ABSTRACT
Chapter 26 examines the impact of COVID-19 on sport-for-development (SFD) in Kenya. The chapter argues that, like many sport organisations around the world, community sport-for-development agencies and organisations halted most in-person activities in the early part of 2020. This resulted in many programs, such as the Highway of Hope (HOH) program in Kenya, being paused. Whilst this national shutdown had a negative impact on those involved in the SFD program, it provided the HOH organisation with the opportunity to review its operations and take time to place extra focus on the program's longer-term sustainability. © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Stephen Frawley and Nico Schulenkorf;individual chapters, the contributors.
ABSTRACT
Background. COVID-19 disease severity and outcomes have been linked to high antibody titers and a dysregulated neutrophil immune response. Here we query associations and connections between the endogenous SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and neutrophil activation in COVID-19. Methods. Baseline serum or plasma samples from 57 patients hospitalized on oxygen with COVID-19 were used to perform;1) quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies using a luciferase-based immunoprecipitation system assay, 2) quantitative measurements of neutrophil specific biomarkers using Luminex technology, and 3) neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) as measured by myeloperoxidase-DNA (MPO-DNA) complexes by ELISA. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and immature granulocyte count (IGC) were measured from complete blood counts (CBC). Antibody levels were compared by disease severity using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and correlations were generated between antibody levels and neutrophil activation markers using Spearman's correlation (SC). Results. In a cohort of hospitalized patients, severe/critical COVID-19 was associated with higher levels of nucleocapsid-IgA (p=0.011) as well as spike-IgG (p= 0.0007) compared tomoderate disease,while spike-IgA and nucleocapsid-IgG showed similar associations, trending towards significance (Figure 1A). Levels of IgG-spike and IgG-nucleocapsid both had significant correlations with the ANC (SC 0.33, p = 0.029;SC 0.38 p = 0.012). All four antibody titers showed strong correlations with IGC, lactoferrin and lipocalin-2, evidence of emergency granulopoiesis. Further, S100A9, a component calprotectin correlated with spike-IgG and nucleocapsid-IgA levels (SC 0.29, p = 0.030, SC 0.29 p = 0.029). Lastly, we found circulating NETs correlated with spike IgA levels (SC 0.38 p = 0.006), and its correlations with IgG-spike and IgA-nucleocapsid additionally approached significance with NETs levels as well (Figure 1B). Antibody Levels Correlate with Disease Severity and Neutrophil Activation Markers Figure 1: A) Levels of anti-Spike and anti-Nucleocapsid IgA and IgG levels measured in the serum of 57 unvaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Moderate illness represents ordinal scale 5 requiring low flow oxygen, while severe/critical patients represent ordinal scale 6 and 7, requiring high flow oxygen, non-invasive or mechanical ventilation, respectively. P values are compared by a Wilcoxon ranked sum test. B) Heatmap showing Spearman correlations between levels of anti-Spike and anti-Nucleocapsid IgA and IgG and markers of neutrophil activation. P values for individual correlations are represented in parentheses. MPO (myeloperoxidase), ANC (absolute neutrophil count), S100A9 (S100 calcium binding protein A9). Conclusion. Higher anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG and IgA levels associate with more severe COVID-19 illness. Further, endogenous SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody levels associate with markers of emergency granulopoiesis and neutrophil activation. Inhibiting antibody mediated neutrophil activation may improve outcomes in COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background. Patients admitted with COVID19 pneumonia often receive initial empiric antibacterial therapy (IEAT) despite a known low probability of bacterial co-infection. However, evidence supporting this practice is lacking. We studied the impact of IEAT on the risk of in-hospital mortality, clinical deterioration and antibiotic-associated risks in stable inpatients with COVID-19. Methods. Adult inpatients coded for COVID-19 pneumonia stable (no mechanical ventilation or vasopressors) on admission (+1 day) without a clear indication for antibiotics, were identified at hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients who received IEAT, defined as the receipt of >= 1 antibacterial agent on admission (+1 day), were compared to a control group, using binomial regression with overlap weight matching and downstream adjustment for baseline characteristics (age, gender, race, admission month, surge index, Elixhauser score, any AOFS organ failure POA, ICU admission on day 0 to +2, receipt of remdesivir, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice;secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation on day2+, and rates of non-POA-acute kidney injury (AKI). Results. At 221 hospitals between March-December 2020, 39,517 (74%) of 53,431 stable COVID-19 admits received IEAT. Patient and encounter characteristics are shown in Table 1. The crude mortality rates were 12.2% in IEAT recipients and 10.9% in controls. In adjusted analysis of patients who survived beyond admission day, mortality was 11.57% (95% CI 11.24-11.90%) in IEAT recipients and 11.23% (95% CI 10.72-11.74) in controls, for a difference of 0.34% (95% CI -0.23-0.91%, p = 0.24). Subsequent mechanical ventilation occurred similarly between groups (5.72% vs. 5.77%, p=0.83). The adjusted rate of AKI was 2.47% (95% CI 2.31-2.64%) in IEAT recipients, and 3.04% (95% CI 2.74-3.35%) in controls, for a difference of -0.57% (95% CI -0.92-0.22%, p = 0.0014). Conclusion. In patients with COVID19 initially admitted to the ward, IEAT was not associated with a reduction in mortality or deterioration requiring mechanical ventilation, but with a clinically insignificant reduction in AKI. Empiric antibiotics can likely be safely withheld in this population.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. METHODS: This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID-19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. RESULTS: Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross-cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. CONCLUSION: Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.
ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia en curso tiene un efecto colateral sobre la salud en la prestación de atención quirúrgica a millones de pacientes. Se sabe muy poco sobre el manejo de la pandemia y sus efectos colaterales en otros servicios, incluida la prestación de servicios quirúrgicos. MÉTODOS: Se ha realizado una revisión de alcance de toda la literatura disponible relacionada con COVID-19 y cirugía utilizando bases de datos electrónicas, páginas web de sociedades, seminarios online y repositorios de pre-publicaciones. RESULTADOS: Se han publicado varias guías perioperatorias en un corto período de tiempo. Muchas recomendaciones son contradictorias y, en el mejor de los casos, se basan en datos anecdóticos. A medida que las regiones con el mayor volumen de operaciones per cápita se ven afectadas, se cancela o difiere un número sin precedentes de operaciones. Ninguna de las principales partes interesadas parece haber considerado cómo una pandemia priva de recursos a los pacientes que necesitan una intervención quirúrgica, con pacientes afectados de manera desproporcionada debido a la naturaleza del tratamiento (uso de anestesia, quirófanos, equipo de protección, contacto físico y necesidad de atención perioperatoria). No existen recomendaciones sobre cómo reanudar la actividad quirúrgica. La evaluación tras la pandemia y la planificación futura deben incluir a los servicios quirúrgicos como una parte esencial para mantener la atención quirúrgica adecuada para la población también durante un brote epidémico. La prestación de servicios quirúrgicos, debido a su naturaleza transversal y a sus efectos sinérgicos en los sistemas de salud en general, debe incorporarse a la agenda de la OMS para la planificación nacional de la salud. CONCLUSIÓN: Los pacientes se ven privados de acceso a la cirugía con una pérdida de función incierta y riesgo de un pronóstico adverso como efecto colateral de la pandemia. Los servicios quirúrgicos necesitan un plan de contingencia para mantener la atención quirúrgica durante la pandemia y en la fase post-pandemia.