We have worked to develop a Clinical Information Network (CIN) in Kenya as an early form of learning health systems (LHS) focused on paediatric and neonatal care that now spans 22 hospitals. CIN’s aim was to examine important outcomes of hospitalisation at scale, identify and ultimately solve practical problems of service delivery, drive improvements in quality and test interventions. By including multiple routine settings in research, we aimed to promote generalisability of findings and demonstrate potential efficiencies derived from LHS. We illustrate the nature and range of research CIN has supported over the past 7 years as a form of LHS. Clinically, this has largely focused on common, serious paediatric illnesses such as pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea with dehydration with recent extensions to neonatal illnesses. CIN also enables examination of the quality of care, for example that provided to children with severe malnutrition and the challenges encountered in routine settings in adopting simple technologies (pulse oximetry) and more advanced diagnostics (eg, Xpert MTB/RIF). Although regular feedback to hospitals has been associated with some improvements in quality data continue to highlight system challenges that undermine provision of basic, quality care (eg, poor access to blood glucose testing and routine microbiology). These challenges include those associated with increased mortality risk (eg, delays in blood transfusion). Using the same data the CIN platform has enabled conduct of randomised trials and supports malaria vaccine and most recently COVID-19 surveillance. Employing LHS principles has meant engaging front-line workers, clinical managers and national stakeholders throughout. Our experience suggests LHS can be developed in low and middle-income countries that efficiently enable contextually appropriate research and contribute to strengthening of health services and research systems.

BackgroundCase management of symptomatic COVID-19 patients is a key health system intervention. The Kenyan government embarked to fill capacity gaps in essential and advanced critical care (ACC) needed for the management of severe and critical COVID-19. However, given scarce resources, gaps in both essential and ACC persist. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of investments in essential and ACC to inform the prioritisation of investment decisions.MethodsWe employed a decision tree model to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of investment in essential care (EC) and investment in both essential and ACC (EC +ACC) compared with current healthcare provision capacity (status quo) for COVID-19 patients in Kenya. We used a health system perspective, and an inpatient care episode time horizon. Cost data were obtained from primary empirical analysis while outcomes data were obtained from epidemiological model estimates. We used univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results.ResultsThe status quo option is more costly and less effective compared with investment in EC and is thus dominated by the later. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of investment in essential and ACC (EC+ACC) was US$1378.21 per disability-adjusted life-year averted and hence not a cost-effective strategy when compared with Kenya’s cost-effectiveness threshold (US$908).ConclusionWhen the criterion of cost-effectiveness is considered, and within the context of resource scarcity, Kenya will achieve better value for money if it prioritises investments in EC before investments in ACC. This information on cost-effectiveness will however need to be considered as part of a multicriteria decision-making framework that uses a range of criteria that reflect societal values of the Kenyan society.

Background: Case management of symptomatic COVID-19 patients is a key health system intervention. The Kenyan government embarked to fill capacity gaps in essential and advanced critical care needed for the management of severe and critical COVID-19. However, given scarce resources, gaps in both essential and advanced critical care persist. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of investments in essential and advanced critical care to inform the prioritization of investment decisions. Methods: We employed a decision tree model to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of investment in essential care (EC) and investment in both essential and advanced critical care (EC+ACC) compared to current health care provision capacity (status quo) for COVID-19 patients in Kenya. We used a health system perspective, and an inpatient care episode time horizon. Cost data was obtained from primary empirical analysis while outcomes data was obtained from epidemiological model estimates. We used univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The status quo option is more costly and less effective compared to investment in essential care and is thus dominated by the later. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Investment in essential and advanced critical care (EC+ACC) was US $1,378.21 per DALY averted and hence not a cost-effective strategy when compared to the Kenyan cost-effectiveness threshold (USD 908). Conclusion: When the criterion of cost-effectiveness is considered, and within the context of resource scarcity, Kenya will achieve better value for money if it prioritizes investments in essential care before investments in advanced critical care. This information on cost-effectiveness will however need to be considered as part of a multi-criteria decision-making framework that uses a range of criteria that reflect societal values of the Kenyan society. Keywords: COVID-19, cost-effectiveness, essential care, advanced critical care, Kenya

Background: It is unclear if adjunctive steroid therapy reduces mortality in community-acquired pneumonia, as very few studies have had mortality as a primary outcome. This question has become even more relevant following demonstration of a mortality benefit of dexamethasone when used in patients with COVID-19 who had severe disease. This has led to increased prescription of steroids in adults with community acquired pneumonia in low-resource settings even when their COVID-19 diagnosis is uncertain due to low testing rates. This pragmatic parallel randomised-controlled open-label trial will determine if adjunctive low-dose steroids for treatment of adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia whose SARS-CoV-2 status is either unknown or negative reduces mortality. Methods: We will enroll and randomize 2180 patients admitted with a clinical diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia into two arms; in Stratum A-participants will receive standard care for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. In Stratum B-participants will receive a 10-day course of low-dose oral corticosteroids in addition to standard care. All participants will be followed up to 30 days post randomization and their final status recorded (alive or dead). An immunology sub study will be conducted on a subset of the trial participants (50 per arm) to determine the correlation of pre-existing and treatment induced immune and metabolic changes with study outcomes. Discussion: Mortality among adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia in resource-limited settings is high. Steroids are readily available in these settings. If the addition of steroids to standard care for community acquired pneumonia is found to be beneficial, this easily scalable intervention would significantly reduce the currently high mortality associated with the illness.

Background: The impact of COVID-19 in Africa remains poorly defined. We sought to describe trends in hospitalisation due to all medical causes, pneumonia-specific admissions, and inpatient mortality in Kenya before and during the first five waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya. Methods: We conducted a hospital-based observational study of patients admitted to 13 public referral facilities in Kenya from January 2018 to December 2021. The pre-COVID population included patients admitted before 1 March 2020. We fitted time series models to compare observed and predicted trends for each outcome. To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic we calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from negative binomial mixed-effects models. Results: Out of 302,703 patients (range 7453 to 27168) hospitalised across the 13 surveillance sites 84,337 (55.2%) were aged 15 years and older. Compared with the pre-COVID period, hospitalisations declined markedly among adult (IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.73) and paediatric (IRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.73) patients. Adjusted in-hospital mortality also declined among both adult (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.89) and paediatric (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.94) admissions. Pneumonia-specific admissions among adults were higher during the pandemic (IRR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.59), while the paediatric pneumonia cases were lower than pre-pandemic levels in the first year of the pandemic and elevated in late 2021 (IRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.20). Conclusions: Contrary to initial predictions, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with lower rates of hospitalisation and in-hospital mortality, despite increased pneumonia admissions among adults. These trends were sustained after the withdrawal of containment measures that resulted in the disruption of essential health services, suggesting a role for additional factors that warrant further investigation.