Para-infectious brain injury in COVID-19 persists at follow-up despite attenuated cytokine and autoantibody responses

Data Availability Statement: The individual-level data from these studies is not publicly available to main confidentiality. Data generated by the ISARIC4C consortium is available for collaborative analysis projects through an independent data and materials access committee at isaric4c.net/sample_access. Data and samples from the COVID-Clinical Neuroscience Study are available through collaborative research by application through the NIHR bioresource at https://bioresource.nihr.ac.uk/using-our-bioresource/apply-for-bioresource-data-access/. Brain injury marker and immune mediator data are present in the paper and in the source data file. Source data are provided with this paper.To understand neurological complications of COVID-19 better both acutely and for recovery, we measured markers of brain injury, inflammatory mediators, and autoantibodies in 203 hospitalised participants; 111 with acute sera (1–11 days post-admission) and 92 convalescent sera (56 with COVID-19-associated neurological diagnoses). Here we show that compared to 60 uninfected controls, tTau, GFAP, NfL, and UCH-L1 are increased with COVID-19 infection at acute timepoints and NfL and GFAP are significantly higher in participants with neurological complications. Inflammatory mediators (IL-6, IL-12p40, HGF, M-CSF, CCL2, and IL-1RA) are associated with both altered consciousness and markers of brain injury. Autoantibodies are more common in COVID-19 than controls and some (including against MYL7, UCH-L1, and GRIN3B) are more frequent with altered consciousness. Additionally, convalescent participants with neurological complications show elevated GFAP and NfL, unrelated to attenuated systemic inflammatory mediators and to autoantibody responses. Overall, neurological complications of COVID-19 are associated with evidence of neuroglial injury in both acute and late disease and these correlate with dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses acutely.National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (CO-CIN-01) and jointly by NIHR and UK Research and Innovation (CV220-169, MC_PC_19059). B.D.M. is supported by the UKRI/MRC (MR/V03605X/1), the MRC/UKRI (MR/V007181/1), MRC (MR/T028750/1) and Wellcome (ISSF201902/3). C.D. is supported by MRC (MC_PC_19044). We would like to thank the University of Liverpool GCP laboratory facility team for Luminex assistance and the Liverpool University Biobank team for all their help, especially Dr. Victoria Shaw, Lara Lavelle-Langham, and Sue Holden. We would like to acknowledge the Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre for providing infrastructure support for this research (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153). We acknowledge the Liverpool Centre for Cell Imaging (CCI) for provision of imaging equipment (Dragonfly confocal microscope) and excellent technical assistance (BBSRC grant number BB/R01390X/1). Tom Solomon is supported by The Pandemic Institute and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool. D.K.M. and E.N. are supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Centre and by NIHR funding to the NIHR BioResource (RG94028 and RG85445), and by funding from Brain Research UK 201819-20. We thank NIHR BioResource volunteers for their participation, and gratefully acknowledge NIHR BioResource centres, NHS Trusts and staff for their contribution. We thank the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NHS Blood and Transplant, and Health Data Research UK as part of the Digital Innovation Hub Programme. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute. The authors would like to acknowledge the eDRIS team (Public Health Scotland) for their support in obtaining approvals, the provisioning and linking of data and facilitating access to the National Safe Haven. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the UKRI, NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Promotion, prevention and protection: interventions at the population- and community-levels for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries

Background In addition to services within the health system, interventions at the population and community levels are also important for the promotion of mental health, primary prevention of mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders, identification and case detection of MNS disorders; and to a lesser degree treatment, care and rehabilitation. This study aims to identify “best practice” and “good practice” interventions that can feasibly be delivered at these population- and community-levels in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to aid the identification of resource efficiencies and allocation in LMICs. Methods A narrative review was conducted given the wide range of relevant interventions. Expert consensus was used to identify “best practice” at the population-level on the basis of existing quasi-experimental natural experiments and cost effectiveness, with small scale emerging and promising evidence comprising “good practice”. At the community-level, using expert consensus, the ACE (Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention Project) grading system was used to differentiate “best practice” interventions with sufficient evidence from “good practice” interventions with limited but promising evidence. ResultsAt the population-level, laws and regulations to control alcohol demand and restrict access to lethal means of suicide were considered “best practice”. Child protection laws, improved control of neurocysticercosis and mass awareness campaigns were identified as “good practice”. At the community level, socio-emotional learning programmes in schools and parenting programmes during infancy were identified as “best practice”. The following were all identified as “good practice”: Integrating mental health promotion strategies into workplace occupational health and safety policies; mental health information and awareness programmes as well as detection of MNS disorders in schools; early child enrichment/preschool educational programs and parenting programs for children aged 2–14 years; gender equity and/or economic empowerment programs for vulnerable groups; training of gatekeepers to identify people with MNS disorders in the community; and training non-specialist community members at a neighbourhood level to assist with community-based support and rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. Conclusion Interventions provided at the population- and community-levels have an important role to play in promoting mental health, preventing the onset, and protecting those with MNS disorders. The importance of inter-sectoral enga

Medical genetics in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region: challenges and opportunities

Advances in genetic and genomic technology changed health-care services rapidly in low and middle income countries (LMICs) in the Asia-Pacific region. While genetic services were initially focused on population-based disease prevention strategies, they have evolved into clinic-based and therapeutics-oriented service. Many LMICs struggled with these noncommunicable diseases and were unprepared for the needs of a clinical genetic service. The emergence of a middle class population, the lack of regulatory oversight, and weak capacity-building in medical genetics expertise and genetic counseling services led to a range of genetic services of variable quality with minimal ethical oversight. Some of the current shortcomings faced include the lack of awareness of cultural values in genetic health care, the variable stages of socioeconomic development and educational background that led to increased demand and abuse of genetics, the role of women in society and the crisis of gender selection, the lack of preventive and care services for genetic and birth defects, the issues of gene ethics in medicine, and the lack of understanding of some religious controversies. These challenges provide opportunities for both developing and developed nations to work together to reduce the inequalities and to ensure a caring, inclusive, ethical, and cost-effective genetic service in the region

Population dynamics and genetic connectivity in recent chimpanzee history

Knowledge on the population history of endangered species is critical for conservation, but whole-genome data on chimpanzees (<Pan troglodytes) is geographically sparse. Here, we produced the first non-invasive geolocalized catalog of genomic diversity by capturing chromosome 21 from 828 non-invasive samples collected at 48 sampling sites across Africa. The four recognized subspecies show clear genetic differentiation correlating with known barriers, while previously undescribed genetic exchange suggests that these have been permeable on a local scale. We obtained a detailed reconstruction of population stratification and fine-scale patterns of isolation, migration, and connectivity, including a comprehensive picture of admixture with bonobos (Pan paniscus). Unlike humans, chimpanzees did not experience extended episodes of long-distance migrations, which might have limited cultural transmission. Finally, based on local rare variation, we implement a fine-grained geolocalization approach demonstrating improved precision in determining the origin of confiscated chimpanzees

Brucellosis as an Emerging Threat in Developing Economies:Lessons from Nigeria

Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, has a large proportion of the world's poor livestock keepers, and is a hotspot for neglected zoonoses. A review of the 127 accessible publications on brucellosis in Nigeria reveals only scant and fragmented evidence on its spatial and temporal distribution in different epidemiological contexts. The few bacteriological studies conducted demonstrate the existence of Brucella abortus in cattle and sheep, but evidence for B. melitensis in small ruminants is dated and unclear. The bulk of the evidence consists of seroprevalence studies, but test standardization and validation are not always adequately described, and misinterpretations exist with regard to sensitivity and/or specificity and ability to identify the infecting Brucella species. Despite this, early studies suggest that although brucellosis was endemic in extensive nomadic systems, seroprevalence was low, and brucellosis was not perceived as a real burden; recent studies, however, may reflect a changing trend. Concerning human brucellosis, no studies have identified the Brucella species and most reports provide only serological evidence of contact with Brucella in the classical risk groups; some suggest brucellosis misdiagnoses as malaria or other febrile conditions. The investigation of a severe outbreak that occurred in the late 1970s describes the emergence of animal and human disease caused by the settling of previously nomadic populations during the Sahelian drought. There appears to be an increasing risk of re-emergence of brucellosis in sub-Saharan Africa, as a result of the co-existence of pastoralist movements and the increase of intensive management resulting from growing urbanization and food demand. Highly contagious zoonoses like brucellosis pose a threat with far-reaching social and political consequences