Using mortuary and burial data to place COVID-19 in Lusaka, Zambia within a global context.

Reported COVID-19 cases and associated mortality remain low in many sub-Saharan countries relative to global averages, but true impact is difficult to estimate given limitations around surveillance and mortality registration. In Lusaka, Zambia, burial registration and SARS-CoV-2 prevalence data during 2020 allow estimation of excess mortality and transmission. Relative to pre-pandemic patterns, we estimate age-dependent mortality increases, totalling 3212 excess deaths (95% CrI: 2104-4591), representing an 18.5% (95% CrI: 13.0-25.2%) increase relative to pre-pandemic levels. Using a dynamical model-based inferential framework, we find that these mortality patterns and SARS-CoV-2 prevalence data are in agreement with established COVID-19 severity estimates. Our results support hypotheses that COVID-19 impact in Lusaka during 2020 was consistent with COVID-19 epidemics elsewhere, without requiring exceptional explanations for low reported figures. For more equitable decision-making during future pandemics, barriers to ascertaining attributable mortality in low-income settings must be addressed and factored into discourse around reported impact differences.

Modelling the relative cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine compared to investment in vector control or chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has recommended a 4-dose schedule of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) vaccine for children in regions of moderate to high P. falciparum transmission. Faced with limited supply and finite resources, global funders and domestic malaria control programs will need to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of RTS,S and identify target areas for vaccine implementation relative to scale-up of existing interventions. METHODS: Using an individual-based mathematical model of P. falciparum, we modelled the cost-effectiveness of RTS,S across a range of settings in sub-Saharan Africa, incorporating various rainfall patterns, insecticide-treated net (ITN) use, treatment coverage, and parasite prevalence bands. We compare age-based and seasonal RTS,S administration to increasing ITN usage, switching to next generation ITNs in settings experiencing insecticide-resistance, and introduction of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) in areas of seasonal transmission. RESULTS: For RTS,S to be the most cost-effective intervention option considered, the maximum cost per dose was less than $9.30 USD in 90.9% of scenarios. Nearly all (89.8%) values at or above $9.30 USD per dose were in settings with 60% established bed net use and / or with established SMC, and 76.3% were in the highest PfPR2-10 band modelled (40%). Addition of RTS,S to strategies involving 60% ITN use, increased ITN usage or a switch to PBO nets, and SMC, if eligible, still led to significant marginal case reductions, with a median of 2,653 (IQR: 1,741 to 3,966) cases averted per 100,000 people annually, and 82,270 (IQR: 54,034 to 123,105) cases averted per 100,000 fully vaccinated children (receiving at least three doses). CONCLUSIONS: Use of RTS,S results in reductions in malaria cases and deaths even when layered upon existing interventions. When comparing relative cost-effectiveness, scale up of ITNs, introduction of SMC, and switching to new technology nets should be prioritized in eligible settings.