Assessing the impact of regional laboratory networks in East and West Africa on national health security capacities.

National laboratories are a fundamental capacity for public health, contributing to disease surveillance and outbreak response. The establishment of regional laboratory networks has been posited as a means of improving health security across multiple countries. Our study objective was to assess whether membership in regional laboratory networks in Africa has an effect on national health security capacities and outbreak response. We conducted a literature review to select regional laboratory networks in the Eastern and Western African regions. We examined data from the World Health Organization Joint External Evaluation (JEE) mission reports, the 2018 WHO States Parties Annual Report (SPAR), and the 2019 Global Health Security Index (GHS). We compared the average scores of countries that are members of a regional laboratory network to those that are not. We also assessed country-level diagnostic and testing indicators during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found no significant differences in any of the selected health security metrics for member versus non-member countries of the either the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project (EAPHLNP) in the Eastern Africa region, nor for the West African Network of Clinical Laboratories (RESAOLAB) in the Western Africa region. No statistically significant differences were observed in COVID-19 testing rates in either region. Small sample sizes and the inherent heterogeneities in governance, health, and other factors between countries within and between regions limited all analyses. These results suggest potential benefit in setting baseline capacity for network inclusion and developing regional metrics for measuring network impact, but also beyond national health security capacities, other effects that may be required to justify continued support for regional laboratory networks.

Adjusting COVID-19 Seroprevalence Survey Results to Account for Test Sensitivity and Specificity.

Population-based seroprevalence surveys can provide useful estimates of the number of individuals previously infected with serious acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and still susceptible, as well as contribute to better estimates of the case-fatality rate and other measures of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. No serological test is 100% accurate, however, and the standard correction that epidemiologists use to adjust estimates relies on estimates of the test sensitivity and specificity often based on small validation studies. We have developed a fully Bayesian approach to adjust observed prevalence estimates for sensitivity and specificity. Application to a seroprevalence survey conducted in New York State in 2020 demonstrates that this approach results in more realistic-and narrower-credible intervals than the standard sensitivity analysis using confidence interval endpoints. In addition, the model permits incorporating data on the geographical distribution of reported case counts to create informative priors on the cumulative incidence to produce estimates and credible intervals for smaller geographic areas than often can be precisely estimated with seroprevalence surveys.

Access to primary healthcare during lockdown measures for COVID-19 in rural South Africa: an interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether implementation of lockdown orders in South Africa affected ambulatory clinic visitation in rural Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN). DESIGN: Observational cohort SETTING: Data were analysed from 11 primary healthcare clinics in northern KZN. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 46 523 individuals made 89 476 clinic visits during the observation period. EXPOSURE OF INTEREST: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to estimate changes in clinic visitation with a focus on transitions from the prelockdown to the level 5, 4 and 3 lockdown periods. OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily clinic visitation at ambulatory clinics. In stratified analyses, we assessed visitation for the following subcategories: child health, perinatal care and family planning, HIV services, non-communicable diseases and by age and sex strata. RESULTS: We found no change in total clinic visits/clinic/day at the time of implementation of the level 5 lockdown (change from 90.3 to 84.6 mean visits/clinic/day, 95% CI -16.5 to 3.1), or at the transitions to less stringent level 4 and 3 lockdown levels. We did detect a >50% reduction in child healthcare visits at the start of the level 5 lockdown from 11.9 to 4.7 visits/day (-7.1 visits/clinic/day, 95% CI -8.9 to 5.3), both for children aged <1 year and 1-5 years, with a gradual return to prelockdown within 3 months after the first lockdown measure. In contrast, we found no drop in clinic visitation in adults at the start of the level 5 lockdown, or related to HIV care (from 37.5 to 45.6, 8.0 visits/clinic/day, 95% CI 2.1 to 13.8). CONCLUSIONS: In rural KZN, we identified a significant, although temporary, reduction in child healthcare visitation but general resilience of adult ambulatory care provision during the first 4 months of the lockdown. Future work should explore the impacts of the circulating epidemic on primary care provision and long-term impacts of reduced child visitation on outcomes in the region.