Research on COVID-19 in South Africa: Guiding principles for informed consent

Research is imperative in addressing the COVID-19 epidemic, both in the short and long term. Informed consent is a key pillar of research and should be central to the conduct of COVID-19 research. Yet a range of factors, including physical distancing requirements, risk of exposure and infection to research staff, and multiple pressures on the healthcare environment, have added layers of challenges to the consent process in COVID-19 patients. Internationally, the recognition that consent for COVID-19 research may be imperfect has led to a range of suggestions to ensure that research remains ethical. Drawing on these guidelines, we propose a consent process for COVID-19 research in the South African context that combines individual consent with delayed and proxy consent for individuals who may be temporarily incapacitated, combined with key principles that should be considered in the design of a consent process for COVID-19 research

Essential medicine selection during the COVID-19 pandemic: Enabling access in uncharted territory

The COVID-19 pandemic requires urgent decisions regarding treatment policy in the face of rapidly evolving evidence. In response, the South African Essential Medicines List Committee established a subcommittee to systematically review and appraise emerging evidence, within very short timelines, in order to inform the National Department of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. To date, the subcommittee has reviewed 14 potential treatments, and made recommendations based on local context, feasibility, resource requirements and equity. Here we describe the rapid review and evidence-to-decision process, using remdesivir and dexamethasone as examples. Our experience is that conducting rapid reviews is a practical and efficient way to address medicine policy questions under pandemic conditions

Antibiotic prescribing practice and adherence to guidelines in primary care in the Cape Town Metro District, South Africa

Background.Knowledge of antibiotic prescribing practice in primary care in South Africa is limited. As 80% of human antibiotic use is in primary care, this knowledge is important in view of the global problem of antibiotic resistance.Objectives. To assess antibiotic prescribing in primary care facilities in the Cape Town Metro District and compare it with current national guidelines, and to assess the reasons why prescriptions were not adherent to guidelines.Methods. A retrospective medical record review was performed in April/May 2016. Records of all patients seen over 2 days in each of eight representative primary care facilities in the Cape Town Metro District were reviewed. The treatment of any patient who raised a new complaint on either of those days was recorded. Prophylactic antibiotic courses, tuberculosis treatment and patients with a non-infection diagnosis were excluded. Treatment was compared with the Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List for South Africa, Primary Healthcare Level, 2014 edition.Results. Of 654 records included, 68.7% indicated that an antibiotic had been prescribed. Overall guideline adherence was 45.1%. Adherence differed significantly between facilities and according to the physiological system being treated, whether the prescription was for an adult or paediatric patient, and the antibiotic prescribed. Healthcare professional type and patient gender had no significant effect on adherence. The main reasons for non-adherence were an undocumented diagnosis (30.5%), antibiotic not required (21.6%), incorrect dose (12.9%), incorrect drug (11.5%), and incorrect duration of therapy (9.5%). Conclusions. This study demonstrates poor adherence to guidelines. Irrational use of antibiotics is associated with increased antibiotic resistance. There is an urgent need to improve antibiotic prescribing practice in primary care in the Cape Town Metro District

Therapeutic drug monitoring of amlodipine and the Z-FHL/HHL ratio: Adherence tools in patients referred for apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

Background. Non-adherence to antihypertensives is a cause of 'pseudo-treatment-resistant' hypertension.Objective. To determine whether monitoring plasma amlodipine concentrations and inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) can be adjunct adherence tools.Methods. Patients with hypertension who were prescribed enalapril and amlodipine were enrolled. Blood pressures (BPs) were monitored and an adherence questionnaire was completed. Steady-state amlodipine was assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and degree of ACE inhibition using the Z-FHL/HHL (z-phenylalanine-histidine-leucine/hippuryl-histidine-leucine) ratio.Results. One hundred patients (mean (standard deviation) age 50.5 (12) years, 46% male) were enrolled. Based on plasma assays, 26/97 patients (26.8%) were unsuppressed by enalapril and 20/100 (20%) were sub-therapeutic for amlodipine. There were significant BP differences based on plasma levels of the medication: 21/20 mmHg lower in the group with suppressed ACE and 26/20 mmHg in the group with steady-state amlodipine concentrations.Conclusions. Monitoring antihypertensive adherence by assaying plasma medication concentrations is a feasible option for evaluating true v. pseudo-resistant hypertension