Comparative strategic approaches to COVID-19 in Africa: Balancing public interest with civil liberties.

As COVID-19 spreads rapidly across Africa, causing havoc to economies and disruption to already fragile healthcare systems, it is becoming clear that despite standardised global health strategies, national and local government responses must be tailored to their individual settings. Some African countries have adopted stringent measures such as national lockdown, quarantine or isolation, in combination with good hand hygiene, mandatory wearing of masks and physical distancing, to prevent an impending healthcare crisis. The impact of stringent measures in low- to middle-income African countries has bought time for healthcare facilities to prepare for the onslaught of COVID-19 cases, but some measures have been challenging to implement. In some settings, public health measures have been associated with serious violations of individual rights owing to abuse of power and gaps in implementation of well-intentioned policy. Collateral damage with regard to non-COVID-19 diseases that were suboptimally managed in pre-pandemic times may mean that lives lost from other diseases could exceed those saved from COVID-19. While individuals complying with lockdown regulations have embraced an acceptance of the concept of the common good, at a broad community level many are finding the transition from individualism to collective thinking required during a pandemic difficult to navigate. In this article, we look at government responses to the pandemic in six African countries (Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana), and highlight ethical concerns arising in these contexts.

Impact of human immunodeficiency virus infection on Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization and seroepidemiology among Zambian women.

Nasopharyngeal colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae precedes invasive pneumococcal disease. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection increases rates of invasive pneumococcal disease, and its effect on colonization is unknown. In a longitudinal cohort of Zambian mothers with or without HIV infection, HIV infection increased the risk of colonization (risk ratio [RR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-2.8) and repeat colonization (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.3) and reduced the time to new colonization (P = .01). Repeat colonization with homologous sero/factor types occurred only among HIV-positive mothers. Pediatric serotypes 6, 19, and 23 accounted for excess colonization among HIV-positive mothers. HIV infection significantly increases the risk of pneumococcal colonization. Increased rates of colonization by pediatric serotypes suggest a potential role for the 7-valent pneumococcal vaccine in HIV-infected adults.

Effect of presumptive co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on pneumococcal colonization rates, seroepidemiology and antibiotic resistance in Zambian infants: a longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the microbiological consequences of WHO's recommendation for presumptive co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for infants with perinatal HIV exposure. METHODS: Using a longitudinal cohort design, we followed HIV-exposed and HIV-unexposed infants trimonthly for up to 18 months per infant. HIV-exposed infants received daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis from 6 weeks to > or = 12 months of age. Using Streptococcus pneumoniae as our sentinel pathogen, we measured how co-trimoxazole altered nasopharyngeal colonization, pneumococcal resistance to antibiotics and serotype distribution as a function of co-trimoxazole exposure. FINDINGS: From 260 infants followed for 3096 patient-months, we detected pneumococci in 360/1394 (25.8%) samples. HIV-exposed infants were colonized more frequently than HIV-unexposed infants (risk ratio, RR: 1.4; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.0-1.9, P = 0.04). Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced colonization by ca 7% but increased the risk of colonization with co-trimoxazole-resistant pneumococci within 6 weeks of starting prophylaxis (RR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.3-7.8, P = 0.04). Prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole led to a small but statistically significant increase of nasopharyngeal colonization with pneumococci not susceptible to clindamycin (RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.6, P = 0.04) but did not increase the risk of non-susceptibility to penicillin (RR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.7), erythromycin (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.7), tetracycline (RR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.6-1.5) or chloramphenicol (RR: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.3-2.3). Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis did not cause the prevailing pneumococcal serotypes to differ from those that are targeted by the 7-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine (RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.7-1.6). CONCLUSION: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis modestly suppresses pneumococcal colonization but accelerates infant acquisition of co-trimoxazole- and clindamycin-resistant pneumococci. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis appears unlikely to compromise the future efficacy of conjugate vaccines.

Inferiority of single-dose sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine intermittent preventive therapy for malaria during pregnancy among HIV-positive Zambian women.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization advocates 2-3 doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (SP IPTp). The optimal number of doses and the consequences of single-dose therapy remain unclear. METHODS: Data were from a randomized, controlled study of human immunodeficiency virus-positive Zambian women comparing monthly versus 2-dose SP IPTp. We compared maternal and neonatal birth outcomes as a function of how many doses the mothers received (1 to > or =4 doses). RESULTS: Of 387 deliveries, 34 received 1 dose of SP. Single-dose SP was significantly associated with higher proportions of maternal anemia, peripheral and cord blood parasitemia, infant prematurity, and low birth weight. SP conferred dose-dependent benefits, particularly in the transition from 1 to 2 doses of SP. Women randomized to the standard 2-dose regimen were much more likely to receive only 1 dose than were women randomized to monthly IPT (relative risk, 16.4 [95% confidence interval, 4.0-68.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose SP was a common result of trying to implement the standard 2-dose regimen and was inferior to all other dosing regimens. At a programmatic level, this implies that monthly SP IPTp may ultimately be more effective than the standard regimen by reducing the risk of inadvertently underdosing mothers.