SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence in Malawi Based on Data from Survey of Communities and Health Workers in 5 High-Burden Districts, October 2020.

To determine early COVID-19 burden in Malawi, we conducted a multistage cluster survey in 5 districts. During October-December 2020, we recruited 5,010 community members (median age 32 years, interquartile range 21-43 years) and 1,021 health facility staff (HFS) (median age 35 years, interquartile range 28-43 years). Real-time PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence was 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.5%) among community and 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-1.2%) among HFS participants; seroprevalence was 7.8% (95% CI 6.3%-9.6%) among community and 9.7% (95% CI 6.4%-14.5%) among HFS participants. Most seropositive community (84.7%) and HFS (76.0%) participants were asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was higher among urban community (12.6% vs. 3.1%) and HFS (14.5% vs. 7.4%) than among rural community participants. Cumulative infection findings 113-fold higher from this survey than national statistics (486,771 vs. 4,319) and predominantly asymptomatic infections highlight a need to identify alternative surveillance approaches and predictors of severe disease to inform national response.

Cost of community-led larval source management and house improvement for malaria control: a cost analysis within a cluster-randomized trial in a rural district in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: House improvement (HI) to prevent mosquito house entry, and larval source management (LSM) targeting aquatic mosquito stages to prevent development into adult forms, are promising complementary interventions to current malaria vector control strategies. Lack of evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness of community-led implementation of HI and LSM has hindered wide-scale adoption. This study presents an incremental cost analysis of community-led implementation of HI and LSM, in a cluster-randomized, factorial design trial, in addition to standard national malaria control interventions in a rural area (25,000 people), in southern Malawi. METHODS: In the trial, LSM comprised draining, filling, and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis-based larviciding, while house improvement (henceforth HI) involved closing of eaves and gaps on walls, screening windows/ventilation spaces with wire mesh, and doorway modifications. Communities implemented all interventions. Costs were estimated retrospectively using the 'ingredients approach', combining 'bottom-up' and 'top-down approaches', from the societal perspective. To estimate the cost of independently implementing each intervention arm, resources shared between trial arms (e.g. overheads) were allocated to each consuming arm using proxies developed based on share of resource input quantities consumed. Incremental implementation costs (in 2017 US$) are presented for HI-only, LSM-only and HI + LSM arms. In sensitivity analyses, the effect of varying costs of important inputs on estimated costs was explored. RESULTS: The total economic programme costs of community-led HI and LSM implementation was $626,152. Incremental economic implementation costs of HI, LSM and HI + LSM were estimated as $27.04, $25.06 and $33.44, per person per year, respectively. Project staff, transport and labour costs, but not larvicide or screening material, were the major cost drivers across all interventions. Costs were sensitive to changes in staff costs and population covered. CONCLUSIONS: In the trial, the incremental economic costs of community-led HI and LSM implementation were high compared to previous house improvement and LSM studies. Several factors, including intervention design, year-round LSM implementation and low human population density could explain the high costs. The factorial trial design necessitated use of proxies to allocate costs shared between trial arms, which limits generalizability where different designs are used. Nevertheless, costs may inform planners of similar intervention packages where cost-effectiveness is known. Trial registration Not applicable. The original trial was registered with The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry on 3 March 2016, trial number PACTR201604001501493.

The health policy response to COVID-19 in Malawi.

Malawi declared a state of national disaster due to the COVID-19 pandemic on 20th March 2020 and registered its first confirmed coronavirus case on the 2 April 2020. The aim of this paper was to document policy decisions made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from January to August 2020. We reviewed policy documents from the Public Health Institute of Malawi, the Malawi Gazette, the Malawi Ministry of Health and Population and the University of Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker. We found that the Malawi response to the COVID-19 pandemic was multisectoral and implemented through 15 focused working groups termed clusters. Each cluster was charged with providing policy direction in their own area of focus. All clusters then fed into one central committee for major decisions and reporting to head of state. Key policies identified during the review include international travel ban, school closures at all levels, cancellation of public events, decongesting workplaces and public transport, and mandatory face coverings and a testing policy covering symptomatic people. Supportive interventions included risk communication and community engagement in multiple languages and over a variety of mediums, efforts to improve access to water, sanitation, nutrition and unconditional social-cash transfers for poor urban and rural households.

The Duration of Protection from Azithromycin Against Malaria, Acute Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, and Skin Infections When Given Alongside Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention: Secondary Analyses of Data from a Clinical Trial in Houndé, Burkina Faso, and Bougouni, Mali.

BACKGROUND: Mass drug administration (MDA) with azithromycin (AZ) is being considered as a strategy to promote child survival in sub-Saharan Africa, but the mechanism by which AZ reduces mortality is unclear. To better understand the nature and extent of protection provided by AZ, we explored the profile of protection by time since administration, using data from a household-randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Burkina Faso and Mali. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, 30 977 children aged 3-59 months received seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine and either AZ or placebo monthly, on 4 occasions each year. Poisson regression with gamma-distributed random effects, accounting for the household randomization and within-individual clustering of illness episodes, was used to compare incidence of prespecified outcomes between SMC+AZ versus SMC+placebo groups in fixed time strata post-treatment. The likelihood ratio test was used to assess evidence for a time-treatment group interaction. RESULTS: Relative to SMC+placebo, there was no evidence of protection from SMC+AZ against hospital admissions and deaths. Additional protection from SMC+AZ against malaria was confined to the first 2 weeks post-administration (protective efficacy (PE): 24.2% [95% CI: 17.8%, 30.1%]). Gastroenteritis and pneumonia were reduced by 29.9% [21.7; 37.3%], and 34.3% [14.9; 49.3%], respectively, in the first 2 weeks postadministration. Protection against nonmalaria fevers with a skin condition persisted up to 28 days: PE: 46.3% [35.1; 55.6%]. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of AZ-MDA are broad-ranging but short-lived. To maximize impact, timing of AZ-MDA must address the challenge of targeting asynchronous morbidity and mortality peaks from different causes.