Prevalence of drug resistance mutations among ART-naive and -experienced HIV-infected patients in Sierra Leone

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) in HIV-infected ART-naive and -experienced patients in Sierra Leone. Patients and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of HIV-positive adults aged 18 years at Connaught Hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone in November 2017. Sequencing was performed in the reverse transcriptase, protease and integrase regions, and interpreted using the Stanford HIVDR database andWHO 2009mutation list. Results: Two hundred and fifteen HIV-infected patients were included (64 ART naive and 151 ART experienced). The majority (66%) were female, the median age was 36 years and the median ART exposure was 48months. The majority (83%) were infected with HIV-1 subtype CRF02_AG. In the ART-naive group, the pretreatment drug resistance (PDR) prevalence was 36.7% (14.2% to NRTIs and 22.4% to NNRTIs). The most prevalent PDR mutations were K103N (14.3%), M184V (8.2%) and Y181C (4.1%). In the ART-experienced group, 64.4% harboured resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and the overall prevalence of RAMs to NRTIs and NNRTIs was 85.2% (52/61) and 96.7% (59/61), respectively. The most prevalent RAMs were K103N (40.7%), M184V (28.8%), D67N (15.3%) and T215I/F/Y (15.3%). Based on the genotypic susceptibility score estimates, 22.4% of ART-naive patients and 56% of ART-experienced patients were not susceptible to first-line ART used in Sierra Leone. Conclusions: A high prevalence of circulating NRTI- and NNRTI-resistant variants was observed in ART-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected patients in Sierra Leone. This necessitates the implementation of HIVDR surveillance programmes to inform national ART guidelines for the treatment and monitoring of HIV-infected patients in Sierra Leone.Xunta Galicia-Fondo Social Europeo | Ref. IN606A-2016/023Case Western Reserve University | Ref. NIH NIAID T32 AI07024Instituto de Salud Carlos III and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional-FEDER | Ref. RD16/0025/002

Prospects for financial technology for health in Africa

Over the years, technology has revolutionized the operations of many industries, ranging from manufacturing and agriculture to financial institutions which are usually the first users of innovations. Owing to the recent technological trends in the financial sector, such as mobile money, artificial intelligence, and medical robotics, as well as the rapidly increasing human population and the emergence of new patterns of disease, it is necessary for the healthcare sector to adopt new strategies to deliver efficient and effective healthcare services. Financial technology (FinTech), a combination of financial services and technology, entails the incorporation of modern, innovative technologies by industries into their financial services. FinTech is an endless array of applications, products, and services which includes mobile banking, cryptocurrency, insurance, and investment apps among many others. Any enterprise that employs technology to enhance or automate financial services and processes is referred to as FinTech. This fast-growing industry serves the interests of both the business sector and the consuming public. There have been many applications and uses of FinTech, however, its employment in the field of health remains to be explored further and maximized, particularly in the developing world like Africa. This paper aims to explore the prospects of FinTech for healthcare in Africa

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

Impact of three rounds of mass drug administration on lymphatic filariasis in areas previously treated for onchocerciasis in Sierra Leone.

BACKGROUND 1974-2005 studies across Sierra Leone showed onchocerciasis endemicity in 12 of 14 health districts (HDs) and baseline studies 2005-2008 showed lymphatic filariasis (LF) endemicity in all 14 HDs. Three integrated annual mass drug administration (MDA) were conducted in the 12 co-endemic districts 2008-2010 with good geographic, programme and drug coverage. Midterm assessment was conducted 2011 to determine impact of these MDAs on LF in these districts. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS The mf prevalence and intensity in the 12 districts were determined using the thick blood film method and results compared with baseline data from 2007-2008. Overall mf prevalence fell from 2.6% (95% CI: 2.3%-3.0%) to 0.3% (95% CI: 0.19%-0.47%), a decrease of 88.5% (p = 0.000); prevalence was 0.0% (100.0% decrease) in four districts: Bo, Moyamba, Kenema and Kono (p = 0.001, 0.025, 0.085 and 0.000 respectively); and seven districts had reductions in mf prevalence of between 70.0% and 95.0% (p = 0.000, 0.060, 0.001, 0.014, 0.000, 0.000 and 0.002 for Bombali, Bonthe, Kailahun, Kambia, Koinadugu, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts respectively). Pujehun had baseline mf prevalence of 0.0%, which was maintained. Only Bombali still had an mf prevalence ≥1.0% (1.58%, 95% CI: 0.80%-3.09%)), and this is the district that had the highest baseline mf prevalence: 6.9% (95% CI: 5.3%-8.8%). Overall arithmetic mean mf density after three MDAs was 17.59 mf/ml (95% CI: 15.64 mf/ml-19.55 mf/ml) among mf positive individuals (65.4% decrease from baseline of 50.9 mf/ml (95% CI: 40.25 mf/ml-61.62 mf/ml; p = 0.001) and 0.05 mf/ml (95% CI: 0.03 mf/ml-0.08 mf/ml) for the entire population examined (96.2% decrease from baseline of 1.32 mf/ml (95% CI: 1.00 mf/ml-1.65 mf/ml; p = 0.000)). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE The results show that mf prevalence decreased to <1.0% in all but one of the 12 districts after three MDAs. Overall mf density reduced by 65.0% among mf-positive individuals, and 95.8% for the entire population

Emergency care capacity in Sierra Leone: A multicentre analysis

Background: The Disease Control Priorities Project estimates that over 50 % of annual mortality in low- and middle-income countries can be addressed by improved emergency care. Sierra Leone's Ministry of Health and Sanitation has highlighted emergency care as a national priority. We conducted the first multicentre analysis of emergency care capacity in Sierra Leone, using the Hospital Emergency Unit Assessment Tool (HEAT) to analyse 14 government hospitals across the country. Methods: HEAT is a standardised assessment that is recommended in the World Health Organisation Emergency Care Toolkit. It has been used comparably elsewhere. To analyse Sierra Leone's emergency care capacity with the HEAT data, we created the HEAT-adjusted Emergency Care Capacity Score. Purposeful sampling was used to select 14 government facilities nationwide. A multidisciplinary team was interviewed over a 2-day in-person visit to each facility. Results: Human Resources was the strongest parameter, scoring 49 %. All hospitals provided emergency cover 24/7. Emergency Diagnostic Services was the most severely limited parameter, scoring 29 %. 3 hospitals had no access to basic radiography. Infrastructure scored 47 %. 2 hospitals had adequate electricity supply; 5 had adequate clean, running water. No hospitals had adequate oxygen supply. Clinical services scored 39 %. 10 hospitals had no designated Emergency Unit, only 2 triaged to stratify severity. Signal functions scored 38 %. No hospitals had reliable access to emergency drugs such as adrenaline. The total HEAT-adjusted Emergency Care Capacity Score across all hospitals was 40 %. Conclusions: These data identify gaps that have already led to local interventions, including focussing emergency resources to a resuscitation area, and training multidisciplinary teams in emergency care skills. This facility-level analysis could feed into wider assessment of Sierra Leone's emergency care systems at every level, which may help prioritise government strategy to target sustainable strengthening of national emergency care

Ebola in Freetown Area, Sierra Leone — A Case Study of 581 Patients

Schieffelin et al. (Nov. 27 issue)1 reported on 106 patients with Ebola virus disease who were treated in Kenema, Sierra Leone, in May and June 2014. Here we report similar data on the 631 patients with Ebola virus disease, as confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay, who were admitted to the Ebola treatment center at the Hastings Police Training School near Freetown, Sierra Leone, on or after September 20, 2014 (the date on which the first patients were admitted to that center). The 31% case fatality rate at Hastings is lower than the 74% rate reported by Schieffelin et al