Search

Aim: This study describes the coordination mechanisms that have been used for management of the COVID 19 pandemic in the WHO AFRO region; relate the patterns of the disease (length of time between onset of coordination and first case; length of the wave of the disease and peak attack rate) to coordination mechanisms established at the national level, and document best practices and lessons learned.Method: We did a retrospective policy tracing of the COVID-19 coordination mechanisms from March 2020 (when first cases of COVID-19 in the AFRO region were reported) to the end of the third wave in September 2021. Data sources were from document and Literature review of COVID-19 response strategies, plans, regulations, press releases, government websites, grey and peer-reviewed literature. The data was extracted to Excel file database and coded then analysed using Stata (version 15). Analysis was done through descriptive statistical analysis (using measures of central tendencies (mean, SD, and median) and measures of central dispersion (range)), multiple linear regression, and thematic analysis of qualitative data.Results: There are three distinct layered coordination mechanisms (strategic, operational, and tactical) that were either implemented singularly or in tandem with another coordination mechanism. 87.23% (n = 41) of the countries initiated strategic coordination, and 59.57% (n = 28) initiated some form of operational coordination. Some of countries (n = 26,55.32%) provided operational coordination using functional Public Health Emergency Operation Centres (PHEOCs) which were activated for the response. 31.91% (n = 15) of the countries initiated some form of tactical coordination which involved the decentralisation of the operations at the local/grassroot level/district/ county levels. Decentralisation strategies played a key role in coordination, as was the innovative strategies by the countries; some coordination mechanisms built on already existing coordination systems and the heads of states were effective in the success of the coordination process. Financing posed challenge to majority of the countries in initiating coordination.Conclusion: Coordinating an emergency is a multidimensional process that includes having decision-makers and institutional agents define and prioritise policies and norms that contain the spread of the disease, regulate activities and behaviour and citizens, and respond to personnel who coordinate prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Morbidity and mortality in children due to COVID-19 remained low • Adolescents had higher reported cases than younger children • Reported cases were lower in pediatric population than adult population • Testing protocols vary between countries; reflects bias in reported cases Few data on the COVID-19 epidemiological characteristics among the pediatric population in Africa exists. This paper examines the age and sex distribution of the morbidity and mortality rate in children with COVID-19 and compares it to the adult population in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries. A merge line listing dataset shared by countries within the Regional Office for Africa was analyzed. Patients diagnosed within 1 March and 1 September 2020 with a confirmed positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed. Children's data were stratified into three age groups: 0-4 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years, while adults were combined. The cumulative incidence of cases, its medians, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. 9% of the total confirmed cases and 2.4% of the reported deaths were pediatric cases. The 12-17 age group in all 15 countries showed the highest cumulative incidence proportion in children. Adults had a higher case incidence per 100,000 people than children. The cases and deaths within the children's population were smaller than the adult population. These differences may reflect biases in COVID-19 testing protocols and reporting implemented by countries, highlighting the need for more extensive investigation and focus on the effects of COVID-19 in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy., Methods: We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO., Prospero: CRD42020183634., Results: We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions., Conclusion: We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WHO had a role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and writing of the report. No other funders had any such role. The corresponding authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication. Potential other competing interests of named coauthors include: RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (outside the submitted work). MPC reports personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (outside the submitted work) and Kanvas biosciences (outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (outside the submitted work) and personal fees from AstraZeneca (outside the submitted work). CCo reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (outside of the submitted work). KE reports being cochairman of ANRS group on public health and social science in France (outside of the submitted work). JDS reports consulting fees from ASLM, GIZ health-focus and l’Oréal (all outside of the submitted work)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We conducted a review of intra-action review (IAR) reports of the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. We highlight best practices and challenges and offer perspectives for the future., Design: A thematic analysis across 10 preparedness and response domains, namely, governance, leadership, and coordination; planning and monitoring; risk communication and community engagement; surveillance, rapid response, and case investigation; infection prevention and control; case management; screening and monitoring at points of entry; national laboratory system; logistics and supply chain management; and maintaining essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic., Setting: All countries in the WHO African Region were eligible for inclusion in the study. National IAR reports submitted by March 2021 were analysed., Results: We retrieved IAR reports from 18 African countries. The COVID-19 pandemic response in African countries has relied on many existing response systems such as laboratory systems, surveillance systems for previous outbreaks of highly infectious diseases and a logistics management information system. These best practices were backed by strong political will. The key challenges included low public confidence in governments, inadequate adherence to infection prevention and control measures, shortages of personal protective equipment, inadequate laboratory capacity, inadequate contact tracing, poor supply chain and logistics management systems, and lack of training of key personnel at national and subnational levels., Conclusion: These findings suggest that African countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic was prompt and may have contributed to the lower cases and deaths in the region compared with countries in other regions. The IARs demonstrate that many technical areas still require immediate improvement to guide decisions in subsequent waves or future outbreaks., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AT, JO, MS, EOM, BLH, OPCR, DY, MN, AM, FMB, ABD, RKW, CM, HKN, MT, AO, BB, LNM, INC, FS, SC, BI, NN, ZY and ASG are WHO staff members and have supported countries to conduct IARs but were not involved in the writing of country IAR reports included in the analysis. CI and CSW have no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)