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.

Using a One Health approach to prioritize zoonotic diseases in China, 2019.

BACKGROUND: China is vulnerable to zoonotic disease transmission due to a large agricultural work force, sizable domestic livestock population, and a highly biodiverse ecology. To better address this threat, representatives from the human, animal, and environmental health sectors in China held a One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) workshop in May 2019 to develop a list of priority zoonotic diseases for multisectoral, One Health collaboration. METHODS: Representatives used the OHZDP Process, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC), to prioritize zoonotic diseases for China. Representatives defined the criteria used for prioritization and determined questions and weights for each individual criterion. A review of English and Chinese literature was conducted prior to the workshop to collect disease specific information on prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from China and the Western Pacific Region for zoonotic diseases considered for prioritization. RESULTS: Thirty zoonotic diseases were evaluated for prioritization. Criteria selected included: 1) disease hazard/severity (case fatality rate) in humans, 2) epidemic scale and intensity (in humans and animals) in China, 3) economic impact, 4) prevention and control, and 5) social impact. Disease specific information was obtained from 792 articles (637 in English and 155 in Chinese) and subject matter experts for the prioritization process. Following discussion of the OHZDP Tool output among disease experts, five priority zoonotic diseases were identified for China: avian influenza, echinococcosis, rabies, plague, and brucellosis. CONCLUSION: Representatives agreed on a list of five priority zoonotic diseases that can serve as a foundation to strengthen One Health collaboration for disease prevention and control in China; this list was developed prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. Next steps focused on establishing a multisectoral, One Health coordination mechanism, improving multisectoral linkages in laboratory testing and surveillance platforms, creating multisectoral preparedness and response plans, and increasing workforce capacity.

The first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic progressed more slowly in Africa than the rest of the world, by December, 2020, the second wave appeared to be much more aggressive with many more cases. To date, the pandemic situation in all 55 African Union (AU) Member States has not been comprehensively reviewed. We aimed to evaluate reported COVID-19 epidemiology data to better understand the pandemic's progression in Africa. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional analysis between Feb 14 and Dec 31, 2020, using COVID-19 epidemiological, testing, and mitigation strategy data reported by AU Member States to assess trends and identify the response and mitigation efforts at the country, regional, and continent levels. We did descriptive analyses on the variables of interest including cumulative and weekly incidence rates, case fatality ratios (CFRs), tests per case ratios, growth rates, and public health and social measures in place. FINDINGS: As of Dec 31, 2020, African countries had reported 2 763 421 COVID-19 cases and 65 602 deaths, accounting for 3·4% of the 82 312 150 cases and 3·6% of the 1 798 994 deaths reported globally. Nine of the 55 countries accounted for more than 82·6% (2 283 613) of reported cases. 18 countries reported CFRs greater than the global CFR (2·2%). 17 countries reported test per case ratios less than the recommended ten to 30 tests per case ratio range. At the peak of the first wave in Africa in July, 2020, the mean daily number of new cases was 18 273. As of Dec 31, 2020, 40 (73%) countries had experienced or were experiencing their second wave of cases with the continent reporting a mean of 23 790 daily new cases for epidemiological week 53. 48 (96%) of 50 Member States had five or more stringent public health and social measures in place by April 15, 2020, but this number had decreased to 36 (72%) as of Dec 31, 2020, despite an increase in cases in the preceding month. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis showed that the African continent had a more severe second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic than the first, and highlights the importance of examining multiple epidemiological variables down to the regional and country levels over time. These country-specific and regional results informed the implementation of continent-wide initiatives and supported equitable distribution of supplies and technical assistance. Monitoring and analysis of these data over time are essential for continued situational awareness, especially as Member States attempt to balance controlling COVID-19 transmission with ensuring stable economies and livelihoods. FUNDING: None.