This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

No abstract

Unilateral absent pulmonary artery (UAPA) is a congenital abnormality rarely diagnosed in adults. UAPA has a myriad of clinical presentations and pulmonary hypertension is present in a quarter of all cases. Isolated UAPA commonly affects the right pulmonary artery and occurs as a result of abnormal development of the sixth aortic arch segment. Due to its rarity, it remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. We describe a case of UAPA in an adult presenting with severe pulmonary hypertension. We describe the appropriate diagnostic approach to a patient with pulmonary hypertension and illustrate the importance of a detailed evaluation to determine the underlying aetiology, particularly in rare causes. Furthermore, we review the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management challenges of UAPA in adults.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread rapidly across the globe resulting in more than 7,000,000 cases and 400,000 deaths worldwide, of which 52,991 cases and 1162 deaths have occurred in South Africa. Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of the first 100 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. Methods: We conducted a single-centre retrospective review of the first 100 patients with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to a tertiary academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. Results: The 100 patients were predominantly male (53%), of black ethnicity (79%) and had a median age of 42 years. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (31%), diabetes mellitus (18%) and 47% of the patients had an endomorphic phenotype. Eleven per cent (11%) of our patients were HIV positive. During hospitalisation, 14 patients (14%) required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). For those patients with an outcome available, the overall mortality rate was 10% (n = 6), and 57% (n = 4/7) for those admitted to the ICU. Mean length of stay for those who had died or had been discharged was 6.8 days. Conclusion: This case series describes clinical characteristics in the first 100 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a large centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. Our findings are concordant with universally reported data; however, more data is needed on COVID-19 in the South African setting, specifically related to tuberculosis and HIV.

IMPORTANCEOveractivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).INTERVENTIONSPatients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.RESULTSOn February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

BACKGROUND Point of care serological assays are a promising tool in COVID-19 diagnostics but do have limitations. This study evaluated the sensitivity of five rapid antibody assays and explored factors influencing their sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgM antibodies. METHODS Finger-prick blood samples from 102 participants, within two to six weeks of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, were tested for IgG and IgM on five rapid serological assays. The assay sensitivities were compared, and patient factors evaluated in order to investigate potential associations with assay sensitivity. RESULTS Sensitivity ranged from 36% to 69% for IgG and 13% to 67% for IgM. Age was the only factor significantly influencing the likelihood of a detectable IgG or IgM response. Individuals aged 40 years and older had an increased likelihood of a detectable IgG or IgM antibody response by rapid antibody assay. CONCLUSION Rapid serological assays demonstrate significant variability when used in a real-world clinical context. There may be limitations in their use for COVID-19 diagnosis amongst the young.

No abstract