RESUMO
ObjectivesWe aimed to quantify transmission trends in South Africa during the first four waves of the COVID-19 pandemic using estimates of the time-varying reproduction number (R) and to compare the robustness of R estimates based on three different data sources and using data from public and private sector service providers. MethodsWe estimated R from March 2020 through April 2022, nationally and by province, based on time series of rt-PCR-confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and hospital-associated deaths, using a method which models daily incidence as a weighted sum of past incidence. We also estimated R separately using public and private sector data. ResultsNationally, the maximum case-based R following the introduction of lockdown measures was 1.55 (CI: 1.43-1.66), 1.56 (CI: 1.47-1.64), 1.46 (CI: 1.38-1.53) and 3.33 (CI: 2.84-3.97) during the first (Wuhan-Hu), second (Beta), third (Delta), and fourth (Omicron) waves respectively. Estimates based on the three data sources (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) were generally similar during the first three waves but case-based estimates were higher during the fourth wave. Public and private sector R estimates were generally similar except during the initial lockdowns and in case-based estimates during the fourth wave. DiscussionAgreement between R estimates using different data sources during the first three waves suggests that data from any of these sources could be used in the early stages of a future pandemic. High R estimates for Omicron relative to earlier waves is interesting given a high level of exposure pre-Omicron. The agreement between public and private sector R estimates highlights the fact that clients of the public and private sectors did not experience two separate epidemics, except perhaps to a limited extent during the strictest lockdowns in the first wave.
RESUMO
IntroductionGlobally, there have been more than 404 million cases of SARS-CoV-2, with 5.8 million confirmed deaths, as of February 2022. South Africa has experienced four waves of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with the second, third, and fourth waves being driven by the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, respectively. A key question with the emergence of new variants is the extent to which they are able to reinfect those who have had a prior natural infection. RationaleWe developed two approaches to monitor routine epidemiological surveillance data to examine whether SARS-CoV-2 reinfection risk has changed through time in South Africa, in the context of the emergence of the Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants. We analyze line list data on positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 with specimen receipt dates between 04 March 2020 and 31 January 2022, collected through South Africas National Notifiable Medical Conditions Surveillance System. Individuals having sequential positive tests at least 90 days apart were considered to have suspected reinfections. Our routine monitoring of reinfection risk included comparison of reinfection rates to the expectation under a null model (approach 1) and estimation of the time-varying hazards of infection and reinfection throughout the epidemic (approach 2) based on model-based reconstruction of the susceptible populations eligible for primary and second infections. Results105,323 suspected reinfections were identified among 2,942,248 individuals with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who had a positive test result at least 90 days prior to 31 January 2022. The number of reinfections observed through the end of the third wave in September 2021 was consistent with the null model of no change in reinfection risk (approach 1). Although increases in the hazard of primary infection were observed following the introduction of both the Beta and Delta variants, no corresponding increase was observed in the reinfection hazard (approach 2). Contrary to expectation, the estimated hazard ratio for reinfection versus primary infection was lower during waves driven by the Beta and Delta variants than for the first wave (relative hazard ratio for wave 2 versus wave 1: 0.71 (CI95: 0.60-0.85); for wave 3 versus wave 1: 0.54 (CI95: 0.45-0.64)). In contrast, the recent spread of the Omicron variant has been associated with an increase in reinfection hazard coefficient. The estimated hazard ratio for reinfection versus primary infection versus wave 1 was 1.75 (CI95: 1.48-2.10) for the period of Omicron emergence (01 November 2021 to 30 November 2021) and 1.70 (CI95: 1.44-2.04) for wave 4 versus wave 1. Individuals with identified reinfections since 01 November 2021 had experienced primary infections in all three prior waves, and an increase in third infections has been detected since mid-November 2021. Many individuals experiencing third infections had second infections during the third (Delta) wave that ended in September 2021, strongly suggesting that these infections resulted from immune evasion rather than waning immunity. ConclusionPopulation-level evidence suggests that the Omicron variant is associated with substantial ability to evade immunity from prior infection. In contrast, there is no population-wide epidemiological evidence of immune escape associated with the Beta or Delta variants. This finding has important implications for public health planning, particularly in countries like South Africa with high rates of immunity from prior infection. Further development of methods to track reinfection risk during pathogen emergence, including refinements to assess the impact of waning immunity, account for vaccine-derived protection, and monitor the risk of multiple reinfections will be an important tool for future pandemic preparedness.
RESUMO
BackgroundSouth Africa recently experienced a first peak in COVID-19 cases and mortality. Dexamethasone and remdesivir both have the potential to reduce COVID-related mortality, but their cost-effectiveness in a resource-limited setting with scant intensive care resources is unknown. MethodsWe projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed cost-effectiveness of 1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to non-ventilated patients, 2) dexamethasone alone to both non-ventilated and ventilated patients, 3) remdesivir to non-ventilated patients only, and 4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only; all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the healthcare system perspective in 2020 USD, deaths averted, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of each scenario. ResultsRemdesivir for non-ventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 1,111 deaths averted (assuming a 0-30% efficacy of remdesivir) compared to standard care, and save $11.5 million. The result was driven by the efficacy of the drugs, and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone to ventilated and non-ventilated patients requires additional $159,000 and averts 1,146 deaths, resulting in $139 per death averted, relative to standard care. ConclusionsThe use of dexamethasone for ventilated and remdesivir for non-ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared to standard care. Given the economic and health benefits of both drugs, efforts to ensure access to these medications is paramount. 40-word summary of articles main pointThe use of remdesivir and dexamethasone for treatment of severe COVID-19 in South Africa is likely to be cost-saving relative to standard care. Enabling access to these medications should be prioritize to improve patient outcomes and reduce total costs.
RESUMO
For African countries currently reporting COVID-19 cases, we estimate when they will report more than 1 000 and 10 000 cases. Assuming current trends, more than 80% are likely to exceed 1 000 cases by the end of April 2020, with most exceeding 10 000 a few weeks later.
