Biobanking: Strengthening Uganda's Rapid Response to COVID-19 and Other Epidemics.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 is a fatal disease of global public health concern. Measures to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate diagnosis of virus-infected individuals. Biobanks can have a pivotal role in elucidating disease etiology, translation, and advancing public health. In this article, we show how a biobank has been a critical resource in the rapid response to coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in Uganda. Materials and Methods: The Integrated Biorepository of H3Africa Uganda established a COVID-19 biobank. Standard Operating Procedures for sample and data collection, sample processing, and storage were developed. An e-questionnaire data tool was used to collect sociodemographic factors. Samples were collected at 7-day intervals from patients, analyzed for key parameters, processed, annotated, characterized, and stored at appropriate temperatures. Results: Stored samples have been used in validation of 17 diagnostic kits, the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay, as well as a sample pooling technique for mass screening and polymerase chain reaction assay validation. Kits that passed validation were deployed for mass screening boosting early detection, isolation, and treatment of COVID-19 cases. Also, 10 applications from researchers and biotech companies have been received and approved and 4 grants have been awarded Conclusion: The CoV-Bank has proven to be an invaluable resource in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda, as samples have been resources in the validation and development of COVID-19 diagnostic tools, which are important in tracing and isolation of infected cases to confront, delay, and stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-severe COVID-19 among adults in Uganda: a randomized open label phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Several repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been investigated for treatment of COVID-19, but none was confirmed to be efficacious. While in vitro studies have demonstrated antiviral properties of HCQ, data from clinical trials were conflicting regarding its benefit for COVID-19 treatment. Drugs that limit viral replication may be beneficial in the earlier course of the disease thus slowing progression to severe and critical illness. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized open label Phase II clinical trial from October-December 2020. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were included in the study if they were 18 years and above and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 made in the last 3 days. Patients were randomized in blocks, to receive either HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days plus standard of care (SOC) treatment or SOC treatment alone. SARS COV-2 viral load (CT values) from RT-PCR testing of samples collected using nasal/orapharyngeal swabs was performed at baseline, day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. The primary outcome was median time from randomization to SARS COV-2 viral clearance by day 6. RESULTS: Of the 105 participants enrolled, 55 were assigned to the intervention group (HCQ plus SOC) and 50 to the control group (SOC only). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. Viral clearance did not differ by treatment arm, 20 and 19 participants respectively had SARS COV-2 viral load clearance by day 6 with no significant difference, median (IQR) number of days to viral load clearance between the two groups was 4(3-4) vs 4(2-4): p = 0.457. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes (symptom resolution and adverse events) between the intervention group and the control group. There were no significant differences in specific adverse events such as elevated alkaline phosphatase, prolonged QTc interval on ECG, among patients in the intervention group as compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Our results show that HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days was safe but not associated with reduction in viral clearance or symptom resolution among adults with COVID-19 in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  NCT04860284.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda.

RATIONALE: Convalescent plasma (CCP) has been studied as a potential therapy for COVID-19, but data on its efficacy in Africa are limited. OBJECTIVE: In this trial we set out to determine the efficacy of CCP for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda. MEASUREMENTS: Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR test irrespective of disease severity were hospitalised and randomised to receive either COVID-19 CCP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was time to viral clearance, defined as having two consecutive RT-PCR-negative tests by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to symptom resolution, clinical status on the modified WHO Ordinal Clinical Scale (≥1-point increase), progression to severe/critical condition (defined as oxygen saturation <93% or needing oxygen), mortality and safety. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were randomised, 69 to CCP+SOC and 67 to SOC only. The median age was 50 years (IQR: 38.5-62.0), 71.3% were male and the median duration of symptom was 7 days (IQR=4-8). Time to viral clearance was not different between the CCP+SOC and SOC arms (median of 6 days (IQR=4-11) vs 4 (IQR=4-6), p=0.196). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes in CCP+SOC versus SOC: time to symptom resolution (median=7 (IQR=5-7) vs 7 (IQR=5-10) days, p=0.450), disease progression (9 (22.0%) vs 7 (24.0%) patients, p=0.830) and mortality (10 (14.5%) vs 8 (11.9%) deaths, p=0.476). CONCLUSION: In this African trial, CCP therapy did not result in beneficial virological or clinical improvements. Further trials are needed to determine subgroups of patients who may benefit from CCP in Africa.Trial registration number NCT04542941.

Feasibility of collecting and processing of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence that supports the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for treatment of COVID-19 is increasingly emerging. However, very few African countries have undertaken the collection and processing of CCP. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of collecting and processing of CCP, in preparation for a randomized clinical trial of CCP for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, persons with documented evidence of recovery from COVID-19 in Uganda were contacted and screened for blood donation via telephone calls. Those found eligible were asked to come to the blood donation centre for further screening and consent. Whole blood collection was undertaken from which plasma was processed. Plasma was tested for transfusion transmissible infections (TTIs) and anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody titers. SARS-CoV-2 testing was also done on nasopharyngeal swabs from the donors. RESULTS: 192 participants were contacted of whom 179 (93.2%) were eligible to donate. Of the 179 eligible, 23 (12.8%) were not willing to donate and reasons given included: having no time 7(30.4%), fear of being retained at the COVID-19 treatment center 10 (43.5%), fear of stigma in the community 1 (4.3%), phobia for donating blood 1 (4.3%), religious issues 1 (4.4%), lack of interest 2 (8.7%) and transport challenges 1 (4.3%). The median age was 30 years and females accounted for 3.7% of the donors. A total of 30 (18.5%) donors tested positive for different TTIs. Antibody titer testing demonstrated titers of more than 1:320 for all the 72 samples tested. Age greater than 46 years and female gender were associated with higher titers though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CCP collection and processing is possible in Uganda. However, concerns about stigma and lack of time, interest or transport need to be addressed in order to maximize donations.

Characteristics and outcomes of admitted patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Uganda.

RATIONALE: Detailed data on the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa are limited. OBJECTIVE: We determined the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Uganda. MEASUREMENTS: As of the 16 May 2020, a total of 203 cases had been confirmed. We report on the first 56 patients; 29 received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and 27 did not. Endpoints included admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation or death during hospitalisation. MAIN RESULTS: The median age was 34.2 years; 67.9% were male; and 14.6% were <18 years. Up 57.1% of the patients were asymptomatic. The most common symptoms were fever (21.4%), cough (19.6%), rhinorrhea (16.1%), headache (12.5%), muscle ache (7.1%) and fatigue (7.1%). Rates of comorbidities were 10.7% (pre-existing hypertension), 10.7% (diabetes) and 7.1% (HIV), Body Mass Index (BMI) of ≥30 36.6%. 37.0% had a blood pressure (BP) of >130/90 mm Hg, and 27.8% had BP of >140/90 mm Hg. Laboratory derangements were leucopenia (10.6%), lymphopenia (11.1%) and thrombocytopenia (26.3%). Abnormal chest X-ray was observed in 14.3%. No patients reached the primary endpoint. Time to clinical recovery was shorter among patients who received HCQ, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Most of the patients with COVID-19 presented with mild disease and exhibited a clinical trajectory not similar to other countries. Outcomes did not differ by HCQ treatment status in line with other concluded studies on the benefit of using HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.

Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions.

PURPOSE: Ethical review processes have become increasingly complex. We have examined how 8 collaborating diabetes peer-support clinical trials were assessed by ethics committees. METHODS: The ethical reviews from the 8 peer-support studies were collated and subjected to a thematic analysis. We mapped the recommendations of local Institutional Review Boards and ethics committees onto the "4+1 ethical framework" (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, along with concern for their scope of application). RESULTS: Ethics committees did not consistently focus on tasks within the 4+1 framework: many conducted reviews of scientific, organizational, and administrative activities. Of the 20 themes identified across the ethical reviews, only 4 fell within the scope of the 4+1 framework. Variation in processes and requirements for ethics committees were particularly evident between study countries. Some of the consent processes mandated by ethical review boards were disproportionate for peer support, increased participant burden, and reduced the practicality of testing an ethical intervention. Across the 8 studies, ethics committees' reviews included the required elements to ensure participant safety; however, they created a range of hurdles that in some cases delayed the research and required consent processes that could hinder the spontaneity and/or empathy of peer support. CONCLUSION: Ethics committees should avoid repeating the work of other trusted agencies and consider the ethical validity of "light touch" consent procedures for peer-support interventions. The investigators propose an ethical framework for research on peer support.

Mentorship needs at academic institutions in resource-limited settings: a survey at Makerere University College of Health Sciences.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring is a core component of medical education and career success. There is increasing global emphasis on mentorship of young scientists in order to train and develop the next leaders in global health. However, mentoring efforts are challenged by the high clinical, research and administrative demands. We evaluated the status and nature of mentoring practices at Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MAKCHS). METHODS: Pre-tested, self-administered questionnaires were sent by email to all Fogarty alumni at the MAKCHS (mentors) and each of them was requested to complete and email back the questionnaire. In addition to training level and number of mentors, the questionnaires had open-ended questions covering themes such as; status of mentorship, challenges faced by mentors and strategies to improve and sustain mentorship within MAKCHS. Similarly, open-ended questionnaires were sent and received by email from all graduate students (mentees) registered with the Uganda Society for Health Scientists (USHS). Qualitative data from mentors and mentees was analyzed manually according to the pre-determined themes. RESULTS: Twenty- two out of 100 mentors responded (14 email and 8 hard copy responses). Up to 77% (17/22) of mentors had Master's-level training and only 18% (4/22) had doctorate-level training. About 40% of the mentors had ≥ two mentees while 27% had none. Qualitative results showed that mentors needed support in terms of training in mentoring skills and logistical/financial support to carry out successful mentorship. Junior scientists and students reported that mentorship is not yet institutionalized and it is currently occurring in an adhoc manner. There was lack of awareness of roles of mentors and mentees. The mentors mentioned the limited number of practicing mentors at the college and thus the need for training courses and guidelines for faculty members in regard to mentorship at academic institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Both mentors and mentees were willing to improve mentorship practices at MAKCHS. There is need for institutional commitment to uphold and sustain the mentorship best practices. We recommend a collaborative approach by the stakeholders in global health promotion to build local capacity in mentoring African health professionals.