Re-organising primary health care to respond to the Coronavirus epidemic in Cape Town, South Africa

CITATION:Mash, Robert & Goliath, Charlyn & Perez, Gio. (2020). Re-organising primary health care to respond to the Coronavirus epidemic in Cape Town, South Africa. African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine. 12. 10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2607The original publication is available at http://www.phcfm.orgCape Town is currently one of the hotspots for COVID-19 on the African continent. The Metropolitan Health Services have re-organised their primary health care (PHC) services to tackle the epidemic with a community-orientated primary care perspective. Two key goals have guided the re-organisation, the need to maintain social distancing and reduce risk to people using the services and the need to prepare for an influx of people with COVID-19. Facilities were re-organised to have 'screening and streaming' at the entrance and patients were separated into hot and cold streams. Both streams had 'see and treat' stations for the rapid treatment of minor ailments. Patients in separate streams were then managed further. If patients with chronic conditions were stable, they were provided with home delivery of medication by community health workers. Community health workers also engaged in community-based screening and testing. Initial evaluation of PHC preparedness was generally good. However, a number of key issues were identified. Additional infrastructure was required in some facilities to keep the streams separate with the onset of winter. Managers had to actively address the anxiety and fears of the primary care workforce. Attention also needed to be given to the prevention and treatment of non-COVID conditions as utilisation of these services decreased. The epidemic exposed intersectoral and intrasectoral fault lines, particularly access to social services at a time when they were most needed. Community screening and testing had to be refocused due to limited laboratory capacity and a lengthening turnaround time

Malocclusion and TMJ disorders in teenagers from private and public schools in Mexico City

Objective: To identify, among Mexican teenagers from public and private schools, the frequency, severity of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment needs, and their possible association with temporomandibular joint disorders. Material and Methods: Fifteen-year-old students were recruited from public and private schools. Clinical findings were registered as follows: oral hygiene status with the Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified, malocclusion using the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), and TMJ disorders following WHO criteria. Negative binomial and logistic regression models were constructed for data analysis. Results: A total of 249 fifteen-year old students were included in the study (118 female 47.4%). 68% had a DAI score ? 25 (minor or no occlusal anomalies), 18% scored 26-30 (mild anomalies), 7% scored 31-35 (evident anomalies), and 6% scored ? 36 (major malocclusion). The most frequent anomalies were dental crowding in 50%, maxillary dental irregularity in 44.6%, mandible irregularity in 41.2% and excessive maxillary overjet in 37.8%. Among the students, 26.1% had clicking/muscle or TMJ pain, of these 12.3% showed pain during palpation. OHI-S > 1 was found in 34% of the participants. The negative binomial model showed an association between DAI score and TMJ disorders (P=0.041). Also the logistic regression model showed an association between malocclusion (DAI>25) and TMJ disorders (OR=2.58, p=0.002). Malocclusion was associated also with poor oral hygiene (OR=1.65, p=0.007), and with attendance to public schools (OR=1.97, p=0.039). Conclusions: TMJ disorders and DAI scores were significantly associated. Screening/Diagnostic programs for ortho-dontic and TMJ-disorders are needed, to identify and offer treatment to teenagers with major malocclusion and TMJ/muscle pain. � Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F. B

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee