A health systems intervention to strengthen the integration of tuberculosis and COVID-19 detection: Outcomes of a quasi-experimental study in a high burden tuberculosis district in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on tuberculosis (TB) detection have been well documented. Despite shared symptoms, guidance for integrated screening for TBand COVID-19 are limited, and opportunities for health systems strengthening curtailed by lockdowns. We partnered with a high TB burden district in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, to co-develop an integrated approach to assessing COVID-19 and TB, delivered using online learning and quality improvement, and evaluated its performance on TB testing and detection. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study incorporating a quasi-experimental design and process evaluation in 10 intervention and 18 control clinics. Nurses in all 28 clinics were all provided access to a four-session online course to integrate TB and COVID-19 screening and testing, which was augmented with some webinar and in-person support at the 10 intervention clinics. We estimated the effects of exposure to this additional support using interrupted time series Poisson regression mixed models. Process evaluation data comprised interviews before and after the intervention. Thematic coding was employed to provide explanations for effects of the intervention. RESULTS: Clinic-level support at intervention clinics was associated with a markedly higher uptake (177 nurses from 10 intervention clinics vs. 19 from 18 control clinics). Lack of familiarity with online learning, and a preference for group learning hindered the transition from face-to-face to online learning. Even so, any exposure to training was initially associated with higher rates of GeneXpert testing (adjusted incidence ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.15) and higher positive TB diagnosis (IRR 1.38, 1.11-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of interventions to strengthen TB case detection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings support the feasibility of a shift to online learning approaches in low-resource settings with appropriate support and suggest that even low-intensity interventions are capable of activating nurses to integrate existing disease control priorities during pandemic conditions.

Applying learning health systems thinking in codeveloping integrated tuberculosis interventions in the contexts of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic reversed much of global progress made in combatting tuberculosis, with South Africa experiencing one of the largest impacts on tuberculosis detection. The aim of this paper is to share our experiences in applying learning health systems (LHS) thinking to the codevelopment of an intervention improving an integrated response to COVID-19 and tuberculosis in a South African district. A sequential partially mixed-methods study was undertaken between 2018 and 2021 in the district of Amajuba in KwaZulu-Natal. Here, we report on the formulation of a Theory of Change, codesigning and refining proposed interventions, and piloting and evaluating codesigned interventions in primary healthcare facilities, through an LHS lens. Following the establishment and formalisation of a district Learning Community, diagnostic work and a codevelopment of a theory of change, intervention packages tailored according to pandemic lockdowns were developed, piloted and scaled up. This process illustrates how a community of learning can generate more responsive, localised interventions, and suggests that the establishment of a shared space of research governance can provide a degree of resilience to facilitate adaption to external shocks. Four main lessons have been gleaned from our experience in adopting an LHS approach in a South African district, which are (1) the importance of building and sustaining relationships, (2) the utility of colearning, coproduction and adaptive capacity, (3) the centrality of theory-driven systems strengthening and (4) reflections on LHS as a framework.

Safety evaluation of the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers in the Sisonke study in South Africa: A phase 3b implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evaluation of the safety profile of vaccines after licensure is crucial to accurately characterise safety beyond clinical trials, support continued use, and thereby improve public confidence. The Sisonke study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. Here, we present the safety data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this open-label phase 3b implementation study among all eligible HCWs in South Africa registered in the national Electronic Vaccination Data System (EVDS), we monitored adverse events (AEs) at vaccination sites through self-reporting triggered by text messages after vaccination, healthcare provider reports, and active case finding. The frequency and incidence rate of non-serious and serious AEs were evaluated from the day of first vaccination (17 February 2021) until 28 days after the final vaccination in the study (15 June 2021). COVID-19 breakthrough infections, hospitalisations, and deaths were ascertained via linkage of the electronic vaccination register with existing national databases. Among 477,234 participants, 10,279 AEs were reported, of which 138 (1.3%) were serious AEs (SAEs) or AEs of special interest. Women reported more AEs than men (2.3% versus 1.6%). AE reports decreased with increasing age (3.2% for age 18-30 years, 2.1% for age 31-45 years, 1.8% for age 46-55 years, and 1.5% for age > 55 years). Participants with previous COVID-19 infection reported slightly more AEs (2.6% versus 2.1%). The most common reactogenicity events were headache (n = 4,923) and body aches (n = 4,483), followed by injection site pain (n = 2,767) and fever (n = 2,731), and most occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Two cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and 4 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome were reported post-vaccination. Most SAEs and AEs of special interest (n = 138) occurred at lower than the expected population rates. Vascular (n = 37; 39.1/100,000 person-years) and nervous system disorders (n = 31; 31.7/100,000 person-years), immune system disorders (n = 24; 24.3/100,000 person-years), and infections and infestations (n = 19; 20.1/100,000 person-years) were the most common reported SAE categories. A limitation of the study was the single-arm design, with limited routinely collected morbidity comparator data in the study setting. CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar patterns of AEs as in phase 3 trials. AEs were mostly expected reactogenicity signs and symptoms. Furthermore, most SAEs occurred below expected rates. The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, supporting the continued use of this vaccine in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04838795; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202102855526180.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in health-care workers in South Africa (the Sisonke study): results from a single-arm, open-label, phase 3B, implementation study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in health-care workers in South Africa during two waves of the South African COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: In the single-arm, open-label, phase 3B implementation Sisonke study, health-care workers aged 18 years and older were invited for vaccination at one of 122 vaccination sites nationally. Participants received a single dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Vaccinated participants were linked with their person-level data from one of two national medical insurance schemes (scheme A and scheme B) and matched for COVID-19 risk with an unvaccinated member of the general population. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19, defined as COVID-19-related admission to hospital, hospitalisation requiring critical or intensive care, or death, in health-care workers compared with the general population, ascertained 28 days or more after vaccination or matching, up to data cutoff. This study is registered with the South African National Clinical Trial Registry, DOH-27-022021-6844, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838795, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202102855526180, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 17 and May 17, 2021, 477 102 health-care workers were enrolled and vaccinated, of whom 357 401 (74·9%) were female and 119 701 (25·1%) were male, with a median age of 42·0 years (33·0-51·0). 215 813 vaccinated individuals were matched with 215 813 unvaccinated individuals. As of data cutoff (July 17, 2021), vaccine effectiveness derived from the total matched cohort was 83% (95% CI 75-89) to prevent COVID-19-related deaths, 75% (69-82) to prevent COVID-19-related hospital admissions requiring critical or intensive care, and 67% (62-71) to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalisations. The vaccine effectiveness for all three outcomes were consistent across scheme A and scheme B. The vaccine effectiveness was maintained in older health-care workers and those with comorbidities including HIV infection. During the course of the study, the beta (B.1.351) and then the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns were dominant, and vaccine effectiveness remained consistent (for scheme A plus B vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission during beta wave was 62% [95% CI 42-76] and during delta wave was 67% [62-71], and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death during beta wave was 86% [57-100] and during delta wave was 82% [74-89]). INTERPRETATION: The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine shows effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease and COVID-19-related death after vaccination, and against both beta and delta variants, providing real-world evidence for its use globally. FUNDING: National Treasury of South Africa, the National Department of Health, Solidarity Response Fund NPC, The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, The Elma Vaccines and Immunization Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.