High-flow nasal oxygen in resource-constrained, non-intensive, high-care wards for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: Comparing outcomes of the first v. third waves at a tertiary centre in South Africa.

Background: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is an accepted treatment for severe COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Objectives: To determine whether treatment outcomes at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the third COVID-19 wave would be affected by increased institutional experience and capacity for HNFO and more restrictive admission criteria for respiratory high-care wards and intensive care units. Methods: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19-related AHRF treated with HFNO during the first and third COVID-19 waves. The primary endpoint was comparison of HFNO failure (composite of the need for intubation or death while on HFNO) between waves. Results: A total of 744 patients were included: 343 in the first COVID-19 wave and 401 in the third. Patients treated with HFNO in the first wave were older (median (interquartile range) age 53 (46 - 61) years v. 47 (40 - 56) years; p<0.001), and had higher prevalences of diabetes (46.9% v. 36.9%; p=0.006), hypertension (51.0% v. 35.2%; p<0.001), obesity (33.5% v. 26.2%; p=0.029) and HIV infection (12.5% v. 5.5%; p<0.001). The partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2 /FiO2 ) ratio at HFNO initiation and the ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO2 to respiratory rate within 6 hours (ROX-6 score) after HFNO commencement were lower in the first wave compared with the third (median 57.9 (47.3 - 74.3) mmHg v. 64.3 (51.2 - 79.0) mmHg; p=0.005 and 3.19 (2.37 - 3.77) v. 3.43 (2.93 - 4.00); p<0.001, respectively). The likelihood of HFNO failure (57.1% v. 59.6%; p=0.498) and mortality (46.9% v. 52.1%; p=0.159) did not differ significantly between the first and third waves. Conclusion: Despite differences in patient characteristics, circulating viral variant and institutional experience with HFNO, treatment outcomes were very similar in the first and third COVID-19 waves. We conclude that once AHRF is established in COVID-19 pneumonia, the comorbidity profile and HFNO provider experience do not appear to affect outcome. Study synopsis: What the study adds. This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and shows that this utility remained consistent across different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Implications of the study. In resource-constrained settings, HFNO is a feasible non-invasive alternative to IMV and can be employed with favourable and consistent outcomes outside traditional critical care wards. It also confirms that the degree of gas exchange abnormality, and not pre-existing patient-related factors, circulating wave variant or provider experience, is the main predictor of HFNO failure.

Self-reported beta-lactam allergy in government and private hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Up to a quarter of inpatients in high-income countries (HICs) self-report beta-lactam allergy (BLA), which if incorrect,increases the use of alternative antibiotics, worsening individual health outcomes and driving bacterial resistance. In HICs, up to 95% ofself-reported BLAs are incorrect. The epidemiology of BLA in low- and middle-income African countries is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology and de-labelling outcomes of self-reported BLA in hospitalised South African (SA) patients. METHODS: Point-prevalence surveys were conducted at seven hospitals (adult, paediatric, government and privately funded, district andtertiary level) in Cape Town, SA, between April 2019 and June 2021. Ward prescription records and in-person interviews were conductedto identify and risk-stratify BLA patients using the validated PEN-FAST tool. De-labelling was attempted at the tertiary allergy clinic atGroote Schuur Hospital. RESULTS: A total of 1 486 hospital inpatients were surveyed (1 166 adults and 320 children). Only 48 patients (3.2%) self-reported a BLA,with a higher rate in private than in government-funded hospitals (6.3% v. 2.8%; p=0.014). Using the PEN-FAST tool, only 10.4% (n=5/48)of self-reported BLA patients were classified as high risk for true penicillin hypersensitivity. Antibiotics were prescribed to 70.8% (n=34/48)of self-reported BLA patients, with 64.7% (n=22/34) receiving a beta-lactam. Despite three attempts to contact patients for de-labelling atthe allergy clinic, only 3/36 underwent in vivo testing, with no positive results, and 1 patient proceeded to a negative oral challenge. CONCLUSION: Unlike HICs, self-reported BLA is low among inpatients in SA. The majority of those who self-reported BLA were low risk fortype 1 hypersensitivity, but outpatient de-labelling efforts were largely unsuccessful.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaxxers - supporting healthcare workers to navigate the unvaccinated: Reflections from clinical practice.

An important step in preparation for the fourth COVID-19 wave is to provide healthcare workers (HCWs) with skills to facilitate behaviour change in vaccine-hesitant patients. Convincing members of the public who are vaccine hesitant rather than anti-vaxxers should be the focus of our efforts. Our experience is that vaccine-hesitant individuals and anti-vaxxers are generally distinct cohorts, with differing reasons for their vaccine reluctance. If we are to truly address hesitancy, we must take time to understand the reasons for an individual's hesitancy. Developing a conceptual framework and skills for HCWs during encounters with unvaccinated individuals will be important not only for shifting some to get vaccinated, but also to manage the complex emotions that HCWs will undoubtedly be forced to confront during the fourth wave.

Establishing a South African national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care. METHODS: The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic.

COVID-19 vaccines - less obfuscation, more transparency and action.

Letter by Venter et al. on editorial  by Schoub (Dial down the rhetoric over COVID-19 vaccines. S Afr Med J 2021;111(6):522-523. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i6.15740).

Association Between Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, Beta-lactamase Genes and Mortality for Patients Treated With Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Meropenem From the MERINO Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the association of piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and beta-lactam resistance genes with mortality in the MERINO trial. METHODS: Blood culture isolates from enrolled patients were tested by broth microdilution and whole genome sequencing at a central laboratory. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to account for confounders. Absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality between treatment groups was calculated for the primary analysis (PA) and the microbiologic assessable (MA) populations. RESULTS: In total, 320 isolates from 379 enrolled patients were available with susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam 94% and meropenem 100%. The piperacillin/tazobactam nonsusceptible breakpoint (MIC >16 mg/L) best predicted 30-day mortality after accounting for confounders (odds ratio 14.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-87.2). The absolute risk increase for 30-day mortality for patients treated with piperacillin/tazobactam compared with meropenem was 9% (95% CI 3%-15%) and 8% (95% CI 2%-15%) for the original PA population and the post hoc MA populations, which reduced to 5% (95% CI -1% to 10%) after excluding strains with piperacillin/tazobactam MIC values >16 mg/L. Isolates coharboring extended spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) and OXA-1 genes were associated with elevated piperacillin/tazobactam MICs and the highest risk increase in 30-day mortality of 14% (95% CI 2%-28%). CONCLUSIONS: After excluding nonsusceptible strains, the 30-day mortality difference from the MERINO trial was less pronounced for piperacillin/tazobactam. Poor reliability in susceptibility testing performance for piperacillin/tazobactam and the high prevalence of OXA coharboring ESBLs suggests that meropenem remains the preferred choice for definitive treatment of ceftriaxone nonsusceptible Escherichia coli and Klebsiella.

The mechanics of setting up a COVID-19 response: Experiences of the COVID-19 epidemic from Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has challenged the provision of healthcare in ways that are unprecedented in our lifetime. Planning for the sheer numbers expected during the surge has required public hospitals to de-escalate all non-essential clinical services to focus on COVID-19. Western Cape Province was the initial epicentre of the COVID-19 epidemic in South Africa (SA), and the Cape Town metro was its hardest-hit geographical region. We describe how we constructed our COVID-19 hospital-wide clinical service at Groote Schuur Hospital, the University of Cape Town's tertiary-level teaching hospital. By describing the barriers and enablers, we hope to provide guidance rather than a blueprint for hospitals elsewhere in SA and in low-resource countries that face similar challenges now or during subsequent waves.

Clinical management of COVID-19: Experiences of the COVID-19 epidemic from Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has presented clinicians with an enormous challenge in managing a respiratory virus that is not only capable of causing severe pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, but also multisystem disease. The extraordinary pace of clinical research, and particularly the surge in adaptive trials of new and repurposed treatments, have provided rapid answers to questions of whether such treatments work, and has resulted in corticosteroids taking centre stage in the management of hospitalised patients requiring oxygen support. Some treatment modalities, such as the role of anticoagulation to prevent and treat potential thromboembolic complications, remain controversial, as does the use of high-level oxygen support, outside of an intensive care unit setting. In this paper, we describe the clinical management of COVID-19 patients admitted to Groote Schuur Hospital, a major tertiary level hospital at the epicentre of South Africa's SARS-CoV-2 epidemic during its first 4 months.

COVID-19 antibody testing: From hype to immunological reality.

The potential role for serological tests in the current COVID-19 pandemic has generated very considerable recent interest across many sectors worldwide, inter alia pathologists seeking additional weapons for their armoury of diagnostic tests; epidemiologists seeking tools to gain seroprevalence data that will inform improved models of the spread of disease; research scientists seeking tools to study the natural history of COVID-19 disease; vaccine developers seeking tools to assess vaccine efficacy in clinical trials; and companies and governments seeking tools to aid return-to-work decision-making. However, much of the local debate to date has centred on questions surrounding whether regulatory approval processes are limiting access to serological tests, and has not paused to consider the intrinsically limiting impact of underlying fundamental biology and immunology on where and how different COVID-19 serological tests can usefully be deployed in the response to the current pandemic. We review, from an immunological perspective, recent experimental evidence on the time-dependency of adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the impact of this on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 antibody tests made at different time points post infection. We interpret this scientific evidence in terms of mooted clinical applications for current COVID-19 antibody tests in identifying acute infections, in confirming recent or past infections at the individual and population level, and in detecting re-infection and protective immunity. We conclude with guidance on where current COVID-19 antibody tests can make a genuine impact in the pandemic.

Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance-Lessons learnt from India, South Africa, and UK.

Research, collaboration, and knowledge exchange are critical to global efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Different healthcare economies are faced with different challenges in implementing effective strategies to address AMR. Building effective capacity for research to inform AMR-related strategies and policies is recognised as an important contributor to success. Interdisciplinary, intersector, as well as international collaborations are needed to span global to local efforts to tackle AMR. The development of reciprocal, long-term partnerships between collaborators in high-income and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) needs to be built on principles of capacity building. Using case studies spanning local and international research collaborations to codesign, implement, and evaluate strategies to tackle AMR, we have evaluated and build upon the ESSENCE criteria for capacity building in LMICs. The first case study describes the local codesign and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the state of Kerala in India. The second case study describes an international research collaboration investigating AMR surgical patient pathways in India, the UK, and South Africa. We describe the steps undertaken to develop robust, agile, and flexible AMS research and implementation teams. Notably, investing in capacity building ensured that the programmes described in these case studies were sustained through the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic. Describing the strategies adopted by a local and an international collaboration to tackle AMR, we provide a model for capacity building in LMICs that can support sustainable and agile AMS programmes.

Strengthening the science of addressing antimicrobial resistance: a framework for planning, conducting and disseminating antimicrobial resistance intervention research.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has the potential to threaten tens of millions of lives and poses major global economic and development challenges. As the AMR threat grows, it is increasingly important to strengthen the scientific evidence base on AMR policy interventions, to learn from existing policies and programmes, and to integrate scientific evidence into the global AMR response.While rigorous evaluations of AMR policy interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. To strengthen this evidence base, we describe a framework for planning, conducting and disseminating research on AMR policy interventions. The framework identifies challenges in AMR research, areas for enhanced coordination and cooperation with decision-makers, and best practices in the design of impact evaluations for AMR policies.This framework offers a path forward, enabling increased local and global cooperation, and overcoming common limitations in existing research on AMR policy interventions.

Study reporting quality among interventions to reduce antibiotic use is a barrier to evidence-informed policymaking on antimicrobial resistance: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are currently seeking evidence-informed policy options to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While rigorous evaluations of AMR interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. Additionally, poor reporting and documentation of AMR interventions impede efforts to use evidence to inform future evaluations and policy interventions. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate reporting quality gaps in AMR intervention research. METHODS: To evaluate the reporting quality of studies, we conducted a descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis of studies that were included in a recent systematic review of government policy interventions aiming to reduce human antimicrobial use. Reporting quality was assessed using the SQUIRE 2.0 checklist of 18 items for reporting system-level interventions to improve healthcare. Two reviewers independently applied the checklist to 66 studies identified in the systematic review. RESULTS: None of the studies included complete information on all 18 SQUIRE items (median score = 10, IQR = 8-11). Reporting quality varied across SQUIRE items, with 3% to 100% of studies reporting the recommended information for each SQUIRE item. Only 20% of studies reported the elements of the intervention in sufficient detail for replication and only 24% reported the mechanism through which the intervention was expected to work. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in the reporting of impact evaluations pose challenges for interpreting and replicating study results. Failure to improve reporting practice of policy evaluations is likely to impede efforts to tackle the growing health, social and economic threats posed by AMR.

Long-COVID: An evolving problem with an extensive impact.

Persistence of symptoms or development of new symptoms relating to SARS-CoV-2 infection late in the course of COVID-19 is an increasingly recognised problem facing the globally infected population and its health systems. 'Long-COVID' or 'COVID long-haulers' generally describes those persons with COVID-19 who experience symptoms for >28 days after diagnosis, whether laboratory confirmed or clinical. Symptoms are as markedly heterogeneous as seen in acute COVID-19 and may be constant, fluctuate, or appear and be replaced by symptoms relating to other systems with varying frequency. Such multisystem involvement requires a holistic approach to management of long-COVID, and descriptions of cohorts from low- and middle-income countries are eagerly awaited. Although many persons with long-COVID will be managed in primary care, others will require greater input from rehabilitation medicine experts. For both eventualities, planning is urgently required to ensure that the South African public health service is ready and able to respond.