ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the level of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and to identify factors associated with non-adherence.DesignA cross-sectional population-based online survey.SettingsThe study was conducted in 22 provinces of the DRC. Five provinces with a satisfactory number of respondents were included in the analysis: Haut Katanga, Kasaï-Central, Kasaï-Oriental, Kinshasa and North Kivu.ParticipantsThe participants were people aged ≥18 years, living in the DRC. A total of 3268 participants were included in the study analysis.InterventionsBoth convenience sampling (surveyors themselves contacted potential participants in different districts) and snowball sampling (the participants were requested to share the link of the questionnaire with their contacts) methods were used.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe computed adherence scores using responses to 10 questions concerning COVID-19 preventive measures recommended by the WHO and the DRC Ministry of Health. We used logistic regression analysis with generalised estimating equations to identify factors of poor adherence. We also asked about the presence or absence of flu-like symptoms during the preceding 14 days, whether a COVID-19 test was done and the test result.ResultsData from 3268 participants were analysed. Face masks were not used by 1789 (54.7%) participants. Non-adherence to physical distancing was reported by 1364 (41.7%) participants. 501 (15.3%) participants did not observe regular handwashing. Five variables were associated with poor adherence: lower education level, living with other people at home, being jobless/students, living with a partner and not being a healthcare worker.ConclusionDespite compulsory restrictions imposed by the government, only about half of the respondents adhered to COVID-19 preventive measures in the DRC. Disparities across the provinces are remarkable. There is an urgent need to further explore the reasons for these disparities and factors associated with non-adherence.

BackgroundDespite some problems related to accuracy and applicability, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), are currently considered the best option in areas with limited laboratory services for improving case management and reducing over-treatment. However, their performance must be established taking into the account the particularities of each endemic area. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the validity of Optimal-IT® and Paracheck-Pf®, respectively based on the detection of lactate dehydrogenase and histidine-rich protein-2, was assessed at primary health care level (PHC).MethodsThis was a two-stage cluster randomized survey, conducted in one health centre in 12 health zones in Kinshasa city. All patients with malaria presumptive diagnosis were eligible. Gold standard was microscopy performed by experts from the parasitology unit, Kinshasa University.Results624 patients were enrolled. 53.4% (95% CI: 49.4-57.3) owed a bed net, obtained in 74.5% of cases (95% CI: 69.4-79.1) through community-based distribution by the National Malaria Control Programme. Microscopy expert reading confirmed 123 malaria cases (19.7%; 95% CI: 16.7-23.1). Overall sensitivity were 79.7% (95% CI: 72.4-86.8), 87.8% (95% CI: 81.9-93.6) and 86.2% (95% CI: 79.9-92.3), respectively, for Optimal-IT®, Paracheck-Pf® and microscopy performed at PHC. Specificity was 97.0% (95% CI: 95.5-98.5), 91.6% (95% CI: 89.1-94.0) and 49.1% (95% CI: 44.7-53.4). The proportion of confirmed cases seemed similar in under-fives compared to others. Any treatment prior to the current visit was a predictor for malaria (AOR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.5-3.5), but not malaria treatment (AOR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.4-1.8). Bed net ownership tended to protect against malaria (AOR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-0.99).ConclusionAlthough microscopy is considered as the "gold standard" for malaria diagnosis at point of care level, this study showed that its accuracy may not always be satisfactory when performed in health centres.

We describe a case series of histoplasmosis caused by Histoplasma capsulatum var. duboisii during July 2011–January 2014 in Kimpese, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cases were confirmed by histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and reverse transcription PCR. All patients were HIV negative. Putative sources for the pathogen were cellar bats and guano fertilizer exploitation.

Background Malaria and schistosomiasis remain life-threatening public health problems in sub-Saharan Africa. The infection pattern related to age indicates that preschool and school-age children are at the highest risk of malaria and schistosomiasis. Both parasitic infections, separately or combined, may have negative impacts on the haemoglobin concentration levels. The existing data revealed that artemisinin derivatives commonly used to cure malaria present also in antischistosomal activities. The current study investigated the impact of Artesunate-Amodiaquine (AS-AQ) on schistosomiasis when administered to treat malaria in rural area of Lemfu, DRC. Methodology A prospective longitudinal study including 171 coinfected children screened for anaemia, Schistosoma mansoni, and Plasmodium falciparum infections. The egg reduction rate and haemoglobin concentration were assessed four weeks after the treatment with AS-AQ, of all coinfected children of this series. Results One hundred and twenty-five (74.4%) out of 168 coinfected children treated and present during the assessment were found stool negative for S. mansoni eggs. Out of 43 (25.6%) children who remained positives, 37 (22%) showed a partial reduction of eggs amount, and no reduction was noted in 3.6% of coinfected. The mean of haemoglobin concentration and the prevalence of anaemia were, respectively, 10.74±1.5g/dl , 11.2±1.3g/dl, and 64.8%, 51.8%, respectively, before and after treatment, p<0.001. Conclusion The AS-AQ commonly used against Plasmodium allowed curing S. mansoni in coinfected children and increasing the Hb level. For the future, the randomized and multicentric clinical trials are needed for a better understanding of the effectiveness of AS-AQ against Schistosoma spp. The trial registration number was 3487183.

Implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and being confronted with a dysfunctional health care system and acute unmet health needs of participants, ethical considerations were made regarding the ancillary care obligations of the sponsor and researchers. Spurred by the occurrence of non-related (serious) adverse events (NR-SAEs), the Universities of Antwerp and Kinshasa jointly developed an algorithm, accompanied by an algorithm policy. The algorithm consists of a set of consecutive questions with binary response options, leading to structured, non-arbitrary and consistent support and management for each NR-SAE. It is the result of dialogue and collaboration between the sponsor (University of Antwerp) and the principal investigator (University of Kinshasa), consultation of literature, and input of research ethics and social sciences experts. The characteristics of the project and its budgetary framework were taken into account, as well as the local socioeconomic and healthcare situation. The algorithm and related policy have been approved by the relevant ethics committee (EC), so field implementation will begin when the study activities resume in November 2021. Lessons learnt will be shared with the relevant stakeholders within and outside DRC.If NR-SAEs are not covered by a functioning social welfare system, sponsors and researchers should develop a feasible, standardised and transparent approach to the provision of ancillary care. National legislation and contextualised requirements are therefore needed, particularly in low/middle-income countries, to guide researchers and sponsors in this process. Protocols, particularly of clinical trials conducted in areas with ‘access to care’ constraints, should include adequate ancillary care arrangements. Furthermore, it is essential that local ECs systematically require ancillary care provisions to enhance the well-being and protection of the rights of research participants. This project was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.