian infants: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 4, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(8):1191–1199.
DOI ↗PubMed ↗
Presentation
-
Pranab Chatterjee. Presentation to NTAGI on study findings and potential implications, August 2019.
Official project titleA Phase II, Open Label, Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma to Limit COVID-19 Associated Complications
I served as Co-Investigator on PLACID, a national randomized trial of convalescent plasma in adults hospitalized with moderate COVID-19.
- Project period
- April–September 2020
- Funding agency
- Indian Council of Medical Research
- Total funding
- ₹25,000,000
approximately US$350,000 - My role
- Co-Investigator
- Study design
- Open-label, parallel-arm, multicenter Phase II randomized controlled trial
- Participants
- 464 adults enrolled across 39 public and private hospitals in India
- Trial registration
- CTRI/2020/04/024775
- Primary comparison
- Convalescent plasma plus standard care versus standard care alone
The question
The trial tested whether plasma collected from people who had recovered from COVID-19 could reduce progression to severe disease or all-cause mortality among adults hospitalized with moderate COVID-19.
My role and responsibilities
- Helped develop the trial protocol and study design.
- Contributed to planning the analysis.
- Supported the data-management and analysis teams after the trial launched.
- Contributed to data interpretation and manuscript writing.
What the study found
Convalescent plasma was not associated with a reduction in progression to severe COVID-19 or all-cause mortality at 28 days. The study clarified the limits of the intervention under real-world conditions in which advanced antibody testing was not routinely available.
Why the evidence mattered
PLACID provided randomized evidence while convalescent plasma was already being used in clinical care. Its findings informed national treatment guidance by showing no reduction in progression to severe disease or death among the patients studied.
Peer-reviewed publications
-
Agarwal A, Mukherjee A, Kumar G, Chatterjee P, Bhatnagar T, Malhotra P, on behalf of the PLACID Trial Collaborators. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate COVID-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ. 2020;371:m3939.
DOI ↗PubMed ↗ -
Mammen JJ, Kumar S, Thomas L, Kumar G, Zachariah A, Jeyaseelan L, Peter JV, Agarwal A, Mukherjee A, Chatterjee P, Bhatnagar T. Factors associated with mortality among moderate and severe patients with COVID-19 in India: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e050571.
DOI ↗Article ↗
Official project titleAssociation of Hydroxychloroquine Prophylaxis with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers: A Case Control Study
I served as Co-Principal Investigator on a national case-control study that examined whether HCQ prophylaxis was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers.
- Project period
- May–June 2020
- Funding agency
- Indian Council of Medical Research
- Funding
- ICMR intramural funding
- My role
- Co-Principal Investigator
- Study design
- Telephone-based case-control study
- Source population
- Health care workers sampled from ICMR’s national laboratory-testing databases
- Exposure
- Self-reported HCQ prophylaxis and occupational risk factors
- Outcome
- Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection
The question
The study compared HCQ use among health care workers who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 and assessed occupational exposures and protective practices during the earliest months of India’s COVID-19 response.
My role and responsibilities
- Developed the protocol, study design, and analysis plan with the investigator team.
- Oversaw data management and analysis.
- Managed a large study team.
- Conducted data analysis.
- Played a key role in preparing the manuscript.
What the study found
The adjusted analysis found an association between reported use of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ and lower odds of infection. The case-control design could not establish that HCQ prevented infection: occupational exposure, protective practices, and other measured or unmeasured differences between participants may have confounded the result.
Why the evidence mattered
At a politically charged moment, this rapid investigation showed why observational associations were insufficient to settle a polarizing question about HCQ prophylaxis. Randomized clinical trials were needed to establish its benefits and harms.
Peer-reviewed publications
-
Chatterjee P, Anand T, Singh KJ, Rasaily R, Singh R, Das S, Singh H, Praharaj I, Gangakhedkar RR, Bhargava B, Panda S. Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: a case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2020;151(5):459–467.
DOI ↗PubMed ↗ -
Mukherjee A, Anand T, Agarwal A, Singh H, Chatterjee P, Narayan J, Rana S, Gupta N, Bhargava B, Panda S. SARS-CoV-2 re-infection: development of an epidemiological definition from India. Epidemiology & Infection. 2021;149:e82.
DOI ↗PubMed ↗