Current malaria infection, previous malaria exposure, and clinical profiles and outcomes of COVID-19 in a setting of high malaria transmission: an exploratory cohort study in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The potential effects of SARS-CoV-2 and Plasmodium falciparum co-infection on host susceptibility and pathogenesis remain unknown. We aimed to establish the prevalence of malaria and describe the clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and P falciparum co-infection in a high-burden malaria setting. METHODS: This was an exploratory prospective, cohort study of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital in Uganda. Patients of all ages with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection who had provided informed consent or assent were consecutively enrolled from treatment centres in eight hospitals across the country and followed up until discharge or death. Clinical assessments and blood sampling were done at admission for all patients. Malaria diagnosis in all patients was done by rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, and molecular methods. Previous P falciparum exposure was determined with serological responses to a panel of P falciparum antigens assessed using a multiplex bead assay. Additional evaluations included complete blood count, markers of inflammation, and serum biochemistries. The main outcome was overall prevalence of malaria infection and malaria prevalence by age (including age categories of 0-20 years, 21-40 years, 41-60 years, and >60 years). The frequency of symptoms was compared between patients with COVID-19 with P falciparum infection versus those without P falciparum infection. The frequency of comorbidities and COVID-19 clinical severity and outcomes was compared between patients with low previous exposure to P falciparum versus those with high previous exposure to P falciparum. The effect of previous exposure to P falciparum on COVID-19 clinical severity and outcomes was also assessed among patients with and those without comorbidities. FINDINGS: Of 600 people with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection enrolled from April 15, to Oct 30, 2020, 597 (>99%) had complete information and were included in our analyses. The majority (502 [84%] of 597) were male individuals with a median age of 36 years (IQR 28-47). Overall prevalence of P falciparum infection was 12% (95% CI 9·4-14·6; 70 of 597 participants), with highest prevalence in the age groups of 0-20 years (22%, 8·7-44·8; five of 23 patients) and older than 60 years (20%, 10·2-34·1; nine of 46 patients). Confusion (four [6%] of 70 patients vs eight [2%] of 527 patients; p=0·040) and vomiting (four [6%] of 70 patients vs five [1%] of 527 patients; p=0·014] were more frequent among patients with P falciparum infection than those without. Patients with low versus those with high previous P falciparum exposure had a increased frequency of severe or critical COVID-19 clinical presentation (16 [30%] of 53 patients vs three [5%] of 56 patients; p=0·0010) and a higher burden of comorbidities, including diabetes (12 [23%] of 53 patients vs two [4%] of 56 patients; p=0·0010) and heart disease (seven [13%] of 53 patients vs zero [0%] of 56 patients; p=0·0030). Among patients with no comorbidities, those with low previous P falciparum exposure still had a higher proportion of cases of severe or critical COVID-19 than did those with high P falciparum exposure (six [18%] of 33 patients vs one [2%] of 49 patients; p=0·015). Multivariate analysis showed higher odds of unfavourable outcomes in patients who were older than 60 years (adjusted OR 8·7, 95% CI 1·0-75·5; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Although patients with COVID-19 with P falciparum co-infection had a higher frequency of confusion and vomiting, co-infection did not seem deleterious. The association between low previous malaria exposure and severe or critical COVID-19 and other adverse outcomes will require further study. These preliminary descriptive observations highlight the importance of understanding the potential clinical and therapeutic implications of overlapping co-infections. FUNDING: Malaria Consortium (USA).

Ethical and human rights considerations in public health in low and middle-income countries: an assessment using the case of Uganda's responses to COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Uganda adopted public health measures to contain its spread in the country. Some of the initial measures included refusal to repatriate citizens studying in China, mandatory institutional quarantine, and social distancing. Despite being a public health emergency, the measures adopted deserve critical appraisal using an ethics and human rights approach. The goal of this paper is to formulate an ethics and human rights criteria for evaluating public health measures and use it to reflect on the ethical propriety of those adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19. MAIN BODY: We begin by illustrating the value of ethics and human rights considerations for public health measures including during emergencies. We then summarize Uganda's social and economic circumstances and some of the measures adopted to contain the spread of COVID-19. After reviewing some of the ethics and human rights considerations for public health, we reflect upon the ethical propriety of some of Uganda's responses to COVID-19. We use content analysis to identify the measures adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19, the ethics and human rights considerations commonly recommended for public health responses and their importance. Our study found that some of the measures adopted violate ethics and human rights principles. We argue that even though some human rights can sometimes be legitimately derogated and limited to meet public health goals during public health emergencies, measures that infringe on human rights should satisfy certain ethics and human rights criteria. Some of these criteria include being effective, strictly necessary, proportionate to the magnitude of the threat, reasonable in the circumstances, equitable, and least restrictive. We reflect on Uganda's initial measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 and argue that many of them fell short of these criteria, and potentially limit their effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The ethical legitimacy of public health measures is valuable in itself and for enhancing effectiveness of the measures. Such legitimacy depends on the extent to which they conform to ethics and human rights principles recommended for public health measures.