Data challenges for international health emergencies: lessons learned from ten international COVID-19 driver projects

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of international data sharing and access to improve health outcomes for all. The International COVID-19 Data Alliance (ICODA) programme enabled 12 exemplar or driver projects to use existing health-related data to address major research questions relating to the pandemic, and developed data science approaches that helped each research team to overcome challenges, accelerate the data research cycle, and produce rapid insights and outputs. These approaches also sought to address inequity in data access and use, test approaches to ethical health data use, and make summary datasets and outputs accessible to a wider group of researchers. This Health Policy paper focuses on the challenges and lessons learned from ten of the ICODA driver projects, involving researchers from 19 countries and a range of health-related datasets. The ICODA programme reviewed the time taken for each project to complete stages of the health data research cycle and identified common challenges in areas such as data sharing agreements and data curation. Solutions included provision of standard data sharing templates, additional data curation expertise at an early stage, and a trusted research environment that facilitated data sharing across national boundaries and reduced risk. These approaches enabled the driver projects to rapidly produce research outputs, including publications, shared code, dashboards, and innovative resources, which can all be accessed and used by other research teams to address global health challenges

Changes in preterm birth and stillbirth during COVID-19 lockdowns in 26 countries

Funding Information: M.B.A. holds a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in the Developmental Origins of Chronic Disease at the University of Manitoba and is a Fellow in the Canadian Institutes for Advanced Research (CIFAR) Humans and the Microbiome Program. Her effort on this project was partly supported by HDR UK and ICODA. K.K.C.M. declares support from The Innovation and Technology Commission of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and Hong Kong Research Grants Council Collaborative Research Fund Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and Novel Infectious Disease Research Exercise (Ref: C7154-20G) and grants from C W Maplethorpe Fellowship, National Institute of Health Research UK, European Commission Framework Horizon 2020 and has consulted for IQVIA Ltd. A.S. is supported by ICODA and HDR UK, and has received a research grant from HDR UK to the BREATHE Hub. He participates on the Scottish and UK Government COVID-19 Advisory Committees, unremunerated. S.J.S. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship (209560/Z/17/Z) and HDR UK, and has received personal fees from Hologic and Natera outside the submitted work. D.B. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Investigator Grant (GTN1175744). I.C.K.W. declares support from The Innovation and Technology Commission of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and Hong Kong Research Grants Council Collaborative Research Fund Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and Novel Infectious Disease Research Exercise (Ref: C7154-20G), and grants from Hong Kong Research Grant Council, National Institute of Health Research UK, and European Commission Framework Horizon 2020. H.Z. is supported by a UNSW Scientia Program Award and reports grants from European Commission Framework Horizon 2020, Icelandic Centre for Research, and Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council. H.Z. was an employee of the UNSW Centre for Big Data Research in Health, which received funding from AbbVie Australia to conduct research, unrelated to the current study. I.I.A.A., C.D.A., K.A., A.I.A., L.C., S.S., G.E.-G., O.W.G., L. Huicho, S.H., A.K., K.L., V.N., I.P., N.R.R., T.R., T.A.H.R., V.L.S., E.M.S., L.T., R.W. and H.Z. received funding from HDRUK (grant #2020.106) to support data collection for the iPOP study. K.H., R.B., S.O.E., A.R.-P. and J.H. receive salary from ICODA. M.B. received trainee funding from HDRUK (grant #2020.106). J.E.M. received trainee funding from HDRUK (grant #2020.109). Other relevant funding awarded to authors to conduct research for iPOP include: M.G. received funding from THL, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare to support data collection. K.D. received funding from EDCTP RIA2019 and HDRUK (grant #2020.106) to support data collection. R.B. received funding from Alzheimer’s Disease Data Initiative and ICODA for the development of federated analysis. A.D.M. received funding from HDR UK who receives its funding from the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust; and Administrative Data Research UK, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S007393/1). N.A. received funding from the National Institutes of Health (R35GM138353). O.S received funding from NordForsk (grant #105545). The remaining authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: Funding and in-kind support: This work was supported by the International COVID-19 Data Alliance (ICODA), an initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Minderoo as part of the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator and convened by Health Data Research (HDR) UK, in addition to support from the HDR UK BREATHE Hub. Several ICODA partners contributed to the study, including: Cytel (statistical support), the Odd Group (data visualization) and Aridhia Informatics (development of federated analysis using a standardized protocol ([Common API] https://github.com/federated-data-sharing/ ) to be used in future work). Additional contributors: We acknowledge the important contributions from the following individuals: A. C. Hennemann and D. Suguitani (patient partners from Prematuridade: Brazilian Parents of Preemies’ Association, Porto Alegre, Brazil); N. Postlethwaite (implementation of processes supporting the trustworthy collection, governance and analysis of data from ICODA, HDR UK, London, UK); A. S. Babatunde (led data acquisition from University of Uyo Teaching Hospital, Uyo, Nigeria); N. Silva (data quality, revision and visualization assessment from Methods, Analytics and Technology for Health (M.A.T.H) Consortium, Belo Horizonte, Brazil); J. Söderling (data management from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden). We also acknowledge the following individuals who assisted with data collection efforts: R. Goemaes (Study Centre for Perinatal Epidemiology (SPE), Brussels, Belgium); C. Leroy (Le Centre d'Épidémiologie Périnatale (CEpiP), Brussels, Belgium); J. Gamba and K. Ronald (St. Francis Nsambya Hospital, Kampala, Uganda); M. Heidarzadeh (Tabriz Medical University, Tabriz, Iran); M. J. Ojeda (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile); S. Nangia (Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India); C. Nelson, S. Metcalfe and W. Luo (Maternal Infant Health Section of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada); K. Sitcov (Foundation for Health Care Quality, Seattle, United States); A. Valek (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary); M. R. Yanlin Liu (Mater Data and Analytics, Brisbane, Australia). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: Funding and in-kind support: This work was supported by the International COVID-19 Data Alliance (ICODA), an initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Minderoo as part of the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator and convened by Health Data Research (HDR) UK, in addition to support from the HDR UK BREATHE Hub. Several ICODA partners contributed to the study, including: Cytel (statistical support), the Odd Group (data visualization) and Aridhia Informatics (development of federated analysis using a standardized protocol ([Common API] https://github.com/federated-data-sharing/) to be used in future work). Additional contributors: We acknowledge the important contributions from the following individuals: A. C. Hennemann and D. Suguitani (patient partners from Prematuridade: Brazilian Parents of Preemies’ Association, Porto Alegre, Brazil); N. Postlethwaite (implementation of processes supporting the trustworthy collection, governance and analysis of data from ICODA, HDR UK, London, UK); A. S. Babatunde (led data acquisition from University of Uyo Teaching Hospital, Uyo, Nigeria); N. Silva (data quality, revision and visualization assessment from Methods, Analytics and Technology for Health (M.A.T.H) Consortium, Belo Horizonte, Brazil); J. Söderling (data management from the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden). We also acknowledge the following individuals who assisted with data collection efforts: R. Goemaes (Study Centre for Perinatal Epidemiology (SPE), Brussels, Belgium); C. Leroy (Le Centre d'Épidémiologie Périnatale (CEpiP), Brussels, Belgium); J. Gamba and K. Ronald (St. Francis Nsambya Hospital, Kampala, Uganda); M. Heidarzadeh (Tabriz Medical University, Tabriz, Iran); M. J. Ojeda (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile); S. Nangia (Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India); C. Nelson, S. Metcalfe and W. Luo (Maternal Infant Health Section of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada); K. Sitcov (Foundation for Health Care Quality, Seattle, United States); A. Valek (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary); M. R. Yanlin Liu (Mater Data and Analytics, Brisbane, Australia). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. Changes in PTB rates, ranging from −90% to +30%, were reported in many countries following early COVID-19 pandemic response measures (‘lockdowns’). It is unclear whether this variation reflects real differences in lockdown impacts, or perhaps differences in stillbirth rates and/or study designs. Here we present interrupted time series and meta-analyses using harmonized data from 52 million births in 26 countries, 18 of which had representative population-based data, with overall PTB rates ranging from 6% to 12% and stillbirth ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 per 1,000 births. We show small reductions in PTB in the first (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95–0.98, P value <0.0001), second (0.96, 0.92–0.99, 0.03) and third (0.97, 0.94–1.00, 0.09) months of lockdown, but not in the fourth month of lockdown (0.99, 0.96–1.01, 0.34), although there were some between-country differences after the first month. For high-income countries in this study, we did not observe an association between lockdown and stillbirths in the second (1.00, 0.88–1.14, 0.98), third (0.99, 0.88–1.12, 0.89) and fourth (1.01, 0.87–1.18, 0.86) months of lockdown, although we have imprecise estimates due to stillbirths being a relatively rare event. We did, however, find evidence of increased risk of stillbirth in the first month of lockdown in high-income countries (1.14, 1.02–1.29, 0.02) and, in Brazil, we found evidence for an association between lockdown and stillbirth in the second (1.09, 1.03–1.15, 0.002), third (1.10, 1.03–1.17, 0.003) and fourth (1.12, 1.05–1.19, <0.001) months of lockdown. With an estimated 14.8 million PTB annually worldwide, the modest reductions observed during early pandemic lockdowns translate into large numbers of PTB averted globally and warrant further research into causal pathways.Peer reviewe

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in pregnant women in Kilifi, Kenya from March 2020 to March 2022

BackgroundSeroprevalence studies are an alternative approach to estimating the extent of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the evolution of the pandemic in different geographical settings. We aimed to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from March 2020 to March 2022 in a rural and urban setting in Kilifi County, Kenya.MethodsWe obtained representative random samples of stored serum from a pregnancy cohort study for the period March 2020 to March 2022 and tested for antibodies against the spike protein using a qualitative SARS-CoV-2 ELISA kit (Wantai, total antibodies). All positive samples were retested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (Euroimmun, ELISA kits, NCP, qualitative, IgG) and anti-spike protein antibodies (Euroimmun, ELISA kits, QuantiVac; quantitative, IgG).ResultsA total of 2,495 (of 4,703 available) samples were tested. There was an overall trend of increasing seropositivity from a low of 0% [95% CI 0–0.06] in March 2020 to a high of 89.4% [95% CI 83.36–93.82] in Feb 2022. Of the Wantai test-positive samples, 59.7% [95% CI 57.06–62.34] tested positive by the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP test and 37.4% [95% CI 34.83–40.04] tested positive by the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac test. No differences were observed between the urban and rural hospital but villages adjacent to the major highway traversing the study area had a higher seroprevalence.ConclusionAnti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose rapidly, with most of the population exposed to SARS-CoV-2 within 23 months of the first cases. The high cumulative seroprevalence suggests greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 than that reported from surveillance data

Changes in preterm birth and stillbirth during COVID-19 lockdowns in 26 countries.

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. Changes in PTB rates, ranging from -90% to +30%, were reported in many countries following early COVID-19 pandemic response measures ('lockdowns'). It is unclear whether this variation reflects real differences in lockdown impacts, or perhaps differences in stillbirth rates and/or study designs. Here we present interrupted time series and meta-analyses using harmonized data from 52 million births in 26 countries, 18 of which had representative population-based data, with overall PTB rates ranging from 6% to 12% and stillbirth ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 per 1,000 births. We show small reductions in PTB in the first (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98, P value <0.0001), second (0.96, 0.92-0.99, 0.03) and third (0.97, 0.94-1.00, 0.09) months of lockdown, but not in the fourth month of lockdown (0.99, 0.96-1.01, 0.34), although there were some between-country differences after the first month. For high-income countries in this study, we did not observe an association between lockdown and stillbirths in the second (1.00, 0.88-1.14, 0.98), third (0.99, 0.88-1.12, 0.89) and fourth (1.01, 0.87-1.18, 0.86) months of lockdown, although we have imprecise estimates due to stillbirths being a relatively rare event. We did, however, find evidence of increased risk of stillbirth in the first month of lockdown in high-income countries (1.14, 1.02-1.29, 0.02) and, in Brazil, we found evidence for an association between lockdown and stillbirth in the second (1.09, 1.03-1.15, 0.002), third (1.10, 1.03-1.17, 0.003) and fourth (1.12, 1.05-1.19, <0.001) months of lockdown. With an estimated 14.8 million PTB annually worldwide, the modest reductions observed during early pandemic lockdowns translate into large numbers of PTB averted globally and warrant further research into causal pathways

Changes in preterm birth and stillbirth during COVID-19 lockdowns in 26 countries.

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. Changes in PTB rates, ranging from -90% to +30%, were reported in many countries following early COVID-19 pandemic response measures ('lockdowns'). It is unclear whether this variation reflects real differences in lockdown impacts, or perhaps differences in stillbirth rates and/or study designs. Here we present interrupted time series and meta-analyses using harmonized data from 52 million births in 26 countries, 18 of which had representative population-based data, with overall PTB rates ranging from 6% to 12% and stillbirth ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 per 1,000 births. We show small reductions in PTB in the first (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98, P value <0.0001), second (0.96, 0.92-0.99, 0.03) and third (0.97, 0.94-1.00, 0.09) months of lockdown, but not in the fourth month of lockdown (0.99, 0.96-1.01, 0.34), although there were some between-country differences after the first month. For high-income countries in this study, we did not observe an association between lockdown and stillbirths in the second (1.00, 0.88-1.14, 0.98), third (0.99, 0.88-1.12, 0.89) and fourth (1.01, 0.87-1.18, 0.86) months of lockdown, although we have imprecise estimates due to stillbirths being a relatively rare event. We did, however, find evidence of increased risk of stillbirth in the first month of lockdown in high-income countries (1.14, 1.02-1.29, 0.02) and, in Brazil, we found evidence for an association between lockdown and stillbirth in the second (1.09, 1.03-1.15, 0.002), third (1.10, 1.03-1.17, 0.003) and fourth (1.12, 1.05-1.19, <0.001) months of lockdown. With an estimated 14.8 million PTB annually worldwide, the modest reductions observed during early pandemic lockdowns translate into large numbers of PTB averted globally and warrant further research into causal pathways

Vaccinating Children against SARS-CoV-2: A Literature Review and Survey of International Experts to Assess Safety, Efficacy and Perceptions of Vaccine Use in Children

Introduction: The balance of risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in children is more complex than in adults with limited paediatric data resulting in no global consensus on whether all healthy children should be vaccinated. We sought to assess the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of childhood vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, as well as better understanding perceptions of vaccination in parents and vaccine experts. Methods: We performed a literature review for COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and perceptions. We searched international safety databases for safety data and developed an electronic survey to elicit country-specific COVID-19 immunisation data, including vaccine regulations, policies, rates, and public attitudes solicited from vaccine experts. Results: Nine studies were included in the final safety analysis. Local reactions were frequently reported across all studies and vaccine types. Adverse events reported to surveillance systems tended to be non-serious, and commonly included injection site reactions and dizziness. Twenty-three studies reported immunogenicity, efficacy, and effectiveness data. There were nine randomised control trials of six different vaccine types, which showed seroconversion of neutralising antibodies in vaccinated children ranging from 88% to 100%. The vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines ranged from 88% to 100%. There were 118 survey responses representing 55 different countries. Reported vaccination rates ranged from <1% to 98%. Most respondents described “mixed opinions” regarding paediatric vaccination policies in their country. By region, a more positive public attitude towards vaccination correlated with higher vaccination rates. Discussion: In this mixed-methods review, we have found evidence that vaccination against COVID-19 in children is safe, efficacious, and effective. Overall, the combined evidence from both the literature review and survey highlights the need for further data on both the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations in children

A case for vaccinating adolescent girls for protection against COVID-19 during pregnancy and childbirth in resource-limited settings

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had severe implications worldwide, including increased adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Vaccination is one way of protecting against these adverse health outcomes. However, in some low-resource settings, vaccine inequity has led to poor uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. There are very high rates of adolescent pregnancy in low-resource settings, which are likely to become even higher as we begin to see the full effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures, including school closures. Although the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents are debated, we propose that adolescent girls should be prioritised in COVID vaccination roll out in low-resource settings. This is to provide protection from severe COVID-19 disease in pregnancy, preventing adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes

COVID-19 disease and vaccination in pregnancy: understanding knowledge, perceptions and experiences among pregnant women and community leaders in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: We investigated pregnant women and community leaders' knowledge, perceptions and experiences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program during pregnancy in Uganda and how this changed over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted 20 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and two group discussions (GDs) with pregnant women and four GDs with community leaders in Kawempe division of Kampala, Uganda. The first round of IDIs/GDs were carried out in March 2021. In July 2021, telephone IDIs were conducted with 7 pregnant women and 10 community leaders randomly selected from first-round interview participants. Themes were analysed deductively drawing codes from the topic guides. RESULTS: In the first round, the majority of participants thought COVID-19 was not real because of misconceptions around government messaging/motivation and beliefs that Africans would not be affected. In the second round, participants recognised COVID-19 disease, because of rising case numbers and fatalities. There was increased awareness of the benefits of the vaccine. However, pregnant women remained unsure of vaccine safety and quality, citing side effects like fevers and general body weakness. Role models and coherent public health messaging and healthcare workers were key enablers of vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted and sustained COVID-19 communication and engagement strategies are needed, especially for pregnant women and others in their communities, to improve vaccine confidence during outbreaks

Seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pregnant women and their infants in Uganda and Malawi

Background Data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and infancy has accumulated throughout the course of the pandemic, though evidence regarding asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse birth outcomes are scarce. Limited information is available from countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The pregnant woman and infant COVID in Africa study (PeriCOVID Africa) is a South-South-North partnership involving hospitals and health centres in five countries: Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique, The Gambia, and Kenya. The study leveraged data from three ongoing prospective cohort studies: Preparing for Group B Streptococcal Vaccines (GBS PREPARE), SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 in women and their infants in Kampala and Mukono (COMAC) and Pregnancy Care Integrating Translational Science Everywhere (PRECISE). In this paper we describe the seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women enrolled in sites in Uganda and Malawi, and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy and infant outcomes. Outcome Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in maternal blood, reported as the proportion of seropositive women by study site and wave of COVID-19 within each country. Methods The PeriCOVID study was a prospective mother-infant cohort study that recruited pregnant women at any gestation antenatally or on the day of delivery. Maternal and cord blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Wantai and Euroimmune ELISA. In periCOVID Uganda and Malawi nose and throat swabs for SARS-Cov-2 RT-PCR were obtained. Results In total, 1379 women were enrolled, giving birth to 1387 infants. Overall, 63% of pregnant women had a SARS-CoV-2 positive serology. Over subsequent waves (delta and omicron), in the absence of vaccination, seropositivity rose from 20% to over 80%. The placental transfer GMR was 1.7, indicating active placental transfer of anti-spike IgG. There was no association between SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity and adverse pregnancy or infancy outcomes

Seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pregnant women and their infants in Uganda and Malawi.

BackgroundData on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and infancy has accumulated throughout the course of the pandemic, though evidence regarding asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse birth outcomes are scarce. Limited information is available from countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The pregnant woman and infant COVID in Africa study (PeriCOVID Africa) is a South-South-North partnership involving hospitals and health centres in five countries: Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique, The Gambia, and Kenya. The study leveraged data from three ongoing prospective cohort studies: Preparing for Group B Streptococcal Vaccines (GBS PREPARE), SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 in women and their infants in Kampala and Mukono (COMAC) and Pregnancy Care Integrating Translational Science Everywhere (PRECISE). In this paper we describe the seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women enrolled in sites in Uganda and Malawi, and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy and infant outcomes.OutcomeSeroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in maternal blood, reported as the proportion of seropositive women by study site and wave of COVID-19 within each country.MethodsThe PeriCOVID study was a prospective mother-infant cohort study that recruited pregnant women at any gestation antenatally or on the day of delivery. Maternal and cord blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Wantai and Euroimmune ELISA. In periCOVID Uganda and Malawi nose and throat swabs for SARS-Cov-2 RT-PCR were obtained.ResultsIn total, 1379 women were enrolled, giving birth to 1387 infants. Overall, 63% of pregnant women had a SARS-CoV-2 positive serology. Over subsequent waves (delta and omicron), in the absence of vaccination, seropositivity rose from 20% to over 80%. The placental transfer GMR was 1.7, indicating active placental transfer of anti-spike IgG. There was no association between SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity and adverse pregnancy or infancy outcomes