Search

CASE PRESENTATION\ud \ud A 34-year-old man presented to Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi with multiple enlarged right cervical lymph nodes. He had no associated constitutional symptoms. Fine-needle aspirate (FNA) of one of the lymph nodes was negative for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) by smear microscopy. The FNA specimen was not sent for histological examination. Mycobacterial culture and Xpert MTB/RIF were not available at the time. He tested positive for HIV but CD4 T-cell count was not requested at the time of HIV diagnosis, and he did not start antiretroviral therapy (ART) pending confirmation of the cause of lymphadenopathy. Excision biopsy of the lymph nodes was planned; however, the patient was lost to follow-up before the procedure was performed.

Additional file 2. Supplementary figures.

Background \ud COVID-19 is currently a global health threat. Healthcare workers are on the front-line of the COVID-19 outbreak response and therefore at heightened risk of infection. There is a dearth of evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa about healthcare worker experiences in managing COVID-19. We have reported on healthcare worker responses, experiences, and perspectives on epidemic response strategies at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Malawi’s largest referral hospital. Methods \ud We conducted 39 face-to-face in-depth interviews with a purposively selected sample of healthcare workers during the first wave of COVID-19 in Malawi (March 2020 to October 2020). The study included healthcare workers who provided direct and indirect patient care. Results \ud During the early phase of the first wave (March to May 2020), healthcare workers expressed concerns with inadequate working space, unconducive infrastructure, delayed and rushed training on the management of COVID-19, and lack of incentives. Additionally, the hospital had staff shortages and limited essential resources such as piped oxygen and personal protective equipment. This increased healthcare worker fears of contracting COVID-19 and they were less willing to volunteer at COVID-19 isolation units. Resource constraints and limited preparedness compromised the care pathway particularly with increased numbers of COVID-19 patients. By the peak of the first wave (June to August 2020) many of these issues had been resolved. The hospital provided refresher training courses, personal protective equipment became available, incentives were offered to healthcare workers working in COVID-19 units and piped oxygen was installed. Staff morale was boosted, and more staff were willing to work at the COVID-19 isolation centres. \ud Conclusion \ud Experiences of healthcare workers during the first wave of COVID-19 are critical for improving care in future COVID-19 waves. Response strategies in resource-constrained areas should prioritise timely training of staff, creation of adequate isolation areas, provision of adequate medical supplies and strengthening leadership.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has left no country untouched there has been limited research to understand clinical and immunological responses in African populations. Here we characterise patients hospitalised with suspected (PCR-negative/IgG-positive) or confirmed (PCR-positive) COVID-19, and healthy community controls (PCR-negative/IgG-negative). PCR-positive COVID-19 participants were more likely to receive dexamethasone and a beta-lactam antibiotic, and survive to hospital discharge than PCR-negative/IgG-positive and PCR-negative/IgG-negative participants. PCR-negative/IgG-positive participants exhibited a nasal and systemic cytokine signature analogous to PCR-positive COVID-19 participants, predominated by chemokines and neutrophils and distinct from PCR-negative/IgG-negative participants. PCR-negative/IgG-positive participants had increased propensity for Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae colonisation. PCR-negative/IgG-positive individuals with high COVID-19 clinical suspicion had inflammatory profiles analogous to PCR-confirmed disease and potentially represent a target population for COVID-19 treatment strategies.

Appendix 3. In-depth interview guide. (DOCX 103Â kb)

Appendix 5. Focus Group Discussion guide. (DOCX 135Â kb)

Appendix 1. In-depth interview guide. (DOCX 113Â kb)

Appendix 2. In-depth interview guide. (DOCX 106Â kb)

Appendix 4. In-depth interview guide. (DOCX 126Â kb)