Background Resilient pharmaceutical systems and supply chains are critical in the control of COVID-19, a pandemic that has mostly devastated public health systems and livelihoods in resource-limited countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on pharmaceutical systems and supply chain in a resource-limited setting. Methods A descriptive qualitative survey using a phenomenological approach was conducted among key informants in the public and private pharmaceutical sectors of Namibia. Data were collected on the perceived impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain, as well as access and availability of essential medicines among the distributors and points of care in the private and public sectors. Qualitative themes of the impact were analyzed using Tesch's approach. Results Of the 21 key-informants, 57.1% were female and 85% were from the private versus the public pharmaceutical sector. Overall, key informants reported a negative impact on access and availability of essential medicines, particularly sanitation and hygiene products, and antimicrobials. Most medicine outlets, experienced longer lead times, attributed to reduced inter-country transportation of goods and services and limited in-country capacity and capabilities to manufacture. The main thematic challenges included bureaucratic bottlenecks and lack of emergency readiness of the medicine's logistics supply chain in Namibia. Conclusion COVID-19 pandemic aggravated the inequitable access to essential medicines in the public and private sectors of Namibia. Governments in resource-limited countries need to strengthen in-country Private-Public Partnerships as well as regional treaties for Universal Health Coverage in context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ObjectiveBacterial meningitis is a medical emergency associated with high mortality rates. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture is the “gold standard” for diagnosis of meningitis and it is important to establish the susceptibility of the causative microorganism to rationalize treatment. The Namibia Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) recommends initiation of empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with signs and symptoms of meningitis after taking a CSF sample for culture and sensitivity. The objective of this study was to assess the antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of microorganisms isolated from CSF to antibiotics commonly used in the empirical treatment of suspected bacterial meningitis in Namibia.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional descriptive study of routinely collected antibiotic susceptibility data from the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP) database. Results of CSF culture and sensitivity from January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2012, from 33 state hospitals throughout Namibia were analysed.ResultsThe most common pathogens isolated were Streptococcus species, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus, and Escherichia coli. The common isolates from CSF showed high resistance (34.3% –73.5%) to penicillin. Over one third (34.3%) of Streptococcus were resistance to penicillin which was higher than 24.8% resistance in the United States. Meningococci were susceptible to several antimicrobial agents including penicillin. The sensitivity to cephalosporins remained high for Streptococcus, Neisseria, E. coli and Haemophilus. The highest percentage of resistance to cephalosporins was seen among ESBL K. pneumoniae (n = 7, 71%–100%), other Klebsiella species (n = 7, 28%–80%), and Staphylococcus (n = 36, 25%–40%).ConclusionsThe common organisms isolated from CSF were Streptococcus Pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus, and E. coli. All common organisms isolated from CSF showed high sensitivity to cephalosporins used in the empirical treatment of meningitis. The resistance of the common isolates to penicillin is high. Most ESBL K. pneumoniae were isolated from CSF samples drawn from neonates and were found to be resistant to the antibiotics recommended in the Namibia STGs. Based on the above findings, it is recommended to use a combination of aminoglycoside and third-generation cephalosporin to treat non–ESBL Klebsiella isolates. Carbapenems (e.g., meropenem) and piperacillin/tazobactam should be considered for treating severely ill patients with suspected ESBL Klebsiella infection. Namibia should have a national antimicrobial resistance surveillance system for early detection of antibiotics that may no longer be effective in treating meningitis and other life-threatening infections due to resistance.

Introduction: National medicines regulatory agencies are faced with challenges including limited resources and technical capacity, resulting in countries collaborating and sharing resources to improve efficiency of the review process to facilitate access to quality-assured medicines by their populations. One such collaboration is the Southern African Development Community (SADC) medicines registration collaborative initiative, ZaZiBoNa. Countries participate in the initiative by contributing to regulatory reviews and good manufacturing practices inspections. The aim of this study was to review and compare the registration processes of regulatory authorities of Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe to identify strategies for better alignment.Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardises the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies.Results: The six countries vary in population and in the size of their respective regulatory agency and the resources allocated to regulatory reviews. The review processes of the six agencies were similar; however, differences were noted in the milestones recorded; for example, two of the countries did not record the start of the scientific assessment. Additionally, decisions for marketing authorisation were made by an expert committee in four of the countries and by the head of the agency and the Minister of Health in two countries. All six agencies implemented the majority of good review practices; however, the need for improvement in the areas of transparency and communication and quality decision making practices was a common finding for all six countries.Conclusions: Participation in the ZaZiBoNa initiative has improved the way in which the six agencies perform regulatory reviews in their countries, highlighting the realisation of one of the key objectives of the initiative, which was building the expert capacity of member countries. Other agencies in the SADC region and beyond can use the results of this study to identify best practices, which in turn, could improve their regulatory performance.

Introduction: Regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing have grown over the last few years, resulting in greater sharing of work and information among regulators, enabling efficient use of limited resources and preventing duplication of work. Various initiatives on the African continent include ZaZiBoNa, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) collaborative medicines registration initiative. ZaZiBoNa has resulted in great savings in time and resources; however, identified challenges include lack of clear information regarding the participating countries registration processes and requirements as well as lengthy registration times. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare the data requirements and review models employed in the assessment of applications for registration, the target timelines for key milestones and the metrics of applications received and approved in 2019 and 2020 by Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardizes the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies.Results: The majority of applications received and approved by all six agencies in 2019 and 2020 were for generics. The mean approval times for generics varied across the countries, with ranges of 218–890 calendar days in 2019 and 158–696 calendar days in 2020. All three types of scientific assessment review models were used by the six agencies and data requirements and extent of scientific assessment were similar for five countries, while one conducted full reviews for new active substances. A large variation was observed in the targets set by the six agencies for the different milestones as well as overall approval times.Conclusions: The study identified the strengths of the countries as well as opportunities for improvement and alignment. Implementation of the recommendations made as in this study will enhance the countries' individual systems, enabling them to efficiently support the ZaZiBoNa initiative.

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance was projected to be highly cost effective to improve treatment for HIV in Namibia. Active surveillance pharmacovigilance may be valuable to improve lives of HIV patients and more efficiently allocate health resources in Namibia.