SummaryBackgroundThe morbidity and socioeconomic effects of onchocerciasis, a parasitic disease that is primarily endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, have motivated large morbidity and transmission control programmes. Annual community-directed ivermectin treatment has substantially reduced prevalence. Elimination requires intensified efforts, including more efficacious treatments. We compared parasitological efficacy and safety of moxidectin and ivermectin.MethodsThis double-blind, parallel group, superiority trial was done in four sites in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We enrolled participants (aged ≥12 years) with at least 10 Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae per mg skin who were not co-infected with Loa loa or lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemic. Participants were randomly allocated, stratified by sex and level of infection, to receive a single oral dose of 8 mg moxidectin or 150 μg/kg ivermectin as overencapsulated oral tablets. The primary efficacy outcome was skin microfilariae density 12 months post treatment. We used a mixed-effects model to test the hypothesis that the primary efficacy outcome in the moxidectin group was 50% or less than that in the ivermectin group. The primary efficacy analysis population were all participants who received the study drug and completed 12-month follow-up (modified intention to treat). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00790998.FindingsBetween April 22, 2009, and Jan 23, 2011, we enrolled and allocated 998 participants to moxidectin and 501 participants to ivermectin. 978 received moxidectin and 494 ivermectin, of which 947 and 480 were included in primary efficacy outcome analyses. At 12 months, skin microfilarial density (microfilariae per mg of skin) was lower in the moxidectin group (adjusted geometric mean 0·6 [95% CI 0·3–1·0]) than in the ivermectin group (4·5 [3·5–5·9]; difference 3·9 [3·2–4·9], p<0·0001; treatment difference 86%). Mazzotti (ie, efficacy-related) reactions occurred in 967 (99%) of 978 moxidectin-treated participants and in 478 (97%) of 494 ivermectin-treated participants, including ocular reactions (moxidectin 113 [12%] participants and ivermectin 47 [10%] participants), laboratory reactions (788 [81%] and 415 [84%]), and clinical reactions (944 [97%] and 446 [90%]). No serious adverse events were considered to be related to treatment.InterpretationSkin microfilarial loads (ie, parasite transmission reservoir) are lower after moxidectin treatment than after ivermectin treatment. Moxidectin would therefore be expected to reduce parasite transmission between treatment rounds more than ivermectin could, thus accelerating progress towards elimination.FundingUNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.

Objectives: This cross-sectional survey explored COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among public healthcare facility workers in Kambia (Sierra Leone), Goma (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Masaka (Uganda).Methods: Questionnaire-based interviews conducted between April–October 2021 explored participants’ knowledge and perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (defined as uptake of ≥1 dose or intent to get vaccinated).Results: Whilst most (n = 444; 81.8%) of the 543 participants had one or more concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, 487 (89.7%) nonetheless perceived that they were important for pandemic control. Most participants from Kambia or Masaka either were vaccinated (n = 137/355; 38.6%) or intended to get vaccinated (n = 211/355; 59.4%) against COVID-19. In Goma, all 188 participants were unvaccinated; only 81 (43.1%) participants intended to get vaccinated, and this was associated with positive perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. In Goma, the most common reasons for not wanting a COVID-19 vaccine were concerns that the vaccines were new (n = 75/107; 70.1%) and fear of side effects (n = 74/107; 69.2%).Conclusion: Reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was high among healthcare facility workers in Kambia and Masaka. The lower vaccine acceptability in Goma may highlight the importance of social mobilisation and accurate, accessible information that addresses specific concerns.

Background: Health services in humanitarian crises increasingly integrate the management of non-communicable diseases into primary care. As there is little description of such programs, this case study aims to describe the initial implementation of non-communicable disease management within emergency primary care in the conflict-affected Beni Region of Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Objectives: We implemented and evaluated a primary care approach to hypertension and diabetes management to assess the feasibility of patient monitoring, early clinical and programmatic outcomes, and costs, after seven months of care. Methods: We designed clinical and programmatic modules for diabetes and hypertension management for clinical officers and the use of patient cards and community health workers to improve adherence. We used cohort analysis (April to October 2018), time-trend analysis, semi-structured interviews, and costing to evaluate the program. Findings: Increases in consultations for hypertension (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 13.5, 95% CI 5.8–31.5, p < 0.00) and diabetes (IRR 3.6, 95% CI 1–12.9, p < 0.05) were demonstrated up to the onset of violence and an Ebola epidemic in August 2018. Of 833 patients, 67% were women of median age 56. Nearly all were hypertensives (88.7%) and newly diagnosed (95.9%). Treatment adherence, defined as attending ≥2 visits in the seven month period, was demonstrated by 45.4% of hypertension patients. Community health workers had contact with 3.2–3.8 patients per month. Respondents stated that diabetes care remained fragmented with insulin and laboratory testing located outside of primary care. Program and management costs were 115 USD per person per treatment course. Conclusions: In an active conflict setting, we demonstrated that non-communicable disease care can be well-organized through clinical training and cohort analysis, and adherence can be addressed using patient-held cards and monitoring by community health workers. Nearly all diagnoses were new, emphasizing the need to establish self-management. Insecurity reduced access for patients but care continued for a subset of patients during the Ebola epidemic.

IntroductionThis study aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the number of people seen at public facilities in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone for essential primary healthcare services.MethodsThe number of weekly consultations for antenatal care (ANC), outpatient (OPD), expanded programme on immunisations (EPI), family planning (FP) services and HIV, for the period of January 2018-December 2020, were collected from 25 primary healthcare facilities in Masaka district, Uganda, 21 health centres in Goma, DRC, and 29 facilities in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Negative binomial regression models accounting for facility level clustering and season were used to analyse changes in activity levels between 2018, 2019 and 2020.ResultsWe found no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of OPD, EPI or ANC consultations in Goma. Family planning consultations were 17% lower in March-July 2020 compared to 2019, but this recovered by December 2020. New diagnoses of HIV were 34% lower throughout 2020 compared to 2019. Compared to the same periods in 2019, facilities in Sierra Leone had 18-29% fewer OPD consultations throughout 2020, and 27% fewer DTP3 doses in March-July 2020, but this had recovered by Jul-Dec. There was no evidence of differences in other services. In Uganda there were 20-35% fewer under-5 OPD consultations, 21-66% fewer MCV1 doses, and 48-51% fewer new diagnoses of HIV, throughout 2020, compared to 2019. There was no difference in the number of HPV doses delivered in 2020 compared to 2019.ConclusionsThe level of disruption appeared to correlate with the strength of lockdown measures in the different settings and community attitudes towards the risk posed by COVID-19. Mitigation strategies such as health communications campaigns and outreach services proved important to limit the impact of lockdowns on primary healthcare services.Key messagesWhat is already known on this topicThe COVID-19 pandemic and the response measures put in place caused disruption to the provision and utilisation of primary healthcare services worldwide.What this study addsWe document that the COVID-19 pandemic had a varied impact on different services in three distinct settings on the African continent. The extent that the pandemic impacted services correlated with the stringency of the lockdowns, community perceptions of the level of danger posed by the pandemic and communities’ prior exposure to Ebola epidemics and concomitant response measures.How this study might affect research, practice, or policystrategies such as communication campaigns and outreach services limited the impact of lockdowns on essential services and would be valuable strategies to implement in future epidemics.

Objectives We assessed the prevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) against four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) and two SARS-CoV-2 antigens, among vaccinated and unvaccinated staff at health care centres in Uganda, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Methods Government health facility staff who had patient contact in Goma (DRC), Kambia District (Sierra Leone), and Masaka District (Uganda) were enrolled. Questionnaires and blood samples were collected at three timepoints over four months. Blood samples were analysed with the Luminex MAGPIX. Results Among unvaccinated participants, the prevalence of IgG/IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 RBD or N-protein at enrolment was 70% in Goma (138/196), 89% in Kambia (112/126) and 89% in Masaka (190/213). IgG responses against endemic HCoVs at baseline were not associated with SAR-CoV-2 sero-acquisition during follow-up. Among vaccinated participants, those who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM at baseline tended to have higher IgG responses to vaccination compared to those SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline, controlling for the time of sample collection since vaccination. Conclusions The high levels of natural immunity and hybrid immunity should be incorporated into both vaccination policy and prediction models of the impact of subsequent waves of infection in these settings.

Introduction This study aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on essential primary healthcare services at public primary healthcare facilities. Methods The number of weekly consultations for antenatal care (ANC), outpatient (OPD), immunisations (EPI), family planning (FP) and HIV services, between January 2018 and December 2020, were collected from 25 facilities in Masaka district, Uganda, 21 in Goma, and 29 in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Negative binomial regression models accounting for clustering and season were used to analyse changes in activity levels between 2018, 2019 and 2020. Results In Goma, we found no change in OPD, EPI or ANC consultations, FP was 17% lower in March-July 2020 compared to 2019, but this recovered by December 2020. New diagnoses of HIV were 34% lower throughout 2020 compared to 2019. In Sierra Leone, compared to the same periods in 2019, facilities had 18–29% fewer OPD consultations throughout 2020, and 27% fewer DTP3 doses in March-July 2020. There was no evidence of differences in other services. In Uganda there were 20–35% fewer under-5 OPD consultations, 21–66% fewer MCV1 doses, and 48–51% fewer new diagnoses of HIV throughout 2020, compared to 2019. There was no difference in the number of HPV doses delivered. Conclusions The level of disruption varied across the different settings and qualitatively appeared to correlate with the strength of lockdown measures and reported attitudes towards the risk posed by COVID-19. Mitigation strategies such as health communications campaigns and outreach services may be important to limit the impact of lockdowns on primary healthcare services.

patients with AKI The study showed that the hospitals were well stocked with drugs and equipment necessary to manage AKI however supportive services were still low with 67% of the hospitals able to do serum creatinine and urea, 50% and 67% of the studied hospitals were able to do serum electrolytes and gram staining, culture and sensitivity respectively Conclusions: There are deficiencies in knowledge among health care provider in managing AKI. Hospitals studied were well supplied with drugs and equipment needed for AKI management. There were poor laboratory services in the hospitals to support diagnosis and management of AKI