Funding and COVID-19 research in Africa: two years on, are the research needs of Africa being met?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significantly lower reported mortalities on the African continent as compared to other regions. Yet, many countries on the continent are still contending with the devastating economic, social and indirect health impacts. African researchers and policy makers have identified research priority areas which take cognisance of the unique research needs of African countries. A baseline assessment of the alignment of funded research in Africa to these priorities and World Health Organization's COVID-19 research priorities was undertaken in July, 2020. We present a two-year update to this analysis of funded COVID-19 research in Africa. METHODS: Data captured in the UK Collaborative on Development Research and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness COVID-19 Research Project Tracker as of 15th July, 2022 was analysed. An additional analysis of institutions receiving funding for COVID-19 research is presented. We also analysed the change in funding for COVID-19 research in Africa since July, 2020. RESULTS: The limited COVID-19 research identified in Africa early in the pandemic has persisted over the subsequent two-year period assessed. When number of projects are considered, governmental funders based in Europe and United States supported the most research. Only nine research funders based in Africa were identified. A number of partnerships between African institutions and institutions based on other continents were identified, however, most research projects were undertaken in research institutions based in Africa only. Our findings highlight the relevance of the WHO research priorities for the pandemic response in Africa. Many research questions raised by African researchers remain unaddressed, among which are questions related to clinical management of COVID-19 infections in Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Two years after the identification of Africa's COVID-19 research priorities, the findings suggest a missed opportunity in new research funding to answer pertinent questions for the pandemic response in Africa.

Bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies as biotherapeutic weapons against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants: A review article.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected 305 million individuals worldwide and killed about 5.5 million people as of January 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 is the third major outbreak caused by a new coronavirus in the previous two decades, following SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even though vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered a critical strategy for preventing virus spread in the population and limiting COVID-19 clinical manifestations, new therapeutic drugs, and management strategies are urgently needed, particularly in light of the growing number of SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as Delta and Omicron variants). However, the use of conventional antibodies has faced many challenges, such as viral escape mutants, increased instability, weak binding, large sizes, the need for large amounts of plasma, and high-cost manufacturing. Furthermore, the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in the human population and recurrent coronavirus spillovers highlight the need for broadly neutralizing antibodies that are not affected by an antigenic drift that could limit future zoonotic infection. Bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies are more potent and protective than conventional human antibodies, thanks to their inbuilt characteristics, and can be produced in large quantities. In addition, it was reported that these biotherapeutics are effective against a broad spectrum of epitopes, reducing the opportunity of viral pathogens to develop mutational escape. In this review, we focus on the potential benefits behind our rationale for using bovine-derived antibodies and camelid-derived nanobodies in countering SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants and mutants.

Research priorities in maternal and neonatal health in Africa: results using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method involving over 900 experts across the continent.

Background: Africa will miss the maternal and neonatal health (MNH) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets if the current trajectory is followed. The African Academy of Sciences has formed an expert maternal and newborn health group to discuss actions to improve MNH SDG targets. The team, among other recommendations, chose to implement an MNH research prioritization exercise for Africa covering four grand challenge areas. Methods: The team used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) research prioritization method to identify research priorities in maternal and newborn health in Africa. From 609 research options, a ranking of the top 46 research questions was achieved. Research priority scores and agreement statistics were calculated, with sub-analysis possible for the regions of East Africa, West Africa and those living out of the continent.  Results: The top research priorities generally fell into (i) improving identification of high-risk mothers and newborns, or diagnosis of high-risk conditions in mothers and newborns to improve health outcomes; (ii) improving access to treatment through improving incentives to attract and retain skilled health workers in remote, rural areas, improving emergency transport, and assessing health systems' readiness; and (iii) improving uptake of proven existing interventions such as Kangaroo Mother Care. Conclusions: The research priorities emphasized building interventions that improved access to quality healthcare in the lowest possible units of the provision of MNH interventions. The lists prioritized participation of communities in delivering MNH interventions. The current burden of disease from MNCH in Africa aligns well with the list of priorities listed from this exercise but provides extra insights into current needs by African practitioners. The MNCH Africa expert group believes that the recommendations from this work should be implemented by multisectoral teams as soon as possible to provide adequate lead time for results of the succeeding programmes to be seen before 2030.

The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future. CONCLUSION: We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.

Impact of 1.5 oC and 2 oC global warming scenarios on malaria transmission in East Africa.

Background: Malaria remains a global challenge with approximately 228 million cases and 405,000 malaria-related deaths reported in 2018 alone; 93% of which were in sub-Saharan Africa. Aware of the critical role than environmental factors play in malaria transmission, this study aimed at assessing the relationship between precipitation, temperature, and clinical malaria cases in East Africa and how the relationship may change under 1.5 oC and 2.0 oC global warming levels (hereinafter GWL1.5 and GWL2.0, respectively). Methods: A correlation analysis was done to establish the current relationship between annual precipitation, mean temperature, and clinical malaria cases. Differences between annual precipitation and mean temperature value projections for periods 2008-2037 and 2023-2052 (corresponding to GWL1.5 and GWL2.0, respectively), relative to the control period (1977-2005), were computed to determine how malaria transmission may change under the two global warming scenarios. Results: A predominantly positive/negative correlation between clinical malaria cases and temperature/precipitation was observed. Relative to the control period, no major significant changes in precipitation were shown in both warming scenarios. However, an increase in temperature of between 0.5 oC and 1.5 oC and 1.0 oC to 2.0 oC under GWL1.5 and GWL2.0, respectively, was recorded. Hence, more areas in East Africa are likely to be exposed to temperature thresholds favourable for increased malaria vector abundance and, hence, potentially intensify malaria transmission in the region. Conclusions: GWL1.5 and GWL2.0 scenarios are likely to intensify malaria transmission in East Africa. Ongoing interventions should, therefore, be intensified to sustain the gains made towards malaria elimination in East Africa in a warming climate.

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects.  Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa.  Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

Geographical variation in the response of visceral leishmaniasis to paromomycin in East Africa: a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a major health problem in developing countries. The untreated disease is fatal, available treatment is expensive and often toxic, and drug resistance is increasing. Improved treatment options are needed. Paromomycin was shown to be an efficacious first-line treatment with low toxicity in India. METHODS: This was a 3-arm multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare three treatment regimens for VL in East Africa: paromomycin sulphate (PM) at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days versus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) at 20 mg/kg/day for 30 days; and the combination of both dose regimens for 17 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cure based on parasite-free tissue aspirates taken 6 months after treatment. FINDINGS: Overall, 135 patients per arm were enrolled at five centres in Sudan (2 sites), Kenya (1) and Ethiopia (2), when the PM arm had to be discontinued due to poor efficacy. The trial has continued with the higher dose of PM as well as the combination of PM and SSG arms. These results will be reported later. Baseline patient characteristics were similar among treatment arms. The overall cure with PM was significantly inferior to that with SSG (63.8% versus 92.2%; difference 28.5%, 95%CI 18.8% to 38.8%, p<0.001). The efficacy of PM varied among centres and was significantly lower in Sudan (14.3% and 46.7%) than in Kenya (80.0%) and Ethiopia (75.0% and 96.6%). No major safety issues with PM were identified. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of PM at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days was inadequate, particularly in Sudan. The efficacy of higher doses and the combination treatment warrant further studies.