RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Inequality is rife throughout South Africa. The first wave of COVID-19 may have affected people in lower socioeconomic groups worse than the affluent. The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and the specificity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests in South Africa is not known. METHODS: We tested 405 volunteers representing all socioeconomic strata from the workforce of a popular shopping and tourist complex in central Cape Town with the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. We assessed the association between antibody positivity and COVID-19 symptom status, medical history, and sociodemographic variables. We tested 137 serum samples from healthy controls collected in Cape Town prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, to confirm the specificity of the assay in the local population. RESULTS: Of the 405 volunteers tested one month after the first peak of the epidemic in Cape Town, 96(23.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive. Of those who tested positive, 46(47.9%) reported no symptoms of COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Seropositivity was significantly associated with living in informal housing, residing in a subdistrict with low income-per household, and having a low-earning occupation. The specificity of the assay was 98.54%(95%CI 94.82%-99.82%) in the pre-COVID controls. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high background seroprevalence in Cape Town, particularly in people of lower socioeconomic status. Almost half of cases are asymptomatic, and therefore undiagnosed by local testing strategies. These results cannot be explained by low assay specificity.
Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , Classe Social , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2/fisiologia , Estudos Soroepidemiológicos , África do Sul/epidemiologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and management of Diabetes mellitus (DM) patients from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: We systematically characterised consecutive DM patients attending public health services in urban settings in Indonesia, Peru, Romania and South Africa, collecting data on DM treatment history, complications, drug treatment, obesity, HbA1c and cardiovascular risk profile; and assessing treatment gaps against relevant national guidelines. RESULTS: Patients (median 59 years, 62.9% female) mostly had type 2 diabetes (96%), half for >5 years (48.6%). Obesity (45.5%) and central obesity (females 84.8%; males 62.7%) were common. The median HbA1c was 8.7% (72 mmol/mol), ranging from 7.7% (61 mmol/mol; Peru) to 10.4% (90 mmol/mol; South Africa). Antidiabetes treatment included metformin (62.6%), insulin (37.8%), and other oral glucose-lowering drugs (34.8%). Disease complications included eyesight problems (50.4%), EGFR <60 ml/min (18.9%), heart disease (16.5%) and proteinuria (14.7%). Many had an elevated cardiovascular risk with elevated blood pressure (36%), LDL (71.0%) and smoking (13%), but few were taking antihypertensive drugs (47.1%), statins (28.5%) and aspirin (30.0%) when indicated. Few patients on insulin (8.0%), statins (8.4%) and antihypertensives (39.5%) reached treatment targets according to national guidelines. There were large differences between countries in terms of disease profile and medication use. CONCLUSION: DM patients in government clinics in four LMIC with considerable growth of DM have insufficient glycaemic control, frequent macrovascular and other complications, and insufficient preventive measures for cardiovascular disease. These findings underline the need to identify treatment barriers and secure optimal DM care in such settings.