The emergence of COVID-19 in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Community knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Kinshasa.

BACKGROUND: The first COVID-19 case in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was reported on 10 March 2020 in Kinshasa, prompting the government to promote internationally agreed non-pharmacological interventions for infection prevention and control. Public compliance to these measures is critical and depends on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of communities regarding COVID-19, for which there was no data. This study aimed to bridge that gap. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Kinshasa in June 2020, during the emergency state, following a four-stage sampling process. Master's students from the Kinshasa School of Public Health conducted the survey. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 726 women and 600 men (mean age: 43; SD 16-85). Nearly everyone heard about COVID-19 (mainly through television, radio, and street reports), but only 17% were highly knowledgeable about its transmission modes, signs and symptoms, and preventive measures. More than 80% of participants believed in the disease's seriousness; however, only 21% found the total lockdown acceptable. Nonetheless, 86% reported regular hand cleaning and mask-wearing followed by physical distancing (72%). Poorer, younger, and non-Catholic participants were overall markedly less knowledgeable and had comparatively lower levels of health-protective attitudes, acceptance, and practices. The education level and household size did not matter. Female participants tended to show fewer enabling attitudes and practices toward COVID-19 prevention measures compared to men. CONCLUSION: Adequate public health information to improve the population's KAP related to COVID-19 is critical and must be designed with and delivered to the community-considering the specific needs of diverse sub-groups and contexts. Studies in Kinshasa and similar settings are necessary to understand the barriers to and enablers of acquiring, applying, and maintaining the optimal population's KAP for COVID-19 prevention and control.

The cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amodiaquine is a 4-aminoquinoline antimalarial similar to chloroquine that is used extensively for the treatment and prevention of malaria. Data on the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine are scarce, although transient effects on cardiac electrophysiology (electrocardiographic QT interval prolongation and sinus bradycardia) have been observed. We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis to characterise the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and thereby support development of risk minimisation measures to improve the safety of this important antimalarial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies of amodiaquine for the treatment or prevention of malaria were identified from a systematic review. Heart rates and QT intervals with study-specific heart rate correction (QTcS) were compared within studies and individual patient data pooled for multivariable linear mixed effects regression. The meta-analysis included 2,681 patients from 4 randomised controlled trials evaluating artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) containing amodiaquine (n = 725), lumefantrine (n = 499), piperaquine (n = 716), and pyronaridine (n = 566), as well as monotherapy with chloroquine (n = 175) for uncomplicated malaria. Amodiaquine prolonged QTcS (mean = 16.9 ms, 95% CI: 15.0 to 18.8) less than chloroquine (21.9 ms, 18.3 to 25.6, p = 0.0069) and piperaquine (19.2 ms, 15.8 to 20.5, p = 0.0495), but more than lumefantrine (5.6 ms, 2.9 to 8.2, p < 0.001) and pyronaridine (-1.2 ms, -3.6 to +1.3, p < 0.001). In individuals aged ≥12 years, amodiaquine reduced heart rate (mean reduction = 15.2 beats per minute [bpm], 95% CI: 13.4 to 17.0) more than piperaquine (10.5 bpm, 7.7 to 13.3, p = 0.0013), lumefantrine (9.3 bpm, 6.4 to 12.2, p < 0.001), pyronaridine (6.6 bpm, 4.0 to 9.3, p < 0.001), and chloroquine (5.9 bpm, 3.2 to 8.5, p < 0.001) and was associated with a higher risk of potentially symptomatic sinus bradycardia (≤50 bpm) than lumefantrine (risk difference: 14.8%, 95% CI: 5.4 to 24.3, p = 0.0021) and chloroquine (risk difference: 8.0%, 95% CI: 4.0 to 12.0, p < 0.001). The effect of amodiaquine on the heart rate of children aged <12 years compared with other antimalarials was not clinically significant. Study limitations include the unavailability of individual patient-level adverse event data for most included participants, but no serious complications were documented. CONCLUSIONS: While caution is advised in the use of amodiaquine in patients aged ≥12 years with concomitant use of heart rate-reducing medications, serious cardiac conduction disorders, or risk factors for torsade de pointes, there have been no serious cardiovascular events reported after amodiaquine in widespread use over 7 decades. Amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials in the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended dose regimens alone or in ACTs are safe for the treatment and prevention of malaria.