Systems thinking for safety and security

The fundamental challenge facing security professionals is preventing losses, be they operational, financial or mission losses. As a result, one could argue that security professionals share this challenge with safety professionals. Despite their shared challenge, there is little evidence that recent advances that enable one community to better prevent losses have been shared with the other for possible implementation. Limitations in current safety approaches have led researchers and practitioners to develop new models and techniques. These techniques could potentially benefit the field of security. This paper describes a new systems thinking approach to safety that may be suitable for meeting the challenge of securing complex systems against cyber disruptions. Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis for Security (STPA-Sec) augments traditional security approaches by introducing a top-down analysis process designed to help a multidisciplinary team consisting of security, operations, and domain experts identify and constrain the system from entering vulnerable states that lead to losses. This new framework shifts the focus of the security analysis away from threats as the proximate cause of losses and focuses instead on the broader system structure that allowed the system to enter a vulnerable system state that the threat exploits to produce the disruption leading to the loss

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody responses are more robust in patients with severe disease.

We studied plasma antibody responses of 35 patients about 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Titers of antibodies binding to the viral nucleocapsid and spike proteins were significantly higher in patients with severe disease. Likewise, mean antibody neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus and live virus were higher in the sicker patients, by ∼5-fold and ∼7-fold, respectively. These findings have important implications for those pursuing plasma therapy, isolation of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, and determinants of immunity

Cardiovascular Considerations for Patients, Health Care Workers, and Health Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that has significant implications for the cardiovascular care of patients. First, those with COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular disease have an increased risk of severe disease and death. Second, infection has been associated with multiple direct and indirect cardiovascular complications including acute myocardial injury, myocarditis, arrhythmias, and venous thromboembolism. Third, therapies under investigation for COVID-19 may have cardiovascular side effects. Fourth, the response to COVID-19 can compromise the rapid triage of non-COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular conditions. Finally, the provision of cardiovascular care may place health care workers in a position of vulnerability as they become hosts or vectors of virus transmission. We hereby review the peer-reviewed and pre-print reports pertaining to cardiovascular considerations related to COVID-19 and highlight gaps in knowledge that require further study pertinent to patients, health care workers, and health systems

Born into an isolating world: family-centred care for babies born to mothers with COVID-19

Background: The benefits of facilitating breastmilk feeding and close contact between mother and neonate (family-centred care; FCC) in the perinatal period are well-established. The aim of this study was to determine how the delivery of FCC practices were impacted for neonates born to mothers with perinatal SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Neonates born to mothers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy were identified from the ‘EsPnIC Covid paEdiatric NeonaTal REgistry’ (EPICENTRE) multinational cohort between 10 March 2020 and 20 October 2021. The EPICENTRE cohort collected prospective data on FCC practices. Rooming-in and breastmilk feeding practice were the main outcomes, and factors influencing each were determined. Other outcomes included mother-baby physical contact prior to separation and the pattern of FCC components relative to time and local site guidelines. Findings: 692 mother-baby dyads (13 sites, 10 countries) were analysed. 27 (5%) neonates were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (14 (52%) asymptomatic). Most sites had policies that encouraged FCC during perinatal SARS-CoV-2 infection for most of the reporting period. 311 (46%) neonates roomed-in with their mother during the admission. Rooming-in increased over time from 23% in March–June 2020 to 74% in January–March 2021 (boreal season). 330 (93%) of the 369 separated neonates had no FCC physical contact with their mother prior, and 319 (86%) were asymptomatic. Maternal breastmilk was used for feeding in 354 (53%) neonates, increasing from 23% to 70% between March–June 2020 and January–March 2021. FCC was most impacted when mothers had symptomatic COVID-19 at birth. Interpretation: This is the largest report of global FCC practice during the COVID-19 pandemic to date. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted FCC despite low perinatal transmission rates. Fortunately, clinicians appear to have adapted to allow more FCC delivery as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed. Funding: The National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia): Grant ID 2008212 (DGT), Royal Children's Hospital Foundation: Grant ID 2019–1155 (EJP), Victorian Government Operational Infrastructure Support Program

What about tocilizumab? A retrospective study from a NYC Hospital during the COVID-19 outbreak.

BackgroundTocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor blocker, has been used in the inflammatory phase of COVID-19, but its impact independent of corticosteroids remains unclear in patients with severe disease.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19 admitted between March 2 and April 14, 2020 to a large academic medical center in New York City, we describe outcomes associated with tocilizumab 400 mg (without methylprednisolone) compared to a propensity-matched control. The primary endpoints were change in a 7-point ordinal scale of oxygenation and ventilator free survival, both at days 14 and 28. Secondary endpoints include incidence of bacterial superinfections and gastrointestinal perforation. Primary outcomes were evaluated using t-test.ResultsWe identified 33 patients who received tocilizumab and matched 74 controls based on demographics and health measures upon admission. After adjusting for illness severity and baseline ordinal scale, we failed to find evidence of an improvement in hypoxemia based on an ordinal scale at hospital day 14 in the tocilizumab group (OR 2.2; 95% CI, 0.7-6.5; p = 0.157) or day 28 (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4-3.6; p = 0.82). There also was no evidence of an improvement in ventilator-free survival at day 14 (OR 0.8; 95% CI, 0.18-3.5; p = 0.75) or day 28 (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.1-1.8; p = 0.23). There was no increase in secondary bacterial infection rates in the tocilizumab group compared to controls (OR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.09-1.53; p = 0.168).ConclusionsThere was no evidence to support an improvement in hypoxemia or ventilator-free survival with use of tocilizumab 400 mg in the absence of corticosteroids. No increase in secondary bacterial infections was observed in the group receiving tocilizumab