Impact of a Newly Established Revolving Outbreak Investigation Fund on Timeliness of Response to Public Health Emergencies in Nigeria.

Timely access to emergency funding has been identified as a bottleneck for outbreak response in Nigeria. In February 2019, a new revolving outbreak investigation fund (ROIF) was established by the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). We abstracted the date of NCDC notification, date of verification, and date of response for 25 events that occurred prior to establishing the fund (April 2017 to August 2019) and for 8 events that occurred after establishing the fund (February to October 2019). The median time to notification (1 day) and to verification (0 days) did not change after establishing the ROIF, but the median time to response significantly decreased, from 6 days to 2 days (P = .003). Response to disease outbreaks was accelerated by access to emergency funding with a clear approval process. We recommend that the ROIF should be financed by the national government through budget allocation. Finally, development partners can provide financial support for the existing fund and technical assistance for protocol development toward financial accountability and sustainability.

Epidemiological comparison of the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria, February 2020-April 2021.

BACKGROUND: With reports of surges in COVID-19 case numbers across over 50 countries, country-level epidemiological analysis is required to inform context-appropriate response strategies for containment and mitigation of the outbreak. We aimed to compare the epidemiological features of the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Nigeria. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System data of the first and second epidemiological waves, which were between 27 February and 24 October 2020, and 25 October 2020 to 3 April 2021, respectively. Descriptive statistical measures including frequencies and percentages, test positivity rate (TPR), cumulative incidence (CI) and case fatality rates (CFRs) were compared. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out in STATA V.13. RESULTS: There were 802 143 tests recorded during the study period (362 550 and 439 593 in the first and second waves, respectively). Of these, 66 121 (18.2%) and 91 644 (20.8%) tested positive in the first and second waves, respectively. There was a 21.3% increase in the number of tests conducted in the second wave with TPR increasing by 14.3%. CI during the first and second waves were 30.3/100 000 and 42.0/100 000 respectively. During the second wave, confirmed COVID-19 cases increased among females and people 30 years old or younger and decreased among urban residents and individuals with travel history within 14 days of sample collection (p value <0.001). Most confirmed cases were asymptomatic at diagnosis during both waves: 74.9% in the first wave; 79.7% in the second wave. CFR decreased during the second wave (0.7%) compared with the first wave (1.8%). CONCLUSION: Nigeria experienced a larger but less severe second wave of COVID-19. Continued implementation of public health and social measures is needed to mitigate the resurgence of another wave.