Tag: South Africa

Categories : VaccinesTags :

Why Most People in South Africa Can’t Get the Shingles Vaccine

On By ModernMedia
There are two vaccines against shingles – an often painful and debilitating condition caused by the same virus that causes chickenpox – but neither are available in South Africa. Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

By Catherine Tomlinson

The only shingles vaccine on the market in South Africa was discontinued last year. A newer and better vaccine is being used in some other countries, but has not yet been registered in South Africa, though it can be obtained by those with money who are willing to jump through some hoops.

Shingles is a common and painful condition that mostly affects the elderly and people with weakened immune systems. It generally appears with a telltale red rash and cluster of red blisters on one side of one’s body, often in a band-like pattern.

“Shingles is pretty awful to get – it’s extremely painful, and some people can get strokes, vision loss, deafness and other horrible manifestations as complications,” said infectious disease specialist Professor Jeremy Nel. “Shingles really is something to avoid, if at all possible,” he added.

One way to prevent the viral infection is by getting vaccinated against it. But while two vaccines against shingles have been developed and broadly used in the developed world, neither of these are currently available in South Africa.

Two vaccines

Zostavax, from the pharmaceutical company MSD, was the first vaccine introduced to prevent shingles. It was approved for use in the United States in 2006 and in South Africa in 2011. It is 51% effective against shingles in adults over 60.

A more effective vaccine, Shingrix, that is over 90% effective in preventing shingles was introduced by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in the United States in 2016. It is not yet authorised for use in South Africa, but GSK has submitted paperwork for approval with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), said the company spokesperson, Kamil Saytkulov.

The superior protection offered by Shingrix compared to Zostavax quickly made it the dominant shingles vaccine on the market. As a result, MSD discontinued the production and marketing of Zostavax. MSD spokesperson Cheryl Reddy said Zostavax was discontinued globally in March 2024. Before then, the vaccine was sold in South Africa’s private healthcare system for about R2 300, but it was never widely available in government clinics or hospitals.

No registered and available vaccine

Since Zostavax has been discontinued and Shingrix remains unregistered, the only way to access a vaccine against shingles in South Africa is by going through the onerous process of applying to SAHPRA for a Section 21 authorisation – a legal mechanism that allows the importation of unregistered medicines when there is an unmet medical need.

“Access will only be available to those who are able to get Section 21 approval” and “this is a costly and time-consuming process, requiring motivation by a doctor,” said Dr Leon Geffen, director of the Samson Institute For Ageing Research.

The cost of the two-dose Shingrix vaccine imported through Section 21 authorisations is currently around R15 600, said Dr Albie de Frey, CEO of the Travel Doctor Corporation.

People who do go through the effort of getting Section 21 authorisation typically have to pay this price out of their own pockets.

“Shingrix is not covered [by Discovery Health] as it is unregistered in South Africa and is therefore considered to be a General Scheme Exclusion,” Dr Noluthando Nematswerani, Chief Clinical Officer at Discovery Health, told Spotlight.

The Department of Health did not respond to queries regarding whether Section 21 processes are being pursued for priority patients in the public sector or whether there has been any engagement with GSK regarding the price of this product.

People who receive organ transplants, for example, should be prioritised to receive the shingles vaccine as the medications they are given to suppress their immune system puts them at a high risk of developing shingles.

Why is the price of Shingrix so high?

Unlike South Africa, where companies must sell pharmaceutical products at a single, transparent price in the private sector, the United States has no such requirement. Even so, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pays $250 or R4600 for the two-dose Shingrix vaccine through CDC contracts. This is less than a third of the price charged when Shingrix is imported into South Africa.

Equity Pharmaceuticals, based in Centurion in Gauteng, is importing GSK’s Shingrix for patients that receive Section 21 authorisations to use the unregistered vaccine. It is unclear what price Equity Pharmaceuticals is paying GSK for Shingrix to be imported into South Africa under Section 21 approvals, or what Equity Pharmaceuticals’ mark up on the medicine is.

When asked about the price of Shingrix in South Africa, Saytkulov told Spotlight: “Equity Pharmaceuticals is not affiliated with GSK nor is it a business partner or agent of GSK. Therefore, we cannot provide any comments with regards to pricing of a non-licensed product, which has been authorized for importation through Section 21.”

Equity Pharmaceuticals also said it was difficult to comment on the price. “The price of a Section 21 product depends on a number of fair considerations, including the forex rate, the quantity, transportation requirements, and the country of importation. Once the price and lead time are defined for an order, the information is shared with the healthcare provider to discuss with their patient and the medical aid,” the company’s spokesperson Carel Bouwer told Spotlight

Nematswerani pointed out that “Section 21 pricing is not regulated” and that price can change due to many factors including supplier costs, product availability, and inflation.

What causes shingles?

Shingles is caused by the same highly infectious virus that causes chickenpox. Most people are infected with the varicella-zoster virus (VZV) during childhood. Chickenpox occurs when a person is first infected by VZV. When a person recovers from chickenpox, the VZV virus remains dormant in their body but can reactivate later in life as one’s immune system weakens. This secondary infection that occurs, typically in old age when the dormant virus reactivates, is called shingles.

People who were naturally infected with chickenpox, as well as those vaccinated against chickenpox with a vaccine containing a weakened form of the VZV virus, can get shingles later in life.

But, people who were vaccinated against chickenpox have a significantly lower risk of developing shingles later in life compared to those who naturally contracted chickenpox, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The chickenpox vaccine is available in South Africa’s private sector but is not provided in the public sector as part of government’s expanded programme on immunisation. Chickenpox is usually mild in most children, but those with weakened immune systems at risk of severe or complicated chickenpox should be vaccinated against it, said Professor James Nuttall, a paediatric infectious diseases sub-specialist at the Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital and the University of Cape Town.

Who should be vaccinated against shingles?

South Africa does not have guidelines regarding who should receive the shingles vaccine and when they should receive it. The US CDC recommends that all adults over 50 receive the two-dose Shingrix vaccine. They also recommend that people whose immune systems can’t defend their body as effectively as it should, like those living with HIV, should get the vaccine starting from age 19.

While Shingrix works better than Zostavax at preventing shingles, it has other advantages that make it a safer and better option for people with weak immune systems.

The Zostavax vaccine contains a weakened live form of the VZV virus and thus poses a risk of complications in people with severely weakened immune systems. “In the profoundly immunosuppressed, the immune system might not control the replication of this weakened virus,” explained Nel. The Shingrix vaccine does not contain any live virus and therefore does not present this risk.

In March 2025, the WHO recommended that countries where shingles is an important public health problem consider the two-dose shingles vaccine for older adults and people with chronic conditions. “[T]he vaccine is highly effective and licensed for adults aged 50 years and older, even if they’ve had shingles before,” according to the WHO. It advised countries to look at how much the vaccine costs compared to the benefits before deciding to use it.

The cost of not vaccinating against shingles

The cost of not vaccinating against shingles is high for people who develop the condition, as well as the health system.

“[T]he risk of getting shingles in your lifetime is about 20 to 30%…by the age of 80 years, the prevalence is almost 50%,” said Geffen. “Shingles is often a painful debilitating condition, with significant morbidity. It can result in chronic debilitating pain which affects sleep, mood and overall function,” he added.

Beyond preventing shingles and its complications, new evidence suggests that getting the shingles vaccine may also reduce one’s risk of developing dementia and heart disease.

In April, a large Welsh study published in Nature reported that people who got the Zostavax vaccine against shingles were 20% less likely to develop dementia seven years after receiving the vaccine compared to those who were not vaccinated.

In May, a South Korean study published in the European Heart Journal reported that people vaccinated against shingles had a 23% lower risk of cardiovascular events, such as strokes or heart disease for up to eight years after vaccination.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Paediatrics Surgeries & ProceduresTags :

Tested and Safe? Court Battle over Circumcision Device

On By ModernMedia
Photo by cottonbro studio

By Tania Broughton

A tender for a circumcision device, set to be used in all provincial health care centres and the military, is under legal scrutiny amid claims that the device is untested and unsafe.

Unicirc Pty Ltd has filed papers in the Pretoria High Court seeking to review and set aside the award of the tender to CircumQ RF Pty Ltd amid claims that the CircumQ device is “vastly inferior” compared to its own and others.

In his founding affidavit, Dr Cyril Norman Parker said that the application was “in the public interest” to ensure only safe and proven surgical devices are used in circumcision procedures. 

“There is no publicly available information even to suggest that CircumQ’s device is such a device,” he said.

Parker – who has extensive circumcision experience – and his wife, Elizabeth Pillgrab-Parker, co-founded and continue to work in two primary health care centres they established in Mitchells Plain and Sea Point in the Western Cape under the auspices of Simunye Health Care.

Parker says he has worked in the area of male circumcision for 30 years, in particular as an HIV prevention strategy.

They are also the co-directors of Unicirc, which has the licence to distribute and sell a single-use circumcision device for safe and cost effective circumcision. The device “has significant capacity for scaling up circumcision procedures”, Parker said.

Unicirc bid for the tender for the supply of a surgical aid to be used at the nine departments of health and the Department of Defence.

Parker said he and his wife set up the Simunye health care centres when HIV prevalence was high.

“The conclusive results of three landmark clinical trials gave cause for optimism that circumcision could reduce female to male transmission of HIV by between 50 and 60%,” he said.

In terms of a policy decision taken by the National Department of Health, circumcision services were offered to all males aged ten and above.

“Our role, as service providers, is to ensure that we provide that service safety. In so far as ten to 14-year-olds, this means the strict use of device-based methods that avoid the need for sutures which brings complication rates down to less than 1.5%.”

He said he had performed over 3000 circumcisions across all age groups using multiple techniques.

“What is absolutely clear is that in order to provide services to everyone in need, a surgical-only approach has to be abandoned in favour of a device approach. But not all devices are the same.

“We conceptualised the development of a new circumcision device to improve safety, efficiency and accessibility.”

He said the Unicirc device, which is manufactured overseas, allowed for a complete circumcision in one visit, performed by a single health care provider, using a local anaesthetic and without any sutures.

The whole procedure is completed in about ten to 12 minutes and with proper training, it can also be performed by nurses.

“It has now been used for more than ten years by a range of different health care providers. More than 7,500 procedures have been performed in all ages in both public and private health care sectors. No severe adverse events have been reported and excellent cosmetic results have been achieved.

“It has resulted in the doubling of the number of circumcisions that can be performed safely in a day, a significant reduction in complications and increased client satisfaction,” Parker said.

When the World Health Organisation (WHO) published its (device) guidelines in 2020, only the Unicirc device came close to meeting the requirements. The manufacturer had now started the process of securing WHO pre-qualification. (WHO pre-qualified devices have to meet strict standards of quality, safety and efficacy.)

The device had also been tested in medical trials.

In contrast, Parker said, very little was known publicly about the CircumQ device.

“I am not aware of any peer-reviewed publications that consider its use. It has not been reviewed in any of the WHO literature I have perused or in any systematic review of circumcision devices that I have read. This is in contrast to the Unicirc device as well as other products.

“While I have come across two studies, I have not been able to find out anything about this research and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that it is close to being prequalified or even evaluated by WHO.”

Parker said however, he had studied its design, read training material and spoken to various experts and researchers and health care workers who had used that device and later attended training on the Unicirc device.

“It is vastly inferior. Sutures are required, increasing healing time and requiring a follow up visit. It increases patient discomfort and the risk of infection, the procedure takes longer and it’s more difficult to scale up because it requires two operators,” he said.

“But it’s not just a question of which device is better. There is simply no scientific data supporting the use of it.

“In the absence of that, it would be highly irresponsible to recommend its use, especially in the vulnerable ten to 14 age group. It places young boys at unnecessary risk of potentially irreparable harm and undermines the circumcision programme as a whole.”

He said while the tender was awarded in August 2023, “the public health system was far from ready to implement it”.

This was apparent from a letter from National Treasury, dated March 2025, in which it was stated that because of delays in training, service providers were allowed to continue using the conventional dorsal slit surgical method.

Parker submitted that the tender should be reviewed and set aside, and a new bidding process should start afresh.

Unicirc has called on the Treasury to provide a record of its decision-making process after which it may file a further affidavit. This will be provided by 30 May.

So far only the Treasury respondents have filed notices of opposition and they have yet to file affidavits.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert Opinion Medical IndustryTags :

SA Healthcare: Primary Care is Key

On By ModernMedia
Lungile Kasapato, Chief Executive Officer of PPO Serve

The South African commercial health sector is at a critical juncture, grappling with a severe imbalance that threatens its sustainability and the accessibility of quality care. The dominance of the hospital sector and the deficient state of primary care, are creating an unsustainable system that demands urgent reform, says Chief Executive Officer of PPO Serve, Lungile Kasapato, speaking at the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) conference, held in Cape Town from 10-14 May.

“Primary care in the South African commercial health sector is underpowered, compared with a dominant hospital sector, that is pulling the system off-kilter, as a consequence,” Kasapato said.

She identifies a weak and disjointed primary care system as a key driver of this imbalance, underfunded by limited out of hospital benefits and exacerbated by the fee-for-service payment model, which incentivises fragmented care and counterproductive competition. This model leads to GPs competing with specialists for limited out-of-hospital benefits, hindering the collaborative approach needed for optimal patient outcomes.

“Incentives exist to deliver high volumes of covered services, rather than those which will produce the best outcomes and value,” she explains, highlighting the misalignment of financial incentives that the patient, and the medical scheme, needs.  

The problem is further compounded by managed care models, which Kasapato suggests can inappropriately shift clinical accountability to funders who lack direct patient interaction. She is also wary of the conflicting roles of scheme administrators, who can profit from being both payers and providers, undermining the “not for profit” ethos of medical schemes and stifling innovation.  

Kasapato stresses the crucial role of payers in strategically purchasing care from professionals working in multidisciplinary care teams. By doing so, payers foster healthy competition among these teams, with performance measured by outcomes and efficiency. She points to the contracting model between Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS) and PPO Serve’s The Value Care Team as an example, which involves a monthly global fee, adjusted for patient risk. Significant additional fees are linked to performance.  

The effectiveness of this approach has been demonstrated in a three-year pilot with GEMS, which resulted in a 29.6% reduction in medical admissions and a 7% decrease in patient bed days, along with a 39% increase in flu vaccine uptake amongst at-risk patients. “That’s not just better care – it’s better use of every rand spent,” she said, highlighting the financial benefits of improved care co-ordination.  

Kasapato proposes a fundamental shift towards healthy partnerships built around multidisciplinary GP-led teams. This is the approach of The Value Care Team, which emphasises co-ordinated care delivery. In this approach, clinical teams, allied health workers, alternative care facilities, and community-based organisations are integrated, with care co-ordinators guiding patients through the system. This structure aims to reduce waste, minimise unnecessary hospitalisations, and prioritise preventative care.

“Teams work together to deliver quality, efficient care within local resources, including collaboration with allied health workers, alternative care facilities and community-based organisations,” explains Kasapato.

Looking ahead, Kasapato stresses the urgency of addressing unhealthy competition and rebalancing the system to ensure long-term sustainability and progress towards universal healthcare. She cautions against short-sighted solutions like discounted fee-for-service networks and scheme-led managed care, which offer only temporary relief.

“After decades of imbalance, we’ve found ourselves in a situation where the vast majority of people living in South Africa cannot afford to access our badly structured healthcare resources,” says Kasapato.

Instead of sustaining a flawed system with solutions like isolated telehealth and pharmacy nurse clinics, Kasapato is calling for a fundamental transformation; “Let’s stop propping up a system in need of transformation and focus our efforts on partnerships that strengthen primary care delivery, bringing it into balance with hospital-based care and addressing the major challenges that the commercial sector is facing.”

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

Foreign Cuts Force South Africa to Rethink Healthcare with Local Solutions

On By Peter Van Dyk
Operations Executive Lucelle Iyer

Johannesburg, 15 May 2025 – South Africa’s healthcare sector faces mounting pressure as international funding withdrawals threaten critical research and services.

Without the financial support, medical advancements are being jeopardised and access to care for vulnerable communities is limited.

With leading universities bracing for losses exceeding R800 million annually, experts warn of setbacks in disease treatment and public health initiatives. As foreign aid recedes, South Africa must look inward for sustainable solutions to safeguard its healthcare future.

At Adcock Ingram Critical Care (AICC), newly appointed Operations Executive Lucelle Iyer is part of a new wave of industry leaders focused on local solutions. Rather than relying on global models, she is driving efforts to strengthen domestic production and innovation. As public health programmes face uncertainty, the role of private-sector initiatives in sustaining healthcare access is becoming increasingly critical.

South Africa’s ability to bridge healthcare gaps and extend services to underserved communities increasingly depends on local innovation and resourcefulness. As AICC expands its investment in modernising plants and developing local talent through 2025, its initiatives could serve as a model for sustainable pharmaceutical manufacturing in South Africa and potentially across the continent. By focusing on innovation and homegrown expertise, the company is contributing to the broader effort to strengthen self-sufficiency in African healthcare.

The push towards localisation addresses the country’s significant dependence on imported pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). In 2024, pharmaceutical imports to South Africa were valued at approximately $2.42 billion USD.1 Even though more than 60% of pharmaceutical products sold in South Africa are formulated locally, approximately 98% of APIs2 used in local formulation are imported.

This reliance exposes the healthcare system to risks like exchange rate fluctuations and supply chain disruptions, highlighting the need for increased local production. “We’ve seen the impact of the fragility of local supply chains on our hospitals, especially in rural and under-resourced areas,” says Iyer. “South Africa needs a manufacturing base that is resilient, scalable, and locally relevant.”

Iyer’s leadership is shaped by a philosophy of resilience, innovation, and strategic execution. As the first woman to lead operations at AICC and one of the youngest professionals to hold such a pivotal role, she has broken barriers in a traditionally male-dominated industry. Her success is driven by a solutions-focused mindset, tackling challenges with a commitment to progress and impact.

Building a future-proof pharma ecosystem

The shift to a local-first strategy is part of a broader sector-wide call for policy support and investment into the domestic pharmaceutical value chain. Experts argue that localisation is not only a health security imperative, but an economic opportunity — capable of generating skilled jobs and retaining healthcare spending within national borders.

“Pharma manufacturing has long been seen as too complex or too costly for the local context,” says Iyer. “But technology has changed that. Smart factories, digital quality control, and automation can make local production competitive.”

AICC’s comprehensive strategy includes:

  • Digitisation of production and regulatory compliance systems
  • Building local expertise in pharmacy, engineering, and biotechnology
  • Collaboration with stakeholders to streamline regulatory frameworks
  • Incorporating sustainability and circular economy principles into packaging and plastics manufacturing

Leveraging compliance for competitive advantage

AICC also challenges the common perception that regulatory compliance limits innovation. Instead, the company integrates compliance strategically into its digital transformation, embedding quality assurance and regulatory preparedness from the outset.

“When systems are designed with compliance in mind from the beginning, it greatly reduces rework and crisis management, turning quality into a driver of efficiency,” says Iyer, who brings extensive experience in regulatory affairs, quality management, and pharmaco-economics to her role.

A pivotal moment for the industry

South Africa’s pharmaceutical sector stands at a crossroads, with the potential to become a regional hub for essential medicines, medical devices, and biosimilars. Realising this ambition, however, hinges on coordinated efforts across public, private, and academic sectors to drive innovation, expand capacity, and ensure long-term sustainability.

“Our goal isn’t to replicate models from Europe or the US,” says Iyer. “It’s about creating a pharmaceutical ecosystem designed specifically for our unique needs – efficient, ethical, and sustainable.”

References:

1. Trading Economics. South Africa Imports of Pharmaceutical Products. April 2025. Available from: https://tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/imports/pharmaceutical-products

2. The Department of Trade Industry and Competition. API Development and Manufacturing https://www.thedtic.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Opinion-Piece-API-Development-and-Manufacturing.pdf

Categories : Antibiotics PaediatricsTags :

Antibiotic Resistance is Putting SA’s Newborns at Risk

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Christian Bowen on Unsplash

By Sue Segar

Experts say bacterial infections are responsible for more infant deaths than is generally recognised, and things may get worse as more of the bugs become resistant to commonly used antibiotics. We asked local experts about this growing threat to newborns.

A two-week-old baby is referred to the Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital (RCWMCH) in Cape Town. The infant, who was born prematurely at six months, has come from a nearby neonatal hospital.

She’s developed complications, including a feed intolerance and constant vomiting. On investigation, she is found to have a bowel perforation and a condition called necrotising enterocolitis. Surgeons conclude she needs an operation to repair the perforation. A sample of pus from inside her abdomen is sent to a laboratory to identify any infections. While the tests are being done, the infant is started on second-line antibiotics. The doctors suspect she picked up an infection due to pathogens that may be resistant to first-line antibiotics while in the neonatal hospital.

“But 48 hours later, when the results are available, they may show that the antibiotics we’ve been treating the baby with are not treating the bacteria that have now been detected in the lab,” says Associate Professor James Nuttall, a paediatric infectious diseases sub-specialist at RCWMCH and the University of Cape Town.

“In response to those results, we’d change to a different set of antibiotics to try and target the bacteria that have been detected. In the meantime, the child has deteriorated and requires a second operation. Throughout all the subsequent treatments, we are testing samples for infections she might – and frequently will – acquire along the way.”

From then on, he says it’s a case of trying to keep up with the sequence of infections that the baby might develop. Some of these infections may have originated at the neonatal hospital, while others could have been acquired during her treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at RCWMCH, possibly from the operating theatre, intravenous lines, or healthcare workers’ hands.

“This is the kind of scenario we are faced with all the time,” says Nuttall. “The fact is, an infant might come into hospital with one infection and, unfortunately, pick up a bunch of other infections while in the hospital from transmission of pathogens that may be resistant to one or more of the commonly used first- or second-line antibiotics.”

Sitting in a boardroom at the Red Cross Hospital, close to the paediatric wards and clinics in which he treats sick children referred from other hospitals in Cape Town and beyond, Nuttall says there are two possible outcomes for this baby.

“She might turn the corner and respond to the new antibiotics, together with interventions from the surgical doctors and expert management in an ICU. Or she might not respond to the treatment, and die two days later, because of ongoing infection that doesn’t respond to treatment.”

Nuttall is discussing the ongoing issue of rising antibiotic resistance, particularly among neonates, the group most vulnerable to this. He’s responding to Spotlight’s main question: Will the antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae – which have seen hundreds of babies die in hospitals in recent years – keep working? And, how big is the risk of antibiotic resistance to infants?

“The short answer to whether the antibiotics we currently use to treat bacterial infections will keep working is no,” he says.

‘Almost endemic’

In some South African healthcare facilities, especially in the public sector, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become “almost endemic”, says Professor Shabir Madhi, director of the Wits Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Unit at University of Witwatersrand (WITS VIDA).

“There are a large number of deaths occurring on an ongoing basis. We still have clusters of outbreaks, but those are underpinned by a really widespread dissemination of these antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and persistently high rates of hospital-acquired infections, especially in the first month of life,” he says. “Despite the best of efforts, we haven’t been able to get on top of this.”

Madhi headed up a study at the Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital in Soweto in which they used molecular testing to look at evidence of infections in 153 babies who had passed away. The researchers found that infections were the immediate or underlying cause of death in 58% of all the neonatal deaths, including the immediate cause in 70% of neonates with complications of prematurity as the underlying cause.

Overall, 74.4% of 90 infection-related deaths were hospital-acquired, mainly due to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (52.2%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (22.4%), and Staphylococcus aureus (20.9%).

Also asked whether the antibiotics used to treat Klebsiella and other bacterial infections will keep working, Madhi says: “The short answer is that we’ve already run out of antibiotics in the public sector that can treat all of these different bacteria.”

He says that there are two bacteria that are of particular concern in South Africa.

“The one is Klebsiella pneumoniae, which that has become resistant to almost all of the antibiotic classes that are available for use, except perhaps for colistin, (a reserve antibiotic which is seen as a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections), but even antibiotic resistance to colistin in bacteria is emerging.

“The other big one is Acinetobacter baumannii, which is also a common cause of hospital-acquired infections. Here the bacteria have become resistant to all classes of antibiotics including colistin.”

Madhi says compared to other African countries, South Africa is better equipped to provide high-level care, including intensive care, to prematurely-born babies.

“Consequently, we end up spending a mini fortune to get these very premature children to survive the first few days of life, only for them then to succumb to hospital-acquired infections. Whereas in other settings many of these babies will die in the first few hours of life.”

He adds: “The single leading cause of neonatal mortality in South Africa is antibiotic resistant bacterial infections, but that is underpinned by other conditions which increases the susceptibility of babies to eventually succumb to these hospital-acquired infections.”

In the public sector, Madhi says hospital-acquired infections are a major reason why children are dying. In the private sector, there is more attention on identifying these infections, along with better resources, which helps reduce the problem.

Meanwhile, physicians like Nuttall are put in impossible situations at Red Cross.

“When doing blood tests on an infant to check for infection, you can’t wait for those results. You have to start treatment with what you think is the appropriate treatment. That’s the empirical treatment,” explains Nuttall.

“Then, when you isolate a bacterium and know its resistance profile (or antibiotic susceptibility profile), you must redirect your treatment to what’s known as ‘directed’ or definitive treatment. But there’s now been a time gap of 24 to 72 hours where the infant is on treatment, and you don’t know if it’s the right treatment. That’s a critical issue, because the baby might deteriorate in that time because they’re not on the right treatment,” he says.

He says the choice of empiric antibiotics is becoming more difficult, “as what we previously used as empiric antibiotic treatment is less and less reliable to treat serious infections, particularly in patients who acquire resistant infections in hospital”.

In a position paper, Nuttall and his colleagues write that growing antibiotic resistance is linked to the increased use of “reserve” and “watch” antibiotics. The WHO classifies antibiotics into three groups. Access antibiotics are the common ones used to treat everyday infections in the community. Watch antibiotics are broad-spectrum antibiotics that carry a higher risk of causing resistance, so their use must be carefully monitored and limited. Reserve antibiotics are last-resort treatments for infections caused by multi-drug-resistant bacteria and should only be used when all other options have failed.

‘Totally underestimated’

Following the research described earlier, Madhi says they convened an expert panel, to deliberate on what the causes of death was in children.

Unfortunately, he says, it’s become completely monotonous in that there’s a clear series of events for children born prematurely, who die: They’re admitted to hospital, they usually require ICU, they improve in ICU, and two to three days later, they appear very sick again. “Often you don’t actually identify the bacteria causing the clinical deterioration when you investigate ante-mortem, and you only realise the child actually succumbed to antimicrobial resistant bacterial infections after you’ve done the postmortem sampling”. Postmortem sampling is not done systematically across the country.

“What the post-mortem sampling has unmasked, is that we’ve totally underestimated the contribution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in relation to causes of neonatal death. If we were to do the same investigations in other facilities, there would be much greater heightened awareness of what is really an unrecognised endemic public health crisis across our healthcare facilities,” says Madhi.

Professor Angela Dramowski, Head of the Clinical Unit: General Paediatrics at Tygerberg Hospital, agrees that outbreaks in low- and middle-income country hospitals, including South Africa are under-reported.

“What we see in the literature and in the headlines of newspapers is the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of outbreaks in fact are either undetected or unreported. This is almost an invisible problem because a lot of the deaths are currently labelled due to another cause, for example, prematurity.

“This is a crucial public health crisis. We cannot practice modern medicine without effective antibiotics, and, especially for newborns the situation is perilous as we have very few effective treatment options left.”

‘Existential threat’

Though more acute in some areas, the problem is a global one. Marc Mendelson, Professor of Infectious Diseases at the University of Cape Town, describes antibiotic resistance as an existential global health threat.

“If antibiotic resistance is not mitigated, in the next 25 years, 39 million people globally will die of an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection. That will dwarf HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria,” he says.

“There are bacteria currently causing infections in our hospitals in South Africa that are totally resistant to antibiotics. Those patients would usually die or need extraordinary measures to keep them alive such as amputating a limb to remove the infection in a bone or joint,” Mendelson says.

“People have always assumed if you get sick with a bacterial infection, there will be an antibiotic to treat it. Doctors in and out of hospitals have been too lax in how they prescribe antibiotics. Now we’re paying the price as some bacterial infections are not easily treatable,” he says.

As Dramowski points out, there is a lot of good science confirming the extent of the problem. A systematic review published in The Lancet found that almost 5 million deaths in 2019 were associated with bacterial infections resistant to antibiotics.

“That huge number is more than deaths from HIV and malaria combined,” she says.

Dramowski also points to another review study that found 3 million cases of neonatal sepsis globally each year, with at least 570 000 deaths (likely an underestimate). Over 95% of deaths from neonatal antibiotic resistance occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

“In a nutshell, in five big studies … they showed that antibiotic resistance to the World Health Organization-recommended antibiotic treatments ranges anywhere between 40 to 70%, so almost half of all babies with severe bacterial infection have resistance to the recommended antibiotic treatment,” she says.

What to do?

To address the major issue of antibiotic resistance in infants, Dramowski stresses the importance of prevention. This includes improving Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) as well as Infection Prevention and Control programmes to reduce the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in communities and healthcare facilities. She also stresses the need to prevent pre-term births as much as possible, as hospital admissions carry a high risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria and developing infections.

She says increased surveillance of infections in LMICs is also crucial, along with more antibiotic trials to provide better alternatives. Additionally, there is a strong need for responsible antibiotic use (stewardship) to ensure they are only used when necessary, helping to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance.

A challenge in practicing stewardship is the difference in resources between the public and private sectors, says Professor Vindana Chibabhai, Head of the Centre for Healthcare-associated Infections, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Mycology (CHARM) at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases. Expensive antibiotics are more easily accessible in the private sector, while they are often not available in the public sector.

“Antibiotic stewardship is happening all over the country but we need to have a national monitoring system,” she says.

Chibabhai says that private sector clinicians often work independently and are not required to follow stewardship programmes as strictly as those in public sector hospitals. To address antibiotic resistance, she says we need monitoring systems to track the effectiveness of these programmes and provide support to hospitals struggling with them. Even though some hospitals have dedicated pharmacists, microbiologists, and clinicians, Chibabhai says they may need additional help to strengthen their antibiotic stewardship efforts.

‘Lots of lovely paper’

A major issue highlighted by experts is the lack of a clear AMR strategy in South Africa. The last strategy, which covered 2019 to 2024, was not funded, and its impact has not been evaluated.

“We have lots of lovely paper and lots of committed people doing great work but in terms of interventions, none of it is funded,” says Mendelson, who chaired the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance for the eight years until 2022. “If these interventions were funded, we could save lives.”

Madhi says the consequences of not implementing South Africa’s AMR plan are exactly what we are seeing now. “The problems have become endemic and entrenched in public healthcare facilities and lead to large numbers of unnecessary deaths which could have been prevented if we implemented a proper strategy in place.”

He says the situation now calls for a multi-faceted approach. “It’s not just about the type of antibiotics that should be available but about mitigating the many contributing factors that resulted in these outbreaks. That requires immense investment in terms of resources and expertise.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : HIVTags :

How an SAMRC Study Found that HIV Deaths in SA May be Massively Undercounted

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Sergey Mikheev on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

It is widely acknowledged among health and demographic experts that relying solely on what is written on death certificates does not paint an accurate picture of what people in South Africa are actually dying of. Now, an SAMRC study has provided evidence that the undercounting of deaths due to HIV might be even greater than previously thought.

Many in health circles were surprised by a recent South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) study that found that 23% of deaths in a nationally representative sample drawn from 2017/2018 were due to HIV. By comparison, Stats SA data for roughly the same period puts the figure at only 5.7%.

That Stats SA’s HIV mortality figures differs from other sources is not new and not in itself surprising. This is because Stats SA reports a relatively straight-forward count of what is written on death certificates – where it is known HIV is often not indicated, even if it is the underlying cause of death. By contrast, the new SAMRC study looked at autopsy reports, death certificates, medical records, and interviews with next of kin to come up with its much higher estimate.

The thing that did come as a surprise, is just how much higher the SAMRC figures were than anticipated. Previously, the real number of HIV deaths were thought to be around double the Stats SA number, rather than four times as much. For example, according to Thembisa, the leading model of HIV in South Africa and the basis for UNAIDS’s estimates for the country, around 12% of deaths in the country in 2018 were due to HIV.

“Accurate mortality data are essential for informed public health policies and targeted interventions; however, this study highlights critical gaps in our cause-of-death data, particularly in the underreporting of HIV/AIDS and suicides,” says Professor Debbie Bradshaw, study co-author and Chief Specialist Scientist at the SAMRC Burden of Disease Research Unit, in a media statement. (The study also found substantial under-reporting of suicide on death certificates.)

Multiple data sources

The study was conducted in three phases, examining deaths that were registered in 27 randomly selected health sub-districts between 1 September 2017 and 13 April 2018.

In addition to the examination of autopsy reports, death certificates, and medical records, trained fieldworkers interviewed next of kin to conduct verbal autopsies using a World Health Organization (WHO) questionnaire that had been translated into the country’s nine official languages.

Based on these various sources of data, the cause of each death was categorised into one or more of 44 categories and then compared to the cause of death indicated on the person’s death certificate. (The process for ensuring accuracy, including a review shared by a team of 49 medical doctors, is described in detail in this report.)

The researchers collected data for over 26 000 deaths, although not all types of data were available for each death. Medical records were available for over 17 600 cases, forensic pathology (autopsy) records for 5 700, and about 5 400 verbal autopsies were conducted. In the end, “to save costs”, not all medical records were reviewed.

Overall, for just over 15 000 deaths, the researchers could link and compare their assessment of why a person died to what was written on death certificates.

‘Poor agreement’

The researchers found that “there was poor agreement between the underlying cause of death obtained from the study and the official cause of death data”. The cause of death was the same in only 37% of cases. In addition to the under-reporting of HIV, the researchers also identified “severe under-reporting” of suicide as a cause of death.

A strong link between TB and HIV was observed, with TB responsible for 46% of deaths among people with HIV and 63% of TB deaths occurring in individuals with HIV. Together, these two diseases accounted for almost 30% of deaths.

Some question marks

As noted earlier, the new numbers are substantially higher than estimates from the highly respected Thembisa model. According to their data only 12% of deaths from mid-2017 to mid-2018 were due to HIV-related causes, with a further 9% of deaths occurring in persons with HIV but due to other causes.

Dr Pam Groenewald, a co-author of the new study and also with the SAMRC, describes Thembisa as “an excellent source”. She tells Spotlight they had a long discussion with the Thembisa researchers, “but we weren’t able to fully explain the differences”.

The study authors cite several factors that might contribute to a higher proportion of HIV deaths in their study. Firstly, the weighted national causes of death validation sample aimed to represent the registered deaths in the country, and it was known that deaths in rural areas and child deaths were under-represented. Secondly, deaths that occurred in private sector hospitals were not represented. Groenewald says the HIV-linked deaths in private hospitals are “definitely lower”, but doubts they would have had a significant impact on their findings.

One thing in favour of the study numbers is the fact that the cases they identified with HIV/AIDS as the underlying cause of death were independently reviewed by clinicians. As Groenewald points out, they looked at medical records of people admitted to and who died in hospital, including CD4 cell counts and HIV viral loads. The suggestion is that if someone had a very low CD4 count and a very high HIV viral load at the time of death, then it is very likely HIV played a role in their death, unless of course they died of a clearly non-associated cause like injuries from a car accident.

On the other hand, it might be argued that since HIV is very widely tested for in South Africa, it is more likely to appear on medical records than other less tested for diseases.

Another interesting wrinkle is that the proportion of deaths from HIV/AIDS from this study was higher than anticipated based on observed declines in adult mortality. It is widely accepted that the decline in adult mortality and the increase in life-expectancy over the last two decades was driven by antiretroviral therapy keeping more people with HIV alive. While the new findings do not challenge this narrative, it does suggest the effect may be less pronounced than previously thought.

What to do?

The researchers suggest their study has immediate implications for the country’s response to HIV and TB.

“The study recommends strengthening case finding, follow-up, prevention, and treatment for HIV, AIDS and TB to reduce mortality rates, and underlines the importance of government’s rapid response to counter the recent abrupt withdrawal of Pepfar funding,” Bradshaw comments in the media release.

But more broadly, the findings put the spotlight on major problems in the country’s death certification systems.

“Our findings highlight the need for improved record quality and adherence to testing guidelines within the medical community. Poor record keeping included incomplete documentation of clinical findings and results,” the study authors write.

“A lot of doctors’ report HIV as ‘retroviral disease’, for example, and it’s not coded as HIV,” Groenewald explains to Spotlight.

Urging doctors to record the actual underlying cause of death when writing up death certificates, she also called for improved training in death certification at medical schools.

Doctors’ reluctance to report HIV on death certificates likely has various reasons, including stigma related to HIV and the fact that some medical insurance policies used to exclude HIV, though policies now treat HIV like any other chronic condition.

Overall, Groenewald says, we need to step back and probe the rationale of compiling underlying cause of death statistics.

“The public health aim of the medical certificate of cause of death, (MCCD), is to prevent premature deaths. We therefore need to record the cascade of events or causal sequence of medical conditions leading to death and target our interventions at the underlying cause of death. The coding rules focus on the underlying cause of death, (UCOD), to compile the mortality statistics,” she says.

Groenewald stresses that the law requires doctors to provide accurate information on death causation. The Health Professions Council of SA’s ethical rules also recognised that a statute requiring disclosure about a deceased person’s health must be complied with and is not considered unethical. Contrary to common physician misconception, Groenewald says all this combined to show “it is completely ethical to disclose on a death certificate that a person has died from an AIDS related illness”.

In the meantime, routine mortality data from Stats SA should clearly be taken with a pinch of salt. As Groenewald points out, vital registration data should not be accepted at face value but should be interrogated and cross-checked with other data sources to get coherent and consistent estimates that fit within an envelope of all causes of mortality.

– Additional reporting by Marcus Low.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical Research & TechnologyTags :

Inside the SAMRC’s Race to Rescue Health Research in SA

On By ModernMedia
Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility test. Photo by CDC on Unsplash

By Catherine Tomlinson

Health research in South Africa has been plunged into crisis with the abrupt termination of several large research grants from the US, with more grant terminations expected in the coming days and weeks. Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, head of the South African Medical Research Council, tells Spotlight about efforts to find alternative funding and to preserve the country’s health research capacity.

Health research in South Africa is facing an unprecedented crisis due to the termination of funding from the United States government. Though exact figures are hard to pin down, indications are that more than half of the country’s research funding has in recent years been coming from the US.

Many health research units and researchers that receive funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have in recent weeks been notified that their grants have been terminated. This funding is being slashed as part of the efforts by US President Donald Trump’s administration to reduce overall federal spending and end spending that does not align with its political priorities.

Specifically, the administration has sought to end spending supporting LGBTQ+ populations and diversity, as well as equity and inclusion. As many grants for HIV research have indicators of race, gender, and sexual orientation in their target populations and descriptions, this area of research has been particularly hard hit by the cuts. There have also been indications that certain countries, including South Africa and China, would specifically be targeted with NIH cuts.

On 7 February, President Donald Trump issued an executive order stating that the US would stop providing assistance to South Africa in part because it passed a law that allowed for the expropriation of land without compensation, and separately because the South African government took Israel to the International Court of Justice on charges of genocide in Gaza.

Prior to the NIH cuts, some local research funded through other US entities such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were also terminated.

How much money is at risk?

“In many ways the South African health research landscape has been a victim of its own success, because for decades we have been the largest recipients of both [official development assistance] funding from the US for research [and] also the largest recipients of NIH funding outside of the US,” says president and CEO of the SAMRC Professor Ntobeko Ntusi.

Determining the exact amount of research funds we get from the US is challenging. This is because funding has come from several different US government entities and distributed across various health research organisations. But the bulk of US research funding in South Africa clearly came from the NIH, which is also the largest funder of global health research.

According to Ntusi, in previous years, the NIH invested, on average, US$150 million – or almost R3 billion – into health research in South Africa every year.

By comparison, the SAMRC’s current annual allocation from government is just under R2 billion, according to Ntusi. “Our baseline funding, which is what the national treasury reflects [approximately R850 million], is what flows to us from the [Department of Health],” he says, adding that they also have “huge allocations” from the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation. (Previous Spotlight reporting quoted the R850 million figure from Treasury’s budget documents, and did not take the additional funds into account.)

How is the SAMRC tracking US funding terminations

Ntusi and his colleagues have been trying to get a clearer picture of the exact extent and potential impacts of the cuts.

While some US funding given to research units in South Africa flows through the SAMRC, the bulk goes directly to research units from international research networks, larger studies, and direct grants. Keeping track of all this is not straight-forward, but Ntusi says the SAMRC has quite up to date information on all the terminations of US research awards and grants.

“I’ve been communicating almost daily with the deputy vice-chancellors for research in all the universities, and they send me almost daily updates,” says Ntusi. He says heads of research units are also keeping him informed.

According to him, of the approximately US$150 million in annual NIH funding, “about 40%…goes to investigator-led studies with South Africans either as [principal investigators] or as sub-awardees and then the other 60% [comes from] network studies that have mostly sub-awards in South Africa”.

Figures that Ntusi shared with Spotlight show that large tertiary institutions like the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Cape Town, and the University of Stellenbosch, could in a worst case scenario lose over R200 million each, while leading research units, like the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation and the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, could each lose tens of millions. The SAMRC figures indicate that while many grants have already been terminated, there are also a substantial number that have not been terminated.

Where will new money come from?

Ntusi says the SAMRC is coordinating efforts to secure new funding to address the crisis.

“We have been leading a significant fundraising effort, which…is not for the SAMRC, but for the universities who are most affected [and] also other independent research groups,” he says. “As the custodian of health research in the country, we are looking for solutions not just for the SAMRC but for the entire health research ecosystem.”

Ntusi explains that strategically it made more sense to have a coordinated fundraising approach rather than repeating what happened during COVID-19 when various groups competed against each other and approached the same funders.

“Even though the SAMRC is leading much of this effort, there’s collective input from many stakeholders around the country,” he says, noting that his team is in regular communication with the scientific community, the Department of Health, and Department of Science, Technology and Innovation.

The SAMRC is also asking the Independent Philanthropic Association of South Africa, and large international philanthropies for new funding. He says that some individuals and philanthropies have already reached out to the SAMRC to find out how they can anonymously support research endeavours affected by the cuts.

Can government provide additional funds?

Ntusi says that the SAMRC is in discussions with National Treasury about providing additional funds to support health researchers through the funding crisis.

The editors of Spotlight and GroundUp recently called on National Treasury to commit an extra R1 billion a year to the SAMRC to prevent the devastation of health research capacity in the country. They argued that much larger allocations have previously been made to bail out struggling state-owned entities.

Government has over the last decade spent R520 billion bailing out state-owned entities and other state organs.

How will funds raised by the SAMRC be allocated?

One dilemma is that it is unlikely that all the lost funding could be replaced. This means tough decisions might have to be made about which projects are supported.

Ntusi says that the SAMRC has identified four key areas in need of support.

The first is support for post-graduate students. “There’s a large number of postgraduate students…who are on these grants” and “it’s going to be catastrophic if they all lose the opportunity to complete their PhDs,” he says.

Second is supporting young researchers who may have received their first NIH grant and rely entirely on that funding for their work and income, says Ntusi. This group is “really vulnerable [to funding terminations] and we are prioritising [their] support…to ensure that we continue to support the next generation of scientific leadership coming out of this country,” he says.

A third priority is supporting large research groups that are losing multiple sources of funding. These groups need short-term help to finish ongoing projects and to stay afloat while they apply for new grants – usually needing about 9 to 12 months of support, Ntusi explains.

The fourth priority, he says, is to raise funding to ethically end clinical and interventional studies that have lost their funding, and to make sure participants are connected to appropriate healthcare. Protecting participants is an important focus of the fundraising efforts, says Ntusi, especially since many people involved in large HIV and TB studies come from underprivileged communities.

Ultimately, he says they hope to protect health research capacity in the country to enable South African health researchers to continue to play a meaningful and leading role in their respective research fields.

“If you reflect on what I consider to be one of the greatest successes of this country, it’s been this generation of high calibre scientists who lead absolutely seminal work, and we do it across the entire value chain of research,” says Ntusi. “I would like to see…South Africa [continue to] make those meaningful and leading pioneering contributions.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Government Announces 1200 New Doctor Positions – But Nursing Loses out

On By ModernMedia

In a move that will come as a relief for the hundreds of unemployed doctors currently seeking positions within public healthcare, the Department of Health has announced the creation of 1650 new positions for healthcare professionals. The move includes 1200 new positions for doctors – but only 200 for nurses.

Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi made the announcement at a media briefing on Thursday 10 April.

“We believe we’re in a position to announce today that the council has approved the advertisement of 1200 jobs for doctors, 200 for nurses and 250 for other healthcare professionals,” Motsoaledi stated. This would come with a cost of R1.78 billion – out of a healthcare budget that has not risen in line with inflation.

Jobless doctors picketed earlier this year as more than 1800 were left in limbo without positions – the true number is likely higher. The South African Medical Association (SAMA) had sent an urgent letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa, warning that if the problem was not addressed, doctors would leave for the private sector or emigrate, leading to the collapse of the public healthcare sector.

The road to specialisation had also been made more challenging by the shortage of positions, with junior doctors have been taking unpaid roles. Such unpaid work does not count toward the registrar component of specialisation and largely only serves to bump up the doctor’s CV by, for example, enabling them to apply for diplomas. Hiring freezes also saw GPs unable to move into government positions, and the limited number of registrar positions has also by some accounts become a bottleneck, with no additional registrar positions added for the past 10–15 years.

Regarding the loss of US funding for HIV programmes, he said that there was a buffer of stock for ARVS, and that “no person needing ARVs would lack” those drugs.

But the small number of new nurse positions was not well received. The Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa (DENOSA) was particularly unimpressed given the pressure on overburdened nurses.

DENOSA spokesperson Sonia Mabunda-Kaziboni said, “In the face of a nationwide crisis of nurse shortages, this announcement is not only shockingly inadequate but downright insulting to the nursing fraternity.”

Calling it a “slap in the face”, she continued: “The shortage of nurses in South Africa is nothing short of a devastating crisis. The Free State alone faces a 28% vacancy rate, and similar figures are reflected in other provinces such as the Eastern Cape. National projections estimate that South Africa could be short by over 100 000 nurses by 2030 if urgent interventions are not made.”

DENOSA plans to “name and shame” institutions that have become “dangerous to communities” as a result of unresolved poor conditions.

Categories : Medical IndustryTags :

Next Biosciences Marks 20 Years of Biotech Innovation

On By ModernMedia
Dr Yvonne Holt, Chief Medical Officer of Next Biosciences (left) with Kim Hulett, Founder and CEO of the company (right) celebrating 20 years of innovation and leadership in stem cell banking, genetic testing and regenerative medicine.

As Next Biosciences celebrates its 20th anniversary, the pioneering South African biotech company reflects on two decades of significant advancements in science and healthcare.

From its roots in medical innovation to its transformative contributions in regenerative medicine, genetic testing and wellness, Next Biosciences has not only shaped the local industry, but also positioned itself as a leader in Africa’s growing biotech sector.

Founded by Kim Hulett, an entrepreneur with a background in finance and technology, and Dr Yvonne Holt, the company has expanded its range of products and services that cover biologics, stem cells, exosomes, genetic testing, longevity and reproductive health.

“The journey of Next Biosciences has been about bringing cutting-edge science and technology to South Africa, and making advancements in health and wellness accessible,” says Dr Holt, Chief Medical Officer at the company. “Every innovation we develop is driven by our mission to positively impact people’s health with science, by transforming lives, improving health outcomes and shaping the future of medicine on the continent.”

With a team of 90, Next Biosciences stands as one of the country’s leading biotech innovators. Women make up 80% of the workforce, with 20% of them being scientists – underscoring the company’s strong commitment to diversity and inclusion. Their lab is accredited by the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) and ISO 13485 standards, a testament to their excellence in stem cell banking, cord blood services and other biotechnological advancements.

From its beginnings with Netcare, Next Biosciences’ focus on research and development has enabled the company to expand beyond local borders, bringing its innovative healthcare solutions to a wider audience. They now lead initiatives that support regenerative medicine with products like OptiSerum, a revolutionary umbilical cord blood serum for ophthalmic use, and AmnioMatrix, used in a range of medical applications from ophthalmology and wound care to dentistry.

Next Biosciences’ state-of-the-art Netcells storage lab, ensuring the safe preservation of precious stem cells for future medical advancements.

“Biotechnology and regenerative medicine are advancing at an unprecedented pace, offering new possibilities for treating diseases that were once thought incurable. Our focus remains on harnessing these innovations responsibly, ensuring that the latest advancements in cellular therapies, genetic diagnostics and biologics translate into real, life-changing solutions for patients,” says Dr Holt.

The biotechnology landscape has evolved worldwide, and South Africa has not been left behind.

Credit: Global Biotech Indus

The global biotechnology industry is currently valued at $546 billion, growing at approximately 13% per annum. Remarkable advancements have been achieved in genetic research, stem cell therapies and personalised medicine. “The potential for biotechnology over the next decade is extraordinary,” says Hulett, CEO of Next Biosciences. Breakthroughs in regenerative medicine and longevity science are revolutionising healthcare as we know it.”

Next Biosciences’ path hasn’t been without challenges. From navigating regulatory hurdles to sourcing cutting-edge technologies, the company’s growth has been driven by passion, resilience and innovation. As a majority female-led team, the company exemplifies the power of women in science and business, and they have become a beacon for female entrepreneurs looking to make a mark in the science and technology sectors.

“Building a biotech company in SA, with all its complexities, required tenacity and a relentless commitment to our mission. Over the years, we have witnessed our industry evolve and we are proud to have been at the forefront of that change,” says Hulett. “The future holds great promise and we are excited to see what the next 20 years will bring.”

Looking ahead, Next Biosciences aims to expand its footprint in Africa, focusing on reproductive, regenerative and longevity health to empower individuals to invest in their health and live their best lives. With a strong commitment to innovation, accessibility, convenience and sustainability, Next Biosciences plans to integrate cutting-edge biotechnologies, while maintaining a patient-centric approach. By staying at the forefront of the biotech industry, the company is set to strengthen its position as a trusted leader in African healthcare.

Categories : DentistryTags :

Beyond the Smile: South Africa Must Prioritise Oral Health as a Public Health Imperative

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

South Africa’s burden of oral diseases is not only inextricably linked to non-communicable diseases but also presents an urgent public health challenge, with rising concern over its impact on mental health.

Oral diseases are a major health concern for many countries and negatively impacts people throughout their lives. Oral diseases lead to pain and discomfort, social isolation and loss of self-confidence, and they are often linked to other serious health issues. And yet, there is no reason to suffer: most oral health conditions are preventable and can be treated in their early stages.

Globally, every year on March 20, World Oral Health Day is commemorated with the aim to empower people with the knowledge, tools, and confidence to secure good oral health.

This year, the Day’s focus shifts to the mind-mouth connection, with the tagline from the FDI World Dental Federation: “A Happy Mouth Is… A Happy Mind”. This campaign aims to raise awareness of how poor oral health can negatively impact quality of life, highlighting the importance of a healthy mouth for mental well-being.

Macelle Erasmus, Head of Expert at Haleon South Africa – a leader in consumer health and self-care, says, “Oral health is not just about bright smiles and good-looking teeth – it is a critical component of overall well-being. In South Africa, the high prevalence of oral diseases, particularly among children and vulnerable communities, reinforces the urgent need for improved oral health education and preventive care.”

Haleon’s leading oral health brands Aquafresh and Sensodyne, are committed to improving oral health education and access across the country.

Over the course of just three months, we have conducted more than 39,000 gum health screenings across 16 clinics. In 2025, our expansion aims to reach 100,000 underserved communities as part of Haleon’s oral health care outreach programs.

According to the South African Dental Association (SADA), 41% of children aged 1-9 years and close to 28% of people aged 5 years and over experienced untreated tooth decay in milk and permanent teeth respectively, while nearly 25% of people aged 15 years and over experienced severe periodontal disease in 2019. The country also saw 1,933 new cases of lip and oral cavity cancer in 2020.

The World Health Organisation’s Global Strategy and Action Plan on Oral Health 2023–2030, explains that oral health encompasses a range of diseases and conditions. The most prevalent public health issues include dental caries, severe periodontal (gum) disease, complete tooth loss (edentulism), oral cancer, oro-dental trauma, noma and congenital malformations such as cleft lip and palate, most of which are preventable.

The main oral diseases and conditions are estimated to affect close to 3.5 billion people worldwide. These conditions combined have an estimated global prevalence of 45%, which is higher than the prevalence of any other NCD.

However, oral diseases and conditions share risk factors common to the leading NCDs, including all forms of tobacco use, harmful alcohol use, high intake of free sugars and lack of exclusive breastfeeding.

The Department of Health’s National Oral Health Policy and Strategy 2024-2034 acknowledges that oral health is poorly integrated in other health programmes, “though it is an integral part of general health.” It further recognises that: “Its role in management and care of communicable diseases, genetic disorders, trauma, injury, and violence is often overlooked.”

This integration is particularly important as more than three million patients are treated in the country’s public primary healthcare facilities annually, at a cost of R650 million. Addressing oral health holistically – within the broader healthcare system – can significantly reduce this burden.