Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: The resources for critical care are limited in many settings, exacerbating the significant morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. Budget constraints can lead to choices between investing in advanced critical care (e.g. mechanical ventilators in intensive care units) or more basic critical care such as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC; e.g. vital signs monitoring, oxygen therapy, and intravenous fluids). METHODS: We investigated the cost effectiveness of providing EECC and advanced critical care in Tanzania in comparison with providing 'no critical care' or 'district hospital-level critical care' using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a tracer condition. We developed an open-source Markov model ( https://github.com/EECCnetwork/POETIC_CEA ) to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, using a provider perspective, a 28-day time horizon, patient outcomes obtained from an elicitation method involving a seven-member expert group, a normative costing study, and published literature. We performed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our results. , RESULTS: EECC is cost effective 94% and 99% of the time when compared with no critical care (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $37 [-$9 to $790] per DALY averted) and district hospital-level critical care (ICER $14 [-$200 to $263] per DALY averted), respectively, relative to the lowest identified estimate of the willingness-to-pay threshold for Tanzania ($101 per DALY averted). Advanced critical care is cost effective 27% and 40% of the time, when compared with the no critical care or district hospital-level critical care scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: For settings where there is limited or no critical care delivery, implementation of EECC could be a highly cost-effective investment. It could reduce mortality and morbidity for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and its cost effectiveness falls within the range considered 'highly cost effective'. Further research is needed to explore the potential of EECC to generate even greater benefits and value for money when patients with diagnoses other than COVID-19 are accounted for.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in three Kenyan health and demographic surveillance sites, December 2020-May 2021

Background Most of the studies that have informed the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya have relied on samples that are not representative of the general population. We conducted population-based serosurveys at three Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSSs) to determine the cumulative incidence of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Methods We selected random age-stratified population-based samples at HDSSs in Kisumu, Nairobi and Kilifi, in Kenya. Blood samples were collected from participants between 01 Dec 2020 and 27 May 2021. No participant had received a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using ELISA. Locally-validated assay sensitivity and specificity were 93% (95% CI 88–96%) and 99% (95% CI 98–99.5%), respectively. We adjusted prevalence estimates using classical methods and Bayesian modelling to account for the sampling scheme and assay performance. Results We recruited 2,559 individuals from the three HDSS sites, median age (IQR) 27 (10–78) years and 52% were female. Seroprevalence at all three sites rose steadily during the study period. In Kisumu, Nairobi and Kilifi, seroprevalences (95% CI) at the beginning of the study were 36.0% (28.2–44.4%), 32.4% (23.1–42.4%), and 14.5% (9.1–21%), and respectively;at the end they were 42.0% (34.7–50.0%), 50.2% (39.7–61.1%), and 24.7% (17.5–32.6%), respectively. Seroprevalence was substantially lower among children (<16 years) than among adults at all three sites (p≤0.001). Conclusion By May 2021 in three broadly representative populations of unvaccinated individuals in Kenya, seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 25–50%. There was wide variation in cumulative incidence by location and age.

Examining the unit costs of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are considered the path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government of Kenya is implementing a phased strategy to vaccinate the Kenyan population, initially targeting populations at high risk of severe disease and infection. We estimated the financial and economic unit costs of procuring and delivering the COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya across various vaccination strategies. METHODS: We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of COVID-19 vaccine delivery, from a health systems perspective. Document reviews and key informant interviews(n = 12) were done to inform the activities, assumptions and the resources required. Unit prices were derived from document reviews or from market prices. Both financial and economic vaccine procurement costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, and the vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses were estimated and reported in 2021USD. RESULTS: The financial costs of vaccine procurement per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $2.89-$13.09 in the 30% and 100% coverage levels respectively, however, the economic cost was $17.34 across all strategies. Financial vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, ranged from $4.28-$3.29 in the 30% and 100% coverage strategies: While the economic delivery costs were two to three times higher than the financial costs. The total procurement and delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $7.34-$16.47 for the financial costs and $29.7-$24.68 for the economic costs for the 30% and 100% coverage respectively. With the exception of procurement costs, the main cost driver of financial and economic delivery costs was supply chain costs (47-59%) and advocacy, communication and social mobilization (29-35%) respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis presents cost estimates that can be used to inform local policy and may further inform parameters used in cost-effectiveness models. The results could potentially be adapted and adjusted to country-specific assumptions to enhance applicability in similar low-and middle-income settings.

Essential emergency and critical care as a health system response to critical illness and the COVID19 pandemic: what does it cost?

Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya. The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020. The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively. EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited. Graphical Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-023-00425-z.

Essential emergency and critical care as a health system response to critical illness and the COVID19 pandemic: what does it cost?

Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya.The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020.The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively.EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited.

Sero-surveillance for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 at antenatal care clinics in three Kenyan referral hospitals: Repeated cross-sectional surveys 2020-21.

INTRODUCTION: The high proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that have remained undetected presents a challenge to tracking the progress of the pandemic and estimating the extent of population immunity. METHODS: We used residual blood samples from women attending antenatal care services at three hospitals in Kenya between August 2020 and October 2021and a validated IgG ELISA for SARS-Cov-2 spike protein and adjusted the results for assay sensitivity and specificity. We fitted a two-component mixture model as an alternative to the threshold analysis to estimate of the proportion of individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We estimated seroprevalence in 2,981 women; 706 in Nairobi, 567 in Busia and 1,708 in Kilifi. By October 2021, 13% of participants were vaccinated (at least one dose) in Nairobi, 2% in Busia. Adjusted seroprevalence rose in all sites; from 50% (95%CI 42-58) in August 2020, to 85% (95%CI 78-92) in October 2021 in Nairobi; from 31% (95%CI 25-37) in May 2021 to 71% (95%CI 64-77) in October 2021 in Busia; and from 1% (95% CI 0-3) in September 2020 to 63% (95% CI 56-69) in October 2021 in Kilifi. Mixture modelling, suggests adjusted cross-sectional prevalence estimates are underestimates; seroprevalence in October 2021 could be 74% in Busia and 72% in Kilifi. CONCLUSIONS: There has been substantial, unobserved transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Nairobi, Busia and Kilifi Counties. Due to the length of time since the beginning of the pandemic, repeated cross-sectional surveys are now difficult to interpret without the use of models to account for antibody waning.

Revealing the extent of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya based on serological and PCR-test data [version 2;peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Policymakers in Africa need robust estimates of the current and future spread of SARS-CoV-2. We used national surveillance PCR test, serological survey and mobility data to develop and fit a county-specific transmission model for Kenya up to the end of September 2020, which encompasses the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the country. We estimate that the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic peaked before the end of July 2020 in the major urban counties, with 30-50% of residents infected. Our analysis suggests, first, that the reported low COVID-19 disease burden in Kenya cannot be explained solely by limited spread of the virus, and second, that a 30-50% attack rate was not sufficient to avoid a further wave of transmission.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in three Kenyan health and demographic surveillance sites, December 2020-May 2021.

BACKGROUND: Most of the studies that have informed the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya have relied on samples that are not representative of the general population. We conducted population-based serosurveys at three Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSSs) to determine the cumulative incidence of infection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We selected random age-stratified population-based samples at HDSSs in Kisumu, Nairobi and Kilifi, in Kenya. Blood samples were collected from participants between 01 Dec 2020 and 27 May 2021. No participant had received a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using ELISA. Locally-validated assay sensitivity and specificity were 93% (95% CI 88-96%) and 99% (95% CI 98-99.5%), respectively. We adjusted prevalence estimates using classical methods and Bayesian modelling to account for the sampling scheme and assay performance. RESULTS: We recruited 2,559 individuals from the three HDSS sites, median age (IQR) 27 (10-78) years and 52% were female. Seroprevalence at all three sites rose steadily during the study period. In Kisumu, Nairobi and Kilifi, seroprevalences (95% CI) at the beginning of the study were 36.0% (28.2-44.4%), 32.4% (23.1-42.4%), and 14.5% (9.1-21%), and respectively; at the end they were 42.0% (34.7-50.0%), 50.2% (39.7-61.1%), and 24.7% (17.5-32.6%), respectively. Seroprevalence was substantially lower among children (<16 years) than among adults at all three sites (p≤0.001). CONCLUSION: By May 2021 in three broadly representative populations of unvaccinated individuals in Kenya, seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 25-50%. There was wide variation in cumulative incidence by location and age.

Epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: A few studies have assessed the epidemiological impact and the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in settings where most of the population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya from a societal perspective over a 1.5-year time frame. An age-structured transmission model assumed at least 80% of the population to have prior natural immunity when an immune escape variant was introduced. We examine the effect of slow (18 months) or rapid (6 months) vaccine roll-out with vaccine coverage of 30%, 50% or 70% of the adult (>18 years) population prioritising roll-out in those over 50-years (80% uptake in all scenarios). Cost data were obtained from primary analyses. We assumed vaccine procurement at US$7 per dose and vaccine delivery costs of US$3.90-US$6.11 per dose. The cost-effectiveness threshold was US$919.11. FINDINGS: Slow roll-out at 30% coverage largely targets those over 50 years and resulted in 54% fewer deaths (8132 (7914-8373)) than no vaccination and was cost saving (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER=US$-1343 (US$-1345 to US$-1341) per disability-adjusted life-year, DALY averted). Increasing coverage to 50% and 70%, further reduced deaths by 12% (810 (757-872) and 5% (282 (251-317) but was not cost-effective, using Kenya's cost-effectiveness threshold (US$919.11). Rapid roll-out with 30% coverage averted 63% more deaths and was more cost-saving (ICER=US$-1607 (US$-1609 to US$-1604) per DALY averted) compared with slow roll-out at the same coverage level, but 50% and 70% coverage scenarios were not cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: With prior exposure partially protecting much of the Kenyan population, vaccination of young adults may no longer be cost-effective.

A Data-Driven Analysis of the Economic Cost of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: A Cross-Country Comparison of Kenya, Singapore, and Thailand.

Objective: To estimate the economic impact of border closure and social distancing by estimating the decline of gross domestic product (GDP) in Kenya, Singapore and Thailand. Methods: We analysed secondary data retrospectively. To calculate impact of NPIs on GDP, the relationship between GDP and stock market index was examined using ordinary least squares (OLS). Then, autoregressive and moving averages (ARMA) model was used to examine the impact of NPI on stock market index. The change in GDP due to NPIs was derived by multiplying coefficients of OLS and ARMA models. Results: An increase in stock market index correlated with an increase in GDP, while both social distancing and border closure negatively correlated with stock market index. Implementation of NPIs correlated with the decline in GDP. Thai border closure had a greater decline in GDP than social distancing; Kenya exhibited the same trends; Singapore had the opposite trend. Conclusion: We quantified the magnitude of economic impact of NPIs in terms of GDP decline by linking stock market index and GDP. This approach may be applicable in other settings.

Experiences of and response to the COVID-19 pandemic at private retail pharmacies in Kenya: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess experiences of and response to the COVID-19 pandemic at community pharmacies in Kenya. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a mixed-methods study conducted from November 2020 to April 2021, targeting service providers in three counties (Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu), selected purposively to represent the main urban centres; pharmacies were selected randomly from a list of licensed pharmacies. RESULTS: Of 195 sampled pharmacies, 108 (55%) completed a questionnaire and 103 (53%) received a simulated client call; 18 service providers were interviewed. The initial weeks of the pandemic were characterised by fear and panic among service providers and a surge in client flow. Subsequently, 65 (60%) of 108 pharmacies experienced a dip in demand to below prepandemic levels and 34 (31%) reported challenges with unavailability, high price and poor quality of products. Almost all pharmacies were actively providing preventive materials and therapies; educating clients on prevention measures; counselling anxious clients; and handling and referring suspect cases. Fifty-nine pharmacies (55% (95% CI 45% to 65%)) reported receiving a client asking for COVID-19 testing and a similar proportion stated they would support pharmacy-based testing if implemented. For treatment of simulated clients, most pharmacies (71%, 73 of 103) recommended alternative therapies and nutritional supplements such as vitamin C; the rest recommended conventional therapies such as antibiotics. While 52 (48%) of 108 pharmacies had at least one staff member trained on COVID-19, a general feeling of disconnection from the national programme prevailed. CONCLUSIONS: Private pharmacies in Kenya were actively contributing to the COVID-19 response, but more deliberate engagement, support and linkages are required. Notably, there is an urgent need to develop guidelines for pharmacy-based COVID-19 testing, a service that is clearly needed and which could greatly increase test coverage. Pharmacy-based COVID-19 programmes should be accompanied with implementation research to inform current and future pandemic responses.

Transmission networks of SARS-CoV-2 in Coastal Kenya during the first two waves: A retrospective genomic study.

Background: Detailed understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) regional transmission networks within sub-Saharan Africa is key for guiding local public health interventions against the pandemic. Methods: Here, we analysed 1139 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from positive samples collected between March 2020 and February 2021 across six counties of Coastal Kenya (Mombasa, Kilifi, Taita Taveta, Kwale, Tana River, and Lamu) to infer virus introductions and local transmission patterns during the first two waves of infections. Virus importations were inferred using ancestral state reconstruction, and virus dispersal between counties was estimated using discrete phylogeographic analysis. Results: During Wave 1, 23 distinct Pango lineages were detected across the six counties, while during Wave 2, 29 lineages were detected; 9 of which occurred in both waves and 4 seemed to be Kenya specific (B.1.530, B.1.549, B.1.596.1, and N.8). Most of the sequenced infections belonged to lineage B.1 (n = 723, 63%), which predominated in both Wave 1 (73%, followed by lineages N.8 [6%] and B.1.1 [6%]) and Wave 2 (56%, followed by lineages B.1.549 [21%] and B.1.530 [5%]). Over the study period, we estimated 280 SARS-CoV-2 virus importations into Coastal Kenya. Mombasa City, a vital tourist and commercial centre for the region, was a major route for virus imports, most of which occurred during Wave 1, when many Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) government restrictions were still in force. In Wave 2, inter-county transmission predominated, resulting in the emergence of local transmission chains and diversity. Conclusions: Our analysis supports moving COVID-19 control strategies in the region from a focus on international travel to strategies that will reduce local transmission. Funding: This work was funded by The Wellcome (grant numbers: 220985, 203077/Z/16/Z, 220977/Z/20/Z, and 222574/Z/21/Z) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), project references: 17/63/and 16/136/33 using UK Aid from the UK government to support global health research, The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funding agencies.

Experience of Kenyan researchers and policy-makers with knowledge translation during COVID-19: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Researchers at the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) carried out knowledge translation (KT) activities to support policy-makers as the Kenyan Government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the usefulness of these activities to identify the facilitators and barriers to KT and suggest actions that facilitate KT in similar settings. DESIGN: The study adopted a qualitative interview study design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Researchers at KWTRP in Kenya who were involved in KT activities during the COVID-19 pandemic (n=6) were selected to participate in key informant interviews to describe their experience. In addition, the policy-makers with whom these researchers engaged were invited to participate (n=11). Data were collected from March 2021 to August 2021. ANALYSIS: A thematic analysis approach was adopted using a predetermined framework to develop a coding structure consisting of the core thematic areas. Any other theme that emerged in the coding process was included. RESULTS: Both groups reported that the KT activities increased evidence availability and accessibility, enhanced policy-makers' motivation to use evidence, improved capacity to use research evidence and strengthened relationships. Policy-makers shared that a key facilitator of this was the knowledge products shared and the regular interaction with researchers. Both groups mentioned that a key barrier was the timeliness of generating evidence, which was exacerbated by the pandemic. They felt it was important to institutionalise KT to improve readiness to respond to public health emergencies. CONCLUSION: This study provides a real-world example of the use of KT during a public health crisis. It further highlights the need to institutionalise KT in research and policy institutions in African countries to respond readily to public health emergencies.

Epidemiology of COVID-19 infections on routine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology testing in Coastal Kenya.

Background: There are limited studies in Africa describing the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and serostatus of individuals tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We tested routine samples from the Coastal part of Kenya between 17 th March 2020 and 30 th June 2021. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 infections identified using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and clinical surveillance data at the point of sample collection were used to classify as either symptomatic or asymptomatic. IgG antibodies were measured in sera samples, using a well validated in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Mombasa accounted for 56.2% of all the 99,694 naso-pharyngeal/oro-pharyngeal swabs tested, and males constituted the majority tested (73.4%). A total of 7737 (7.7%) individuals were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-PCR. The majority (i.e., 92.4%) of the RT-PCR positive individuals were asymptomatic. Testing was dominated by mass screening and travellers, and even at health facility level 91.6% of tests were from individuals without symptoms. Out of the 97,124 tests from asymptomatic individuals 7,149 (7%) were positive and of the 2,568 symptomatic individuals 588 (23%) were positive. In total, 2458 serum samples were submitted with paired naso-pharyngeal/oro-pharyngeal samples and 45% of the RT-PCR positive samples and 20% of the RT-PCR negative samples were paired with positive serum samples. Symptomatic individuals had significantly higher antibody levels than asymptomatic individuals and become RT-PCR negative on repeat testing earlier than asymptomatic individuals. Conclusions: In conclusion, the majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections identified by routine testing in Coastal Kenya were asymptomatic. This reflects the testing practice of health services in Kenya, but also implies that asymptomatic infection is very common in the population. Symptomatic infection may be less common, or it may be that individuals do not present for testing when they have symptoms.

On the resilience of health systems: A methodological exploration across countries in the WHO African Region.

The need for resilient health systems is recognized as important for the attainment of health outcomes, given the current shocks to health services. Resilience has been defined as the capacity to "prepare and effectively respond to crises; maintain core functions; and, informed by lessons learnt, reorganize if conditions require it". There is however a recognized dichotomy between its conceptualization in literature, and its application in practice. We propose two mutually reinforcing categories of resilience, representing resilience targeted at potentially known shocks, and the inherent health system resilience, needed to respond to unpredictable shock events. We determined capacities for each of these categories, and explored this methodological proposition by computing country-specific scores against each capacity, for the 47 Member States of the WHO African Region. We assessed face validity of the computed index, to ensure derived values were representative of the different elements of resilience, and were predictive of health outcomes, and computed bias-corrected non-parametric confidence intervals of the emergency preparedness and response (EPR) and inherent system resilience (ISR) sub-indices, as well as the overall resilience index, using 1000 bootstrap replicates. We also explored the internal consistency and scale reliability of the index, by calculating Cronbach alphas for the various proposed capacities and their corresponding attributes. We computed overall resilience to be 48.4 out of a possible 100 in the 47 assessed countries, with generally lower levels of ISR. For ISR, the capacities were weakest for transformation capacity, followed by mobilization of resources, awareness of own capacities, self-regulation and finally diversity of services respectively. This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of empirical evidence on health systems and service resilience, which is of great importance to the functionality and performance of health systems, particularly in the context of COVID-19. It provides a methodological reflection for monitoring health system resilience, revealing areas of improvement in the provision of essential health services during shock events, and builds a case for the need for mechanisms, at country level, that address both specific and non-specific shocks to the health system, ultimately for the attainment of improved health outcomes.

Seroprevalence of Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Healthcare Workers in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the seroprevalence of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Africa. We report findings from a survey among HCWs in 3 counties in Kenya. METHODS: We recruited 684 HCWs from Kilifi (rural), Busia (rural), and Nairobi (urban) counties. The serosurvey was conducted between 30 July and 4 December 2020. We tested for immunoglobulin G antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Assay sensitivity and specificity were 92.7 (95% CI, 87.9-96.1) and 99.0% (95% CI, 98.1-99.5), respectively. We adjusted prevalence estimates, using bayesian modeling to account for assay performance. RESULTS: The crude overall seroprevalence was 19.7% (135 of 684). After adjustment for assay performance, seroprevalence was 20.8% (95% credible interval, 17.5%-24.4%). Seroprevalence varied significantly (P < .001) by site: 43.8% (95% credible interval, 35.8%-52.2%) in Nairobi, 12.6% (8.8%-17.1%) in Busia and 11.5% (7.2%-17.6%) in Kilifi. In a multivariable model controlling for age, sex, and site, professional cadre was not associated with differences in seroprevalence. CONCLUSION: These initial data demonstrate a high seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in Kenya. There was significant variation in seroprevalence by region, but not by cadre.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of essential and advanced critical care for COVID-19 patients in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Case management of symptomatic COVID-19 patients is a key health system intervention. The Kenyan government embarked to fill capacity gaps in essential and advanced critical care (ACC) needed for the management of severe and critical COVID-19. However, given scarce resources, gaps in both essential and ACC persist. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of investments in essential and ACC to inform the prioritisation of investment decisions. METHODS: We employed a decision tree model to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of investment in essential care (EC) and investment in both essential and ACC (EC +ACC) compared with current healthcare provision capacity (status quo) for COVID-19 patients in Kenya. We used a health system perspective, and an inpatient care episode time horizon. Cost data were obtained from primary empirical analysis while outcomes data were obtained from epidemiological model estimates. We used univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The status quo option is more costly and less effective compared with investment in EC and is thus dominated by the later. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of investment in essential and ACC (EC+ACC) was US$1378.21 per disability-adjusted life-year averted and hence not a cost-effective strategy when compared with Kenya's cost-effectiveness threshold (US$908). CONCLUSION: When the criterion of cost-effectiveness is considered, and within the context of resource scarcity, Kenya will achieve better value for money if it prioritises investments in EC before investments in ACC. This information on cost-effectiveness will however need to be considered as part of a multicriteria decision-making framework that uses a range of criteria that reflect societal values of the Kenyan society.

Stark choices: exploring health sector costs of policy responses to COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has altered health sector capacity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost data to inform evidence-based priority setting are urgently needed. Consequently, in this paper, we calculate the full economic health sector costs of COVID-19 clinical management in 79 LMICs under different epidemiological scenarios. METHODS: We used country-specific epidemiological projections from a dynamic transmission model to determine number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths over 1 year under four mitigation scenarios. We defined the health sector response for three base LMICs through guidelines and expert opinion. We calculated costs through local resource use and price data and extrapolated costs across 79 LMICs. Lastly, we compared cost estimates against gross domestic product (GDP) and total annual health expenditure in 76 LMICs. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinical management costs vary greatly by country, ranging between <0.1%-12% of GDP and 0.4%-223% of total annual health expenditure (excluding out-of-pocket payments). Without mitigation policies, COVID-19 clinical management costs per capita range from US$43.39 to US$75.57; in 22 of 76 LMICs, these costs would surpass total annual health expenditure. In a scenario of stringent social distancing, costs per capita fall to US$1.10-US$1.32. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first dataset of COVID-19 clinical management costs across LMICs. These costs can be used to inform decision-making on priority setting. Our results show that COVID-19 clinical management costs in LMICs are substantial, even in scenarios of moderate social distancing. Low-income countries are particularly vulnerable and some will struggle to cope with almost any epidemiological scenario. The choices facing LMICs are likely to remain stark and emergency financial support will be needed.

COVID-19 transmission dynamics underlying epidemic waves in Kenya.

Policy decisions on COVID-19 interventions should be informed by a local, regional and national understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. Epidemic waves may result when restrictions are lifted or poorly adhered to, variants with new phenotypic properties successfully invade, or infection spreads to susceptible subpopulations. Three COVID-19 epidemic waves have been observed in Kenya. Using a mechanistic mathematical model, we explain the first two distinct waves by differences in contact rates in high and low social-economic groups, and the third wave by the introduction of higher-transmissibility variants. Reopening schools led to a minor increase in transmission between the second and third waves. Socioeconomic and urban­rural population structure are critical determinants of viral transmission in Kenya.