Background The B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified on November 25, 2021, in Gauteng province, South Africa. Data regarding the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in Gauteng before the fourth wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), in which the omicron variant was dominant, are needed. Methods We conducted a seroepidemiologic survey from October 22 to December 9, 2021, in Gauteng to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Households included in a previous seroepidemiologic survey (conducted from November 2020 to January 2021) were contacted; to account for changes in the survey population, there was a 10% increase in the households contacted, with the use of the same sampling framework. Dried-blood-spot samples were tested for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid protein with the use of quantitative assays. We also evaluated Covid-19 epidemiologic trends in Gauteng, including cases, hospitalizations, recorded deaths, and excess deaths from the start of the pandemic through January 12, 2022. Results Samples were obtained from 7010 participants, of whom 1319 (18.8%) had received a Covid-19 vaccine. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG ranged from 56.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.6 to 59.7) among children younger than 12 years of age to 79.7% (95% CI, 77.6 to 81.5) among adults older than 50 years of age. Vaccinated participants were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated participants (93.1% vs. 68.4%). Epidemiologic data showed that the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection increased and subsequently declined more rapidly during the fourth wave than it had during the three previous waves. The incidence of infection was decoupled from the incidences of hospitalization, recorded death, and excess death during the fourth wave, as compared with the proportions seen during previous waves. Conclusions Widespread underlying SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was observed in Gauteng before the omicron-dominant wave of Covid-19. Epidemiologic data showed a decoupling of hospitalizations and deaths from infections while omicron was circulating. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.)
Introduction: Multimonth dispensing (MMD) of antiretroviral treatment (ART) aims to reduce patient-related barriers to access long-term treatment and improve health system efficiency. However, randomized evidence of its clinical effectiveness is lacking. We compared MMD within community ART refill groups (CARGs) vs. standard-of-care facility-based ART delivery in Zimbabwe. Methods: A three-arm, cluster-randomized, pragmatic noninferiority trial was performed. Thirty health care facilities and associated CARGs were allocated to either ART collected three-monthly at facility (3MF, control); ART delivered three-monthly in CARGs (3MC); or ART delivered six-monthly in CARGs (6MC). Stable adults receiving ART $six months with baseline viral load (VL) ,1000 copies/ml were eligible. Retention in ART care (primary outcome) and viral suppression (VS) 12 months after enrollment were compared, using regression models specified for clustering (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03238846). Results: 4800 participants were recruited, 1919, 1335, and 1546 in arms 3MF, 3MC, and 6MC, respectively. For retention, the prespecified noninferiority limit (-3.25%, risk difference [RD]) was met for comparisons between all arms, 3MC (94.8%) vs. 3MF (93.0%), adjusted RD = 1.1% (95% CI:-0.5% to 2.8%); 6MC (95.5%) vs. 3MF: aRD = 1.2% (95% CI:-1.0% to 3.6%); and 6MC vs. 3MC: aRD = 0.1% (95% CI:-2.4% to 2.6%). VL completion at 12 months was 49%, 45%, and 8% in 3MF, 3MC, and 6MC, respectively. VS in 3MC (99.7%) was high and not different to 3MF (99.1%), relative risk = 1.0 (95% CI: 1.0-1.0). VS was marginally reduced in 6MC (92.9%) vs. 3MF, relative risk = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.9-1.0). Conclusion: Retention in CARGs receiving three-and six-monthly MMD was noninferior versus standard-of-care facility-based ART delivery. VS in 3MC was high. VS in six-monthly CARGs requires further evaluation.
Background: Lesotho adopted the test-and-treat approach for HIV treatment in June 2016, which increased antiretroviral treatment (ART) clinic volume. We evaluated community-based vs. facility-based differentiated models of multimonth dispensing of ART among stable HIV-infected adults in Lesotho. Methods: Thirty facilities were randomized to 3 arms, facility 3-monthly ART (3MF) (control), community ART groups (3MC), and 6-monthly community distribution points (6MCD). We estimated risk differences (RDs) between arms using population-averaged generalized estimating equations, controlling for baseline imbalances and specifying for clustering. The primary outcome was retention in ART care by intention-to-treat and virologic suppression as a secondary outcome (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03438370). Results: A total of 5,336 participants were enrolled, with 1898, 1558, and 1880 in 3MF, 3MC, and 6MCD, respectively. Retention in ART care was not different across arms and achieved the prespecified noninferiority limit (−3.25%) between 3MC vs. 3MF (control); 6MCD vs. 3MF; and 6MCD vs. 3MC, adjusted RD = −0.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): −1.6% to 1.5%], adjusted RD = −1.3% (95% CI: −3.0% to 0.5%), and adjusted RD = −1.2% (95% CI: −2.9% to 0.5%), respectively. After 12 months, 98.6% (n = 1503), 98.1% (n = 1126), and 98.3% (n = 1285) were virally load (VL) suppressed in 3MF, 3MC, and 6MCD, respectively. There were no differences in VL between 3MC vs. control and 6MCD vs. control, risk ratio (RR) = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.01) and RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.01), respectively. Conclusions: There were no differences in retention and VL suppression for stable HIV-infected participants receiving multimonth dispensing of ART within community-based differentiated models when compared with the facility-based standard-of-care model.
Background We conducted a seroepidemiological survey from October 22 to December 9, 2021, in Gauteng Province, South Africa, to determine SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroprevalence primarily prior to the fourth wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), in which the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant is dominant. We evaluated epidemiological trends in case rates and rates of severe disease through to December 15, 2021, in Gauteng. Methods We contacted households from a previous seroepidemiological survey conducted from November 2020 to January 2021, plus an additional 10% of households using the same sampling framework. Dry blood spot samples were tested for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG using quantitative assays on the Luminex platform. Daily case and death data, weekly excess deaths, and weekly hospital admissions were plotted over time. Results Samples were obtained from 7010 individuals, of whom 1319 (18.8%) had received a Covid-19 vaccine. Overall seroprevalence ranged from 56.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.6 to 59.7) in children aged <12 years to 79.7% (95% CI, 77.6 to 81.5) in individuals aged >50 years. Seropositivity was 6.22-fold more likely in vaccinated (93.1%) vs unvaccinated (68.4%) individuals. Epidemiological data showed SARS-CoV-2 infection rates increased more rapidly than in previous waves but have now plateaued. Rates of hospitalizations and excess deaths did not increase proportionately, remaining relatively low. Conclusions We demonstrate widespread underlying SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in Gauteng Province prior to the current Omicron-dominant wave, with epidemiological data showing an uncoupling of hospitalization and death rates from infection rate during Omicron circulation.
Introduction Lesotho, the country with the second‐highest HIV/AIDS prevalence (23.6%) in the world, has made considerable progress towards achieving the “95‐95‐95” UNAIDS targets, but recent success in improving treatment access to all known HIV positive individuals has severely strained existing healthcare infrastructure, financial and human resources. Lesotho also faces the challenge of a largely rural population who incur a significant time and financial burden to visit healthcare facilities. Using data from a cluster‐randomized non‐inferiority trial conducted between August 2017 and July 2019, we evaluated costs to providers and costs to patients of community‐based differentiated models of multi‐month delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Lesotho. Methods The trial of multi‐month dispensing compared 12‐month retention in care among three arms: conventional care, which required quarterly facility visits and ART dispensation (3MF); three‐month community adherence groups (CAGs) (3MC) and six‐month community ART distribution (6MCD). We first estimated the average total annual cost of providing HIV care and treatment followed by the total cost per patient retained 12 months after entry for each arm, using resource utilization data from the trial and local unit costs. We then estimated the average annual cost to patients in each arm with self‐reported questionnaire data. Results The average total annual cost of providing HIV care and treatment per patient was the highest in the 3MF arm ($122.28, standard deviation [SD] $23.91), followed by 3MC ($114.20, SD $23.03) and the 6MCD arm ($112.58, SD $21.44). Per patient retained in care, the average provider cost was $125.99 (SD $24.64) in the 3MF arm and 6% to 8% less for the other two arms ($118.38, SD $23.87 and $118.83, SD $22.63 for the 3MC and 6MCD respectively). There was a large reduction in patient costs for both differentiated service delivery arms: from $44.42 (SD $12.06) annually in the 3MF arm to $16.34 (SD $5.11) annually in the 3MC (63% reduction) and $18.77 (SD $8.31) annually in 6MCD arm (58% reduction). Conclusions Community‐based, multi‐month models of ART in Lesotho are likely to produce small cost savings to treatment providers and large savings to patients in Lesotho. Patient cost savings may support long‐term adherence and retention in care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.