Differential in-hospital mortality and intensive care treatment over time: Informing hospital pathways for modelling COVID-19 in South Africa.

There are limited published data within sub-Saharan Africa describing hospital pathways of COVID-19 patients hospitalized. These data are crucial for the parameterisation of epidemiological and cost models, and for planning purposes for the region. We evaluated COVID-19 hospital admissions from the South African national hospital surveillance system (DATCOV) during the first three COVID-19 waves between May 2020 and August 2021. We describe probabilities and admission into intensive care units (ICU), mechanical ventilation, death, and lengths of stay (LOS) in non-ICU and ICU care in public and private sectors. A log-binomial model was used to quantify mortality risk, ICU treatment and mechanical ventilation between time periods, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, health sector and province. There were 342,700 COVID-19-related hospital admissions during the study period. Risk of ICU admission was 16% lower during wave periods (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.84 [0.82-0.86]) compared to between-wave periods. Mechanical ventilation was more likely during a wave overall (aRR 1.18 [1.13-1.23]), but patterns between waves were inconsistent, while mortality risk in non-ICU and ICU were 39% (aRR 1.39 [1.35-1.43]) and 31% (aRR 1.31 [1.27-1.36]) higher during a wave, compared to between-wave periods, respectively. If patients had had the same probability of death during waves vs between-wave periods, we estimated approximately 24% [19%-30%] of deaths (19,600 [15,200-24,000]) would not have occurred over the study period. LOS differed by age (older patients stayed longer), ward type (ICU stays were longer than non-ICU) and death/recovery outcome (time to death was shorter in non-ICU); however, LOS remained similar between time periods. Healthcare capacity constraints as inferred by wave period have a large impact on in-hospital mortality. It is crucial for modelling health systems strain and budgets to consider how input parameters related to hospitalisation change during and between waves, especially in settings with severely constrained resources.

The National COVID-19 Epi Model (NCEM): Estimating cases, admissions and deaths for the first wave of COVID-19 in South Africa.

In March 2020 the South African COVID-19 Modelling Consortium was formed to support government planning for COVID-19 cases and related healthcare. Models were developed jointly by local disease modelling groups to estimate cases, resource needs and deaths due to COVID-19. The National COVID-19 Epi Model (NCEM) while initially developed as a deterministic compartmental model of SARS-Cov-2 transmission in the nine provinces of South Africa, was adapted several times over the course of the first wave of infection in response to emerging local data and changing needs of government. By the end of the first wave, the NCEM had developed into a stochastic, spatially-explicit compartmental transmission model to estimate the total and reported incidence of COVID-19 across the 52 districts of South Africa. The model adopted a generalised Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed structure that accounted for the clinical profile of SARS-COV-2 (asymptomatic, mild, severe and critical cases) and avenues of treatment access (outpatient, and hospitalisation in non-ICU and ICU wards). Between end-March and early September 2020, the model was updated 11 times with four key releases to generate new sets of projections and scenario analyses to be shared with planners in the national and provincial Departments of Health, the National Treasury and other partners. Updates to model structure included finer spatial granularity, limited access to treatment, and the inclusion of behavioural heterogeneity in relation to the adoption of Public Health and Social Measures. These updates were made in response to local data and knowledge and the changing needs of the planners. The NCEM attempted to incorporate a high level of local data to contextualise the model appropriately to address South Africa's population and health system characteristics that played a vital role in producing and updating estimates of resource needs, demonstrating the importance of harnessing and developing local modelling capacity.

Reduction in initiations of drug-sensitive tuberculosis treatment in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of retrospective, facility-level data

In response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, South Africa implemented a strict lockdown in March 2020 before its first COVID-19 wave started, gradually lifted restrictions between May and September 2020, and then re-imposed restrictions in December 2020 in response to its second wave. There is concern that COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, the deprioritization of TB activities, fear of transmission, and societal restrictions led to a reduction in tuberculosis (TB) treatment initiations. We analysed monthly public sector, facility-level data from South Africa's District Health Information System (DHIS) from January 2019 to April 2021 to quantify changes in TB treatment initiation numbers stratified by province, setting, and facility type and compared the timing of these changes to COVID-19 case numbers and government lockdown levels. At the 1189 facilities that reported observations for all 28 months of our study period, TB treatment initiations in 2020 were 20.4% lower than in 2019 and 21.9% lower in the first four months of 2021 than in 2019. At the 3669 facilities that reported observations in ≤28 months, numbers of TB treatment initiations declined sharply in all provinces in May-August 2020, compared to the same months in 2019. After recovering somewhat in the last four months of 2020, numbers plummeted again in early 2021. Percentage reductions were somewhat larger in urban and peri-urban areas than in rural areas. Most provinces experienced a clear inverse relationship between COVID-19 cases and TB treatment initiations but little relationship between TB treatment initiations and lockdown level. The COVID-19 pandemic and responses to it resulted in substantial declines in the number of individuals starting treatment for TB in South Africa and risked progress toward achieving TB management goals. Exceptional effort will be needed to sustain gains in combating TB.

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.

Reduction in initiations of drug-sensitive tuberculosis treatment in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of retrospective, facility-level data.

In response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, South Africa implemented a strict lockdown in March 2020 before its first COVID-19 wave started, gradually lifted restrictions between May and September 2020, and then re-imposed restrictions in December 2020 in response to its second wave. There is concern that COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, the deprioritization of TB activities, fear of transmission, and societal restrictions led to a reduction in tuberculosis (TB) treatment initiations. We analysed monthly public sector, facility-level data from South Africa's District Health Information System (DHIS) from January 2019 to April 2021 to quantify changes in TB treatment initiation numbers stratified by province, setting, and facility type and compared the timing of these changes to COVID-19 case numbers and government lockdown levels. At the 1189 facilities that reported observations for all 28 months of our study period, TB treatment initiations in 2020 were 20.4% lower than in 2019 and 21.9% lower in the first four months of 2021 than in 2019. At the 3669 facilities that reported observations in ≤28 months, numbers of TB treatment initiations declined sharply in all provinces in May-August 2020, compared to the same months in 2019. After recovering somewhat in the last four months of 2020, numbers plummeted again in early 2021. Percentage reductions were somewhat larger in urban and peri-urban areas than in rural areas. Most provinces experienced a clear inverse relationship between COVID-19 cases and TB treatment initiations but little relationship between TB treatment initiations and lockdown level. The COVID-19 pandemic and responses to it resulted in substantial declines in the number of individuals starting treatment for TB in South Africa and risked progress toward achieving TB management goals. Exceptional effort will be needed to sustain gains in combating TB.

Clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 lineages compared to BA.1 and Delta in South Africa.

Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 drove a fifth wave of COVID-19 cases in South Africa. Here, we use the presence/absence of the S-gene target as a proxy for SARS-CoV-2 variant/lineage for infections diagnosed using the TaqPath PCR assay between 1 October 2021 and 26 April 2022. We link national COVID-19 individual-level data including case, laboratory test and hospitalisation data. We assess severity using multivariable logistic regression comparing the risk of hospitalisation and risk of severe disease, once hospitalised, for Delta, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 infections. After controlling for factors associated with hospitalisation and severe outcome respectively, BA.4/BA.5-infected individuals had a similar odds of hospitalisation (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.55) and severe outcome (aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.26) compared to BA.1-infected individuals. Newly emerged Omicron lineages BA.4/BA.5 showed similar severity to the BA.1 lineage and continued to show reduced clinical severity compared to the Delta variant.

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.

Assessment of epidemiological and genetic characteristics and clinical outcomes of resistance to bedaquiline in patients treated for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Bedaquiline improves outcomes of patients with rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis; however, emerging resistance threatens this success. We did a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis evaluating the epidemiology, genetic basis, and treatment outcomes associated with bedaquiline resistance, using data from South Africa (2015-19). METHODS: Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis starting bedaquiline-based treatment had surveillance samples submitted at baseline, month 2, and month 6, along with demographic information. Culture-positive baseline and post-baseline isolates had phenotypic resistance determined. Eligible patients were aged 12 years or older with a positive culture sample at baseline or, if the sample was invalid or negative, a sample within 30 days of the baseline sample submitted for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. For the longitudinal study, the first surveillance sample had to be phenotypically susceptible to bedaquiline for inclusion. Whole-genome sequencing was done on bedaquiline-resistant isolates and a subset of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases tuberculosis reference laboratory, and national tuberculosis surveillance databases were matched to the Electronic Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Register. We assessed baseline resistance prevalence, mutations, transmission, cumulative resistance incidence, and odds ratios (ORs) associating risk factors for resistance with patient outcomes. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 8041 patients had surveillance samples submitted, of whom 2023 were included in the cross-sectional analysis and 695 in the longitudinal analysis. Baseline bedaquiline resistance prevalence was 3·8% (76 of 2023 patients; 95% CI 2·9-4·6), and it was associated with previous exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine (OR 7·1, 95% CI 2·3-21·9) and with rifampicin-resistant or MDR tuberculosis with additional resistance to either fluoroquinolones or injectable drugs (pre-extensively-drug resistant [XDR] tuberculosis: 4·2, 1·7-10·5) or to both (XDR tuberculosis: 4·8, 2·0-11·7). Rv0678 mutations were the sole genetic basis of phenotypic resistance. Baseline resistance could be attributed to previous bedaquiline or clofazimine exposure in four (5·3%) of 76 patients and to primary transmission in six (7·9%). Odds of successful treatment outcomes were lower in patients with baseline bedaquiline resistance (0·5, 0·3-1). Resistance during treatment developed in 16 (2·3%) of 695 patients, at a median of 90 days (IQR 62-195), with 12 of these 16 having pre-XDR or XDR. INTERPRETATION: Bedaquiline resistance was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Rapid assessment of bedaquiline resistance, especially when patients were previously exposed to bedaquiline or clofazimine, should be prioritised at baseline or if patients remain culture-positive after 2 months of treatment. Preventing resistance by use of novel combination therapies, current treatment optimisation, and patient support is essential. FUNDING: National Institute for Communicable Diseases of South Africa.

The intersecting pandemics of tuberculosis and COVID-19: population-level and patient-level impact, clinical presentation, and corrective interventions.

The global tuberculosis burden remains substantial, with more than 10 million people newly ill per year. Nevertheless, tuberculosis incidence has slowly declined over the past decade, and mortality has decreased by almost a third in tandem. This positive trend was abruptly reversed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which in many parts of the world has resulted in a substantial reduction in tuberculosis testing and case notifications, with an associated increase in mortality, taking global tuberculosis control back by roughly 10 years. Here, we consider points of intersection between the tuberculosis and COVID-19 pandemics, identifying wide-ranging approaches that could be taken to reverse the devastating effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis control. We review the impact of COVID-19 at the population level on tuberculosis case detection, morbidity and mortality, and the patient-level impact, including susceptibility to disease, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and prognosis. We propose strategies to reverse or mitigate the deleterious effects of COVID-19 and restore tuberculosis services. Finally, we highlight research priorities and major challenges and controversies that need to be addressed to restore and advance the global response to tuberculosis.

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.

Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of Omicron in South Africa.

We provide two methods for monitoring reinfection trends in routine surveillance data to identify signatures of changes in reinfection risk and apply these approaches to data from South Africa's severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic to date. Although we found no evidence of increased reinfection risk associated with circulation of the Beta (B.1.351) or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, we did find clear, population-level evidence to suggest immune evasion by the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in previously infected individuals in South Africa. Reinfections occurring between 1 November 2021 and 31 January 2022 were detected in individuals infected in all three previous waves, and there has been an increase in the risk of having a third infection since mid-November 2021.

Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant of concern was identified in South Africa in November, 2021, and was associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases. We aimed to assess the clinical severity of infections with the omicron variant using S gene target failure (SGTF) on the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 PCR test as a proxy. METHODS: We did data linkages for national, South African COVID-19 case data, SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data, SARS-CoV-2 genome data, and COVID-19 hospital admissions data. For individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via TaqPath PCR tests, infections were designated as either SGTF or non-SGTF. The delta variant was identified by genome sequencing. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we assessed disease severity and hospitalisations by comparing individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, and we further assessed disease severity by comparing SGTF-infected individuals diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, with delta variant-infected individuals diagnosed between April 1 and Nov 9, 2021. FINDINGS: From Oct 1 (week 39), 2021, to Dec 6 (week 49), 2021, 161 328 cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Africa. 38 282 people were diagnosed via TaqPath PCR tests and 29 721 SGTF infections and 1412 non-SGTF infections were identified. The proportion of SGTF infections increased from two (3·2%) of 63 in week 39 to 21 978 (97·9%) of 22 455 in week 48. After controlling for factors associated with hospitalisation, individuals with SGTF infections had significantly lower odds of admission than did those with non-SGTF infections (256 [2·4%] of 10 547 vs 121 [12·8%] of 948; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·2, 95% CI 0·1-0·3). After controlling for factors associated with disease severity, the odds of severe disease were similar between hospitalised individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections (42 [21%] of 204 vs 45 [40%] of 113; aOR 0·7, 95% CI 0·3-1·4). Compared with individuals with earlier delta variant infections, SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly lower odds of severe disease (496 [62·5%] of 793 vs 57 [23·4%] of 244; aOR 0·3, 95% CI 0·2-0·5), after controlling for factors associated with disease severity. INTERPRETATION: Our early analyses suggest a significantly reduced odds of hospitalisation among individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed during the same time period. SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly reduced odds of severe disease compared with individuals infected earlier with the delta variant. Some of this reduced severity is probably a result of previous immunity. FUNDING: The South African Medical Research Council, the South African National Department of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the African Society of Laboratory Medicine, Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.

Cost-effectiveness of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone for COVID-19 Treatment in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone and remdesivir have the potential to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-related mortality or recovery time, but their cost-effectiveness in countries with limited intensive care resources is unknown. METHODS: We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of (1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to nonventilated patients, (2) dexamethasone alone to both nonventilated and ventilated patients, (3) remdesivir to nonventilated patients only, and (4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only, all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the health care system perspective in 2020 US dollars, deaths averted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each scenario. RESULTS: Remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 408 (uncertainty range, 229-1891) deaths averted (assuming no efficacy [uncertainty range, 0%-70%] of remdesivir) compared with standard care and to save $15 million. This result was driven by the efficacy of dexamethasone and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone for nonventilated and ventilated patients requires an additional $159 000 and averts 689 [uncertainty range, 330-1118] deaths, resulting in $231 per death averted, relative to standard care. CONCLUSIONS: The use of remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared with standard care by reducing ICU days. Further efforts to improve recovery time with remdesivir and dexamethasone in ICUs could save lives and costs in South Africa.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir and dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment in South Africa.

Background South Africa recently experienced a first peak in COVID-19 cases and mortality. Dexamethasone and remdesivir both have the potential to reduce COVID-related mortality, but their cost-effectiveness in a resource-limited setting with scant intensive care resources is unknown. Methods We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed cost-effectiveness of 1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to non-ventilated patients, 2) dexamethasone alone to both non-ventilated and ventilated patients, 3) remdesivir to non-ventilated patients only, and 4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only; all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the healthcare system perspective in 2020 USD, deaths averted, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of each scenario. Results Remdesivir for non-ventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 1,111 deaths averted (assuming a 0-30% efficacy of remdesivir) compared to standard care, and save $11.5 million. The result was driven by the efficacy of the drugs, and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone to ventilated and non-ventilated patients requires additional $159,000 and averts 1,146 deaths, resulting in $139 per death averted, relative to standard care. Conclusions The use of dexamethasone for ventilated and remdesivir for non-ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared to standard care. Given the economic and health benefits of both drugs, efforts to ensure access to these medications is paramount.