An approach to the clinical assessment and management of syncope in adults

Syncope, defined as a brief loss of consciousness due to an abrupt fall in cerebral perfusion, remains a frequent reason for medical presentation. The goals of the clinical assessment of a patient with syncope are twofold: (i) to identify the precise cause in order to implement a mechanism-specific and effective therapeutic strategy; and (ii) to quantify the risk to the patient, which depends on the underlying disease, rather than the mechanism of the syncope. Hence, a structured approach to the patient with syncope is required. History-taking remains the most important aspect of the clinical assessment. The classification of syncope is based on the underlying pathophysiological mechanism causing the event, and includes cardiac, orthostatic and reflex (neurally mediated) mechanisms. Reflex syncope can be categorised into vasovagal syncope (from emotional or orthostatic stress), situational syncope (due to specific situational stressors), carotid sinus syncope (from pressure on the carotid sinus, e.g. shaving or a tight collar), and atypical reflex syncope (episodes of syncope or reflex syncope that cannot be attributed to a specific trigger or syncope with an atypical presentation). Cardiovascular causes of syncope may be structural (mechanical) or electrical. Orthostatic hypotension is caused by an abnormal drop in systolic blood pressure upon standing, and is defined as a decrease of >20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure or a reflex tachycardia of >20 beats/minute within 3 minutes of standing. The main causes of orthostatic hypotension are autonomic nervous system failure and hypovolaemia. Patients with life-threatening causes of syncope should be managed urgently and appropriately. In patients with reflex or orthostatic syncope it is important to address any exacerbating medication and provide general measures to increase blood pressure, such as physical counter-pressure manoeuvres. Where heart disease is found to be the cause of the syncope, a specialist opinion is warranted and where possible the problem should be corrected. It is important to remember that in any patient presenting with syncope the main objectives of management are to prolong survival, limit physical injuries and prevent recurrences. This can only be done if a patient is appropriately assessed at presentation, investigated as clinically indicated, and subsequently referred to a cardiologist for appropriate management

COVID-19 and myocardial injury

The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has affected millions globally and has accounted for a multitude of deaths. Cardiovascular involvement with myocardial injury is common and is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The pathophysiology of acute myocardial injury is complex and may include type I and type II myocardial infarction, direct damage to the cardiomyocytes, systemic inflammation, myocardial interstitial fibrosis, interferon mediated immune response, exaggerated cytokine response by Type 1 and 2 helper T cells, in addition to hypoxia. Angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptors (ACE2-R) play a pivotal role in mediating viral entry into cells. Disruption of receptor signalling may also be the principal mechanism facilitating viral pathogenicity and altered ACE2-R biology may be a reason why patients with cardiovascular disease are more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to develop severe symptoms. New-onset hypertension, arrhythmia, myocarditis, heart failure, cardiomyopathy and coronary heart disease are among major cardiovascular disease comorbidities and complications seen in severe cases of COVID-19. As a surrogate for myocardial injury, multiple studies have shown increased cardiac biomarkers, mainly cardiac troponins I and T, in the infected patients – especially those with severe disease. Myocarditis is another cause of morbidity among COVID-19 patients

Effects of tuberculosis and/or HIV-1 infection on COVID-19 presentation and immune response in Africa

Few studies from Africa have described the clinical impact of co-infections on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we investigate the presentation and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in an African setting of high HIV-1 and tuberculosis prevalence by an observational case cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients. A comparator group of non SARS-CoV-2 participants is included. The study includes 104 adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 29.8% are HIV-1 co-infected. Two or more co-morbidities are present in 57.7% of participants, including HIV-1 (30%) and active tuberculosis (14%). Amongst patients dually infected by tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2, clinical features can be typical of either SARS-CoV-2 or tuberculosis: lymphopenia is exacerbated, and some markers of inflammation (D-dimer and ferritin) are further elevated (p < 0.05). Amongst HIV-1 co-infected participants those with low CD4 percentage strata exhibit reduced total, but not neutralising, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8 T cell responses are present in 35.8% participants overall but undetectable in combined HIV-1 and tuberculosis. Death occurred in 30/104 (29%) of all COVID-19 patients and in 6/15 (40%) of patients with coincident SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis. This shows that in a high incidence setting, tuberculosis is a common co-morbidity in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is adversely affected by co-existent HIV-1 and tuberculosis

Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 boosts and broadens Ad26.COV2.S immunogenicity in a variant-dependent manner

The Johnson and Johnson Ad26.COV2.S single-dose vaccine represents an attractive option for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in countries with limited resources. We examined the effect of prior infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants on Ad26.COV2.S immunogenicity. We compared participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive with those either infected with the ancestral D614G virus or infected in the second wave when Beta predominated. Prior infection significantly boosts spike-binding antibodies, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and neutralizing antibodies against D614G, Beta, and Delta; however, neutralization cross-reactivity varied by wave. Robust CD4 and CD8 T cell responses are induced after vaccination, regardless of prior infection. T cell recognition of variants is largely preserved, apart from some reduction in CD8 recognition of Delta. Thus, Ad26.COV2.S vaccination after infection could result in enhanced protection against COVID-19. The impact of the infecting variant on neutralization breadth after vaccination has implications for the design of second-generation vaccines based on variants of concern

Changing character and waning impact of COVID-19 at a tertiary centre in Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of genetic variants of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with changing epidemiological characteristics throughout coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in population-based studies. Individual-level data on the clinical characteristics of infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants in African countries is less well documented. OBJECTIVES: To describe the evolving clinical differences observed with the various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and compare the Omicron-driven wave in infections to the previous Delta-driven wave. METHOD: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study among patients admitted to a South African referral hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were stratified by epidemiological wave period, and in a subset, the variants associated with each wave were confirmed by genomic sequencing. Outcomes were analysed by Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: We included 1689 patients were included, representing infection waves driven predominantly by ancestral, Beta, Delta and Omicron BA1/BA2 & BA4/BA5 variants. Crude 28-day mortality was 25.8% (34/133) in the Omicron wave period versus 37.1% (138/374) in the Delta wave period (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.47-1.00] p = 0.049); this effect persisted after adjustment for age, gender, HIV status and presence of cardiovascular disease (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.43 [95% CI 0.28-0.67] p < 0.001). Hospital-wide SARS-CoV-2 admissions and deaths were highest during the Delta wave period, with a decoupling of SARS-CoV-2 deaths and overall deaths thereafter. CONCLUSION: There was lower in-hospital mortality during Omicron-driven waves compared with the prior Delta wave, despite patients admitted during the Omicron wave being at higher risk. CONTRIBUTION: This study summarises clinical characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 variants during the COVID-19 pandemic at a South African tertiary hospital, demonstrating a waning impact of COVID-19 on healthcare services over time despite epidemic waves driven by new variants. Findings suggest the absence of increasing virulence from later variants and protection from population and individual-level immunity

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during resurgence driven by Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection. METHODS: We included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1-21 May 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: Among 3,793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93; 1.34). Both Omicron waves had lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Prior infection (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24; 0.36) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07; 0.40 for at least 3 doses vs. no vaccine) were protective. CONCLUSION: Disease severity was similar amongst diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective

A position statement and practical guide to the use of particulate filtering facepiece respirators (N95, FFP2, or equivalent) for South African health workers exposed to respiratory pathogens including Mycobacterium tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2.

SUMMARY: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly by aerosol in particles <10 µm that can remain suspended for hours before being inhaled. Because particulate filtering facepiece respirators ('respirators'; e.g. N95 masks) are more effective than surgical masks against bio-aerosols, many international organisations now recommend that health workers (HWs) wear a respirator when caring for individuals who may have COVID-19. In South Africa (SA), however, surgical masks are still recommended for the routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed COVID-19, with respirators reserved for so-called aerosol-generating procedures. In contrast, SA guidelines do recommend respirators for routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed tuberculosis (TB), which is also transmitted via aerosol. In health facilities in SA, distinguishing between TB and COVID-19 is challenging without examination and investigation, both of which may expose HWs to potentially infectious individuals. Symptom-based triage has limited utility in defining risk. Indeed, significant proportions of individuals with COVID-19 and/or pulmonary TB may not have symptoms and/or test negative. The prevalence of undiagnosed respiratory disease is therefore likely significant in many general clinical areas (e.g. waiting areas). Moreover, a proportion of HWs are HIV-positive and are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sustained improvements in infection prevention and control (IPC) require reorganisation of systems to prioritise HW and patient safety. While this will take time, it is unacceptable to leave HWs exposed until such changes are made. We propose that the SA health system adopts a target of 'zero harm', aiming to eliminate transmission of respiratory pathogens to all individuals in every healthcare setting. Accordingly, we recommend: the use of respirators by all staff (clinical and non-clinical) during activities that involve contact or sharing air in indoor spaces with individuals who: (i) have not yet been clinically evaluated; or (ii) are thought or known to have TB and/or COVID-19 or other potentially harmful respiratory infections;the use of respirators that meet national and international manufacturing standards;evaluation of all respirators, at the least, by qualitative fit testing; andthe use of respirators as part of a 'package of care' in line with international IPC recommendations. We recognise that this will be challenging, not least due to global and national shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). SA national policy around respiratory protective equipment enables a robust framework for manufacture and quality control and has been supported by local manufacturers and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Respirator manufacturers should explore adaptations to improve comfort and reduce barriers to communication. Structural changes are needed urgently to improve the safety of health facilities: persistent advocacy and research around potential systems change remain essential

A position statement and practical guide to the use of particulate filtering facepiece respirators (N95, FFP2, or equivalent) for South African health workers exposed to respiratory pathogens including Mycobacterium tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2

Summary Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly by aerosol in particles &lt;10 µm that can remain suspended for hours before being inhaled. Because particulate filtering facepiece respirators (‘respirators’; e.g. N95 masks) are more effective than surgical masks against bio-aerosols, many international organisations now recommend that health workers (HWs) wear a respirator when caring for individuals who may have COVID-19. In South Africa (SA), however, surgical masks are still recommended for the routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed COVID-19, with respirators reserved for so-called aerosol-generating procedures. In contrast, SA guidelines do recommend respirators for routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed tuberculosis (TB), which is also transmitted via aerosol. In health facilities in SA, distinguishing between TB and COVID-19 is challenging without examination and investigation, both of which may expose HWs to potentially infectious individuals. Symptom-based triage has limited utility in defining risk. Indeed, significant proportions of individuals with COVID-19 and/or pulmonary TB may not have symptoms and/or test negative. The prevalence of undiagnosed respiratory disease is therefore likely significant in many general clinical areas (e.g. waiting areas). Moreover, a proportion of HWs are HIV-positive and are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death. Recommendations Sustained improvements in infection prevention and control (IPC) require reorganisation of systems to prioritise HW and patient safety. While this will take time, it is unacceptable to leave HWs exposed until such changes are made. We propose that the SA health system adopts a target of ‘zero harm’, aiming to eliminate transmission of respiratory pathogens to all individuals in every healthcare setting. Accordingly, we recommend: 1. the use of respirators by all staff (clinical and non-clinical) during activities that involve contact or sharing air in indoor spaces with individuals who: (i) have not yet been clinically evaluated; or (ii) are thought or known to have TB and/or COVID-19 or other potentially harmful respiratory infections; 2. the use of respirators that meet national and international manufacturing standards; 3. evaluation of all respirators, at the least, by qualitative fit testing; and 4. the use of respirators as part of a ‘package of care’ in line with international IPC recommendations. We recognise that this will be challenging, not least due to global and national shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). SA national policy around respiratory protective equipment enables a robust framework for manufacture and quality control and has been supported by local manufacturers and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Respirator manufacturers should explore adaptations to improve comfort and reduce barriers to communication. Structural changes are needed urgently to improve the safety of health facilities: persistent advocacy and research around potential systems change remain essential