Most African countries have recorded relatively lower COVID-19 burdens than Western countries. This has been attributed to early and strong political commitment and robust implementation of public health measures, such as nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, face mask wearing, testing, contact tracing, and isolation, along with community education and engagement. Other factors include the younger population age strata and hypothesized but yet-to-be confirmed partially protective cross-immunity from parasitic diseases and/or other circulating coronaviruses. However, the true burden may also be underestimated due to operational and resource issues for COVID-19 case identification and reporting. In this perspective article, we discuss selected best practices and challenges with COVID-19 contact tracing in Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. Best practices from these country case studies include sustained, multi-platform public communications; leveraging of technology innovations; applied public health expertise; deployment of community health workers; and robust community engagement. Challenges include an overwhelming workload of contact tracing and case detection for healthcare workers, misinformation and stigma, and poorly sustained adherence to isolation and quarantine. Important lessons learned include the need for decentralization of contact tracing to the lowest geographic levels of surveillance, rigorous use of data and technology to improve decision-making, and sustainment of both community sensitization and political commitment. Further research is needed to understand the role and importance of contact tracing in controlling community transmission dynamics in African countries, including among children. Also, implementation science will be critically needed to evaluate innovative, accessible, and cost-effective digital solutions to accommodate the contact tracing workload.

Introduction: Aiming to reach UNAIDS 90‐90‐90 targets, nearly all sub‐Saharan African countries have expanded antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all people living with HIV (PLWH) (Treat All). Few published data exist on viral load testing and viral suppression under Treat All in this region. We assessed proportions of patients with available viral load test results and who were virally suppressed, as well as factors associated with viral suppression, among PLWH in 10 Rwandan health centres after Treat All implementation.Methods: Cross‐sectional study during 2018 of adults (≥15 years) engaged in HIV care at 10 Rwandan health centres. Outcomes were being on ART (available ART initiation date in the study database, with no ART discontinuation prior to 1 January 2018), retained on ART (≥2 post‐ART health centre visits ≥90 days apart during 2018), available viral load test results (viral load measured in 2018 and available in study database) and virally suppressed (most recent 2018 viral load 49 years (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90 and those with pre‐ART CD4 counts of <200 compared to ≥500 cells/mm³ (aPR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.93). There was no statistically significant difference in viral suppression among patients who entered after Treat All implementation compared to those who enrolled before 2010 (aPR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03).Conclusions: In this large cohort of Rwandan PLWH receiving HIV care after Treat All implementation, patients in study health centres have surpassed the third UNAIDS 90‐90‐90 target. To ensure all PLWH fully benefit from ART, additional efforts should focus on improving ART adherence among younger persons.

Background: Risks to mother and fetus following Ebola virus infection are very high. Evaluation of safety and immunogenicity of non-replicating Ebola vaccine candidates is a priority for use in pregnant women. This is the protocol for a randomized, open-label, single-center phase 3 clinical trial of the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of the 2-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in healthy adult pregnant women. This 2-dose regimen has been shown to be safe, judged effective, and approved in non-pregnant populations. Methods: A total of 2000 adult (≥ 18 years of age) pregnant women will be enrolled from antenatal care facilities in Western Rwanda and randomized (1:1) to receive the 2-dose Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo (group A)) or control (unvaccinated pregnant women (group B)). The primary objectives are to (1) assess adverse maternal/fetal outcomes in randomized pregnant women up to 1.5 months after delivery and (2) assess adverse neonatal/infant outcomes in neonates/infants born to randomized women up to 3.5 months after birth. The frequency and relatedness of all serious adverse events in women and newborns from randomization or birth, respectively, until study end will be reported. The reactogenicity and unsolicited adverse events of the 2-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in all vaccinated pregnant women (group A) will be reported. We will also assess the immunogenicity of the 2-dose Ebola vaccine regimen in 150 pregnant women who are anticipated to receive both vaccine doses within the course of their pregnancy (a subset of the 1000 pregnant vaccinated women from group A) compared to 150 non-pregnant women vaccinated after delivery (a subset of group B). The persistence of maternal antibodies in 75 infants born to women from the group A subset will be assessed. Exploratory analyses include assessment of acceptability of the 2-dose Ebola vaccine regimen among group A and assessment of maternal antibodies in breast milk in 50 women from group A and 10 controls (women from group B prior to vaccination). Discussion: This study is intended to support a label variation to relax restrictions on use in pregnant women, a vulnerable population with high medical need. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04556526. September 21, 2020.

Introduction: In 2016, Rwanda implemented “Treat All,” requiring the national HIV programme to increase antiretroviral (ART) treatment coverage to all people living with HIV. Approximately half of the 164,262 patients on ART have been on treatment for more than five years, and long‐term retention of patients in care is an increasing concern. To address these challenges, the Ministry of Health has introduced a differentiated service delivery approach to reduce the frequency of clinical visits and medication dispensing for eligible patients. This article draws on key policy documents and the views of technical experts involved in policy development to describe the process of implementation of differentiated service delivery in Rwanda.Discussion: Implementation of differentiated service delivery followed a phased approach to ensure that all steps are clearly defined and agreed by all partners. Key steps included: definition of scope, including defining which patients were eligible for transition to the new model; definition of the key model components; preparation for patient enrolment; considerations for special patient groups; engagement of implementing partners; securing political and financial support; forecasting drug supply; revision, dissemination and implementation of ART guidelines; and monitoring and evaluation.Conclusions: Based on the outcomes of the evaluation of the new service delivery model, the Ministry of Health will review and strategically reduce costs to the national HIV program and to the patient by exploring and implementing adjustments to the service delivery model.

Tuberculosis (TB), including multidrug-resistant (MDR; i.e., resistant to at least rifampicin and isoniazid)/rifampicin-resistant (MDR/RR) TB, is the most important opportunistic infection among people living with HIV (PLHIV). In 2005, Rwanda launched the programmatic management of MDR/RR-TB. The shorter MDR/RR-TB treatment regimen (STR) has been implemented since 2014. We analyzed predictors of MDR/RR-TB mortality, including the effect of using the STR overall and among PLHIV. This retrospective study included data from patients diagnosed with RR-TB in Rwanda between July 2005 and December 2018. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors of mortality. Of 898 registered MDR/RR-TB patients, 861 (95.9%) were included in this analysis, of whom 360 (41.8%) were HIV coinfected. Overall, 86 (10%) patients died during MDR/RR-TB treatment. Mortality was higher among HIV-coinfected compared with HIV-negative TB patients (13.3% versus 7.6%). Among HIV-coinfected patients, patients aged >= 55 years (adjusted odds ratio = 5.89) and those with CD4 count <= 100 cells/mm(3) (adjusted odds ratio = 3.77) had a higher likelihood of dying. Using either the standardized longer MDR/RR-TB treatment regimen or the STR was not correlated with mortality overall or among PLHIV. The STR was as effective as the long MDR/RR-TB regimen. In conclusion, older age and advanced HIV disease were strong predictors of MDR/RR-TB mortality. Therefore, special care for elderly and HIV-coinfected patients with <= 100 CD4 cells/mL might further reduce MDR/RR-TB mortality.

We reported the findings of the first Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) four clusters identified in Rwanda. Case-investigations included contact elicitation, testing, and isolation/quarantine of confirmed cases. Socio-demographic and clinical data on cases and contacts were collected. A confirmed case was a person with laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR) while a contact was any person who had contact with a SARS-CoV-2 confirmed case within 72 h prior, to 14 days after symptom onset; or 14 days before collection of the laboratory-positive sample for asymptomatic cases. High risk contacts were those who had come into unprotected face-to-face contact or had been in a closed environment with a SARS-CoV-2 case for >15 min. Forty cases were reported from four clusters by 22 April 2020, accounting for 61% of locally transmitted cases within six weeks. Clusters A, B, C and D were associated with two nightclubs, one house party, and different families or households living in the same compound (multi-family dwelling). Thirty-six of the 1035 contacts tested were positive (secondary attack rate: 3.5%). Positivity rates were highest among the high-risk contacts compared to low-risk contacts (10% vs. 2.2%). Index cases in three of the clusters were imported through international travelling. Fifteen of the 40 cases (38%) were asymptomatic while 13/25 (52%) and 8/25 (32%) of symptomatic cases had a cough and fever respectively. Gatherings in closed spaces were the main early drivers of transmission. Systematic case-investigations contact tracing and testing likely contributed to the early containment of SARS-CoV-2 in Rwanda.