COVID-19 seroprevalence cohort survey among health care workers and their household members in Kinshasa, DR Congo, 2020-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Serological surveys offer the most direct measurement to define the immunity status for numerous infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, and can provide valuable insights into understanding transmission patterns. This study describes seroprevalence changes over time in the context of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where COVID-19 case presentation was apparently largely oligo- or asymptomatic, and vaccination coverage remained extremely low. METHODS: A cohort of 635 health care workers (HCW) from 5 health zones of Kinshasa and 670 of their household members was interviewed and sampled in 6 rounds between July 2020 and January 2022. At each round, information on risk exposure and a blood sample were collected. Serology was defined as positive when binding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins were simultaneously present. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence was high at baseline, 17.3% (95% CI 14.4-20.6) and 7.8% (95% CI 5.5-10.8) for HCW and household members, respectively, and fluctuated over time, between 9% and 62.1%. Seropositivity was heterogeneously distributed over the health zones (p < 0.001), ranging from 12.5% (95% CI 6.6-20.8) in N'djili to 33.7% (95% CI 24.6-43.8) in Bandalungwa at baseline for HCW. Seropositivity was associated with increasing rounds adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.75 (95% CI 1.66-1.85), with increasing age aOR 1.11 (95% CI 1.02-1.20), being a female aOR 1.35 (95% CI 1.10-1.66) and being a HCW aOR 2.38 (95% CI 1.80-3.14). There was no evidence that HCW brought the COVID-19 infection back home, with an aOR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.46-0.91) of seropositivity risk among household members in subsequent surveys. There was seroreversion and seroconversion over time, and HCW had a lower risk of seroreverting than household members (aOR 0.60 (95% CI 0.42-0.86)). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were high and dynamic over time in this African setting with low clinical case rates. The absence of association with health profession or general risk behaviors and with HCW positivity in subsequent rounds in HH members, shows the importance of the time-dependent, and not work-related, force of infection. Cohort seroprevalence estimates in a 'new disease' epidemic seem insufficient to guide policy makers for defining control strategies.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and risk of viral exposure among healthcare workers in the South Kivu province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are on the frontline of combating COVID-19, hence are at elevated risk of contracting an infection with SARS-CoV-2. The present study aims to measure the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on HCWs in central sub-Saharan Africa. SETTING: A cross-sectional serological study was conducted at six urban and five rural hospitals during the first pandemic wave in the South Kivu province, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). PARTICIPANTS: Serum specimens from 1029 HCWs employed during the first pandemic wave were collected between August and October 2020, and data on demographics and work-related factors were recorded during structured interviews. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was examined by ELISA. Positive specimens were further tested using a micro-neutralisation assay. Factors driving SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity were assessed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was high among HCWs (33.1%), and significantly higher in urban (41.5%) compared with rural (19.8%) hospitals. Having had presented with COVID-19-like symptoms before was a strong predictor of seropositivity (31.5%). Personal protective equipment (PPE, 88.1% and 11.9%) and alcohol-based hand sanitizer (71.1% and 28.9%) were more often available, and hand hygiene was more often reported after patient contact (63.0% and 37.0%) in urban compared with rural hospitals, respectively. This may suggest that higher exposure during non-work times in high incidence urban areas counteracts higher work protection levels of HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: High SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity indicates widespread transmission of the virus in this region of DRC. Given the absence of publicly reported cases during the same time period at the rural sites, serological studies are very relevant in revealing infection dynamics especially in regions with low diagnostic capacities. This, and discrepancies in the application of PPE between urban and rural sites, should be considered in future pandemic response programmes.

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target.

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

Surfing Corona waves - instead of breaking them: Rethinking the role of natural immunity in COVID-19 policy.

In the first two years of the pandemic, COVID-19 response policies have aimed to break Corona waves through non-pharmaceutical interventions and mass vaccination. However, for long-term strategies to be effective and efficient, and to avoid massive disruption and social harms, it is crucial to introduce the role of natural immunity in our thinking about COVID-19  (or future "Disease-X") control and prevention. We argue that any Corona or similar virus control policy must appropriately balance five key elements simultaneously: balancing the various fundamental interests of the nation, as well as the various interventions within the health sector; tailoring the prevention measures and treatments to individual needs; limiting social interaction restrictions; and balancing the role of vaccinations against the role of naturally induced immunity. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and its differential impact on population segments, we examine this last element in more detail and argue that an important aspect of 'living with the virus' will be to better understand the role of naturally induced immunity in our overall COVID-19 policy response. In our eyes, a policy approach that factors natural immunity should be considered for persons without major comorbidities and those having 'encountered' the antigen in the past.

The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID-19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories-the 'lethal threat' story, followed by the 'economic threat' story, and finally the 'vaccine miracle' story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management-arising from holding on to single storylines-showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of 'wicked' problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

COVID-19: an 'extraterrestrial' disease?

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been regarded as an exceptional disease. Control measures have exclusively focused on 'the virus', while failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease. AIM: We argue that although COVID-19 was initially considered a new challenge, justifying extraordinary response measures, this situation has changed - and so should our response. MAIN ARGUMENTS: We now know that COVID-19 shares many features of common infectious respiratory diseases, and can now ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 has not suddenly presented new problems. Instead, it has exposed and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and the underlying health of the population. COVID-19 is evidently not an 'extraterrestrial' disease. It is a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long-proven principles of medicine and public health. CONCLUSION: A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic-bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to developing a severe form of COVID-19 suggests the need to adopt varying, targeted measures that are able to address risk profiles in an appropriate way. The critical role of comorbidities in disease severity calls for short-term, virus-targeted interventions to be complemented with medium-term policies aimed at reducing the burden of comorbidities, as well as mitigating the risk of transition from infection to disease. Strategies required include upstream prevention, early treatment, and consolidation of the health system.

The COVID-19 pandemic: diverse contexts; different epidemics-how and why?

It is very exceptional that a new disease becomes a true pandemic. Since its emergence in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, has spread to nearly all countries of the world in only a few months. However, in different countries, the COVID-19 epidemic takes variable shapes and forms in how it affects communities. Until now, the insights gained on COVID-19 have been largely dominated by the COVID-19 epidemics and the lockdowns in China, Europe and the USA. But this variety of global trajectories is little described, analysed or understood. In only a few months, an enormous amount of scientific evidence on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has been uncovered (knowns). But important knowledge gaps remain (unknowns). Learning from the variety of ways the COVID-19 epidemic is unfolding across the globe can potentially contribute to solving the COVID-19 puzzle. This paper tries to make sense of this variability-by exploring the important role that context plays in these different COVID-19 epidemics; by comparing COVID-19 epidemics with other respiratory diseases, including other coronaviruses that circulate continuously; and by highlighting the critical unknowns and uncertainties that remain. These unknowns and uncertainties require a deeper understanding of the variable trajectories of COVID-19. Unravelling them will be important for discerning potential future scenarios, such as the first wave in virgin territories still untouched by COVID-19 and for future waves elsewhere.

Health systems strengthening through insurance subsidies: the GFATM experience in Rwanda.

The Global Fund Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) approved only three 'health systems strengthening' projects ever, one of them in Rwanda. This project intends to enhance financial access to health care by subsidising health insurance for the poor in order to combat the three diseases successfully. It was submitted to a mid-term evaluation in 2007. The findings of this evaluation are presented and triangulated with experience gained through several years of membership in the Rwandan Country Coordinating Mechanism and the multi-stakeholder 'Working Group on Mutuelles': The GFATM-funded project improved dramatically the financial access of its target group, the very poor--reaching approximately one Rwandan in six. Because of the established rigid regulatory framework, its impact on other population strata was more ambiguous. Improved financial access went hand-in-hand with growing health service utilisation and improvements in the population's health status, including better control of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This success was achieved with limited financial resources. In consequence, interventions that strengthen health systems should always be considered for a prominent--if not a priority role--in GFATM-funded projects.

'Paying for performance' in Rwanda: does it pay off?

The study analyses strengths and weaknesses of the 'Paying For Performance' (P4P) approach rolled out in the Rwandan health sector since 2002. It uses three research methods: a cross-sectoral literature review on P4P, its history and its context; 69 mostly semi-structured interviews conducted in Rwanda; and an analysis of factors eventually confounding the impact evaluation of the Rwandan P4P approach. It is argued that P4P approaches can be traced backed in written form over four millennia and that considerable negative effects are reported throughout history. All side effects were found again in various forms in the Rwandan health sector. One particular side effect -'gaming'- seriously threatens to affect the quality of health services. It is argued that P4P implicitly (and unintentionally) promotes a questionable concept of human 'labour' and that its focus on improving indicators rather than systemic changes can be regarded as vertical and counter-productive. Two alternatives to the current P4P system are briefly depicted, and further research on the described challenges is recommended.

Recurrent costs of HIV/AIDS-related health services in Rwanda: implications for financing.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate recurrent costs per patient and costs for a national HIV/AIDS treatment programme model in Rwanda. METHODS: A national HIV/AIDS treatment programme model was developed. Unit costs were estimated so as to reflect necessary service consumption of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Two scenarios were calculated: (1) for patients/clients in the year 2006 and (2) for potential increases of patients/clients. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Average yearly treatment costs were estimated to amount to 504 US$ per patient on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and to 91 US$ for non-ART patients. Costs for the Rwandan HIV/AIDS treatment programme were estimated to lie between 20.9 and 27.1 million US$ depending on the scenario. ART required 9.6 to 11.1 million US$ or 41-46% of national programme costs. Treatment for opportunistic infections and other pathologies consumed 7.1 to 9.3 million US$ or 34% of total costs. CONCLUSION: Health Care in general and ART more specifically is unaffordable for the vast majority of Rwandan PLWHA. Adequate resources need to be provided not only for ART but also to assure treatment of opportunistic infections and other pathologies. While risk-pooling may play a limited role in the national response to HIV/AIDS, considering the general level of poverty of the Rwandan population, no appreciable alternative to continued donor funding exists for the foreseeable future.

Thresholds for health insurance in Rwanda: who should pay how much?

Community-based health insurance schemes were introduced in Rwanda in 1999 and now cover 27% of the population. Due to widespread poverty, it remains unclear to what degree poorer population strata can be anticipated to pay into the system. This study investigates the extent to which the Rwandan population can financially contribute to obtain health insurance. More specifically, researchers explored the relationship between resource mobilization for the health system and the ability to provide community-based health insurance across socio-economic strata. Data from six household surveys are analysed revealing a consistent pattern: the goals of maximizing health revenue and maximizing participation in community-based health insurance are mutually exclusive. However, the upper three quartiles of the Rwandan population are able to contribute 1 US dollar per capita per year. In order to extend coverage to the poorest quartile, a corresponding subsidy for the coming years has to be considered.

Paying for health in two Rwandan provinces: financial flows and flaws.

The study intended to analyse the financial flows in two provinces within the Rwandan health system through the review of all available documentation and through interviews with key informants, to assess the scope for improved resource allocation. In Rwanda, there exists a large deficit of available financial resources in the health sector in general, and more specifically at health centre level. To improve this situation, it is considered to cover a large proportion of the entire population by mutual health insurance schemes. The schemes are able to pool certain risks, and they definitely improve financial access to health services. Nonetheless, they are inaccessible to the 'very poor', and--due to their limited financial base--they are unable to cover a complementary health care package. It is unlikely that they will mobilize substantial additional resources for health. External long-term commitments are required to cover this gap. A reassurance and readjustment system between the various insurance schemes should be established in order to increase financial protection provided. It might link up with insurance schemes in the formal employment sector. The combination of such a support for health insurance with performance-related incentives for health staff has the potential to increase both equity and quality of health services simultaneously and substantially.