Bridging the humanitarian-development divide in a protracted crisis: a case study of the use of a central plant to supply oxygen for COVID-19 case management in South Sudan

The rising demand for medicinal oxygen due to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated an underlying chronic shortage of the commodity in Africa. This situation is particularly dire in protracted crises where insecurity, dysfunctional health facilities, poor infrastructure and prohibitive costs hinder equitable access to the commodity. Against this backdrop, the Ministry of Health of South Sudan, with the guidance of its partners, procured and installed a pressure swing adsorption central oxygen supply plant to address the shortfall. The plant aimed to ensure a more sustainable and technologically appropriate medicinal oxygen supply system for the country and to bridge the humanitarian and development divide, which had always been challenging. This article discusses the key issues, challenges and lessons associated with the procurement and installation of this plant. The major challenges encountered during the procurement and installation of the plant were the time it took to procure and install in the face of urgent needs for medicinal oxygen and its short and long-term sustainability. Lessons learnt include the need for exhaustive and evidence-based considerations in deciding on which source of medicinal oxygen to deploy in protracted crisis settings. The successful installation and operationalization of the plant demonstrated that it is possible to bridge the humanitarian-development divide amidst the complexities of a protracted crisis and an ongoing pandemic. The Ministries of Health, with the support of its partners, should assess and document the impact of this and other similar central oxygen production plants in protracted crisis settings regarding their sustainability, cost, and effectiveness on medicinal oxygen supply. The Ministry of Health of South Sudan should expedite the finalization and operationalization of the longer-term public-private partnership and continue to monitor the quality of oxygen produced by this plant

What did we learn from preparing for cross-border transmission of Ebola virus disease into a complex humanitarian setting – The Republic of South Sudan?

BACKGROUND: Following the West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak (2013–2016), WHO developed a preparedness checklist for its member states. This checklist is currently being applied for the first time on a large and systematic scale to prepare for the cross border importation of the ongoing EVD outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo hence the need to document the lessons learnt from this experience. This is more pertinent considering the complex humanitarian context and weak health system under which some of the countries such as the Republic of South Sudan are implementing their EVD preparedness interventions. MAIN TEXT: We identified four main lessons from the ongoing EVD preparedness efforts in the Republic South Sudan. First, EVD preparedness is possible in complex humanitarian settings such as the Republic of South Sudan by using a longer-term health system strengthening approach. Second, the Republic of South Sudan is at risk of both domestic and cross border transmission of EVD and several other infectious disease outbreaks hence the need for an integrated and sustainable approach to outbreak preparedness in the country. Third, a phased and well-prioritized approach is required for EVD preparedness in complex humanitarian settings given the costs associated with preparedness and the difficulties in the accurate prediction of outbreaks in such settings. Fourth, EVD preparedness in complex humanitarian settings is a massive undertaking that requires effective and decentralized coordination. CONCLUSION: Despite a very challenging context, the Republic of South Sudan made significant progress in its EVD preparedness drive demonstrating that it is possible to rapidly scale up preparedness efforts in complex humanitarian contexts if appropriate and context-specific approaches are used. Further research, systematic reviews and evaluation of the ongoing preparedness efforts are required to ensure comprehensive documentation and application of the lessons learnt for future EVD outbreak preparedness and response efforts

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health