No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic made it clear to the world that better preparedness for future pandemics is paramount. This study aims to explore how the 2018 Jordan’s Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) assessment plan (conducted utilizing a standardized tool of the CDC National Inventory of Core Capabilities for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response) reflected on the initial COVID-19 response. A qualitative, single intrinsic case study design, utilizing interpretivist approach, was utilized to interview subject-matter experts and explore the potential reflection of PIP assessment on COVID-19 response. Utilizing a mini-Delphi approach, the interviews aimed at generating an in-depth understanding of how the Jordan’s PIP risk assessment reflects on the country’s response to COVID-19. The following 12 core capabilities, along with their reflections on COVID-19, were assessed: country planning, research and use of findings, communications, epidemiologic capability, laboratory capability, routine influenza surveillance, national respiratory disease surveillance, outbreak response, resources for containment, community-based interventions to prevent the spread of influenza, infection control (IC), and health sector pandemic response. Jordan’s experience and preparedness for influenza may have served as a crucial guide to establishing success in COVID-19 control and mitigation. Surveillance, outbreak, and research activities were very well established in Jordan’s PIP, whereas surge capacity in human capital and health facility were identified as two high-risk areas. However, the limitation in these two areas was met during the COVID-19 response. Still, human capital suffered fatigue, and there was an evident lack of laboratory testing plans when COVID-19 cases increased. Jordan’s experience with PIP may have served as a guide for establishing successful COVID-19 control and mitigation. The established PIP principles, systems, and capacities seem to have reflected well on fighting against COVID-19 in terms of more efficient utilization of available surveillance, laboratory, outbreak management, and risk communications. This reflection facilitated a better mitigation and control of COVID-19.

Background: Population-based serosurveillance is a cornerstone to furthering our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic at the community levels. In Jordan, four waves (phases) of seroprevalence epidemiological investigations were conducted using representative population-based national samples. This study aims to estimate the population-based seropositivity, herd immunity, and vaccination coverage at the fourth wave. Methods: Multistage sampling technique was implemented to recruit a nationally representative sample for the fourth wave of the seroprevalence investigation (June to August 2021). Electronically collected data utilized a questionnaire on background demographics, chronic diseases, and COVID-19 vaccination history. Also, blood samples were collected to detect the presence of total Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG using Wantai/ELISA assays. Prevalence estimates were presented using percentage and 95% Confidence Intervals (C.I.). Results: There were 8821 participants included in this study, with a mean age of 31.3 years, and 61.7% were females. COVID-19 national seroprevalence and vaccination coverage estimates were 74.1% (95% C.I.: 73.1-74.9%) and 38.4% (95% C.I.: 37.1-39.6%), respectively. Among children, seroprevalence estimates were similar to unvaccinated adults. Among COVID-19 adults, 57.2% were vaccinated. Among vaccinated participants, 91.5% were seropositive, while among unvaccinated, 63.2% were seropositive. By age group, seroprevalence ranged between 53.0% and 86.9%. Seroprevalence estimates were significantly different by gender, vaccination status and dose, and residence. Conclusion:The reported interplay between seropositivity and vaccination coverage estimate seems insufficient to provide herd immunity levels to combat new variants of SARS-CoV-2. Children and healthcare workers seem to be an epidemiologically influential group in spreading COVID-19. As the globe is still grappling with SARS-CoV-2 infection, national seroepidemiological evidence from Jordan calls for more focus on vaccination coverage, especially among epidemiologically vulnerable groups, to optimize herd immunity.

Aim The risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients were assessed according to the “Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial” (EHRA) classification. Additionally, the safety and efficacy of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were compared in AF patients with EHRA type 2 valvular heart disease (VHD) versus those with no VHD. Methods AF patients enrolled in the “Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib)” study were followed up for thromboembolic events and major bleeding at 30, 180, and 365 days. Patients in the EHRA type 2 VHD and non-VHD groups were sub-grouped to compare different OACs. Results 2020 AF patients were recruited. The thromboembolic risk was higher in EHRA type 2 VHD patients compared to non-VHD controls. Major bleeding also occurred at higher rates in EHRA type 2 patients. In addition, NOACs were more effective in preventing thromboembolic events than VKAs and non-anticoagulation in EHRA type 2 VHD patients. Furthermore, EHRA type 2 VHD patients taking rivaroxaban had significantly less thromboembolic risk than their non-anticoagulated counterparts. At the same time, apixaban and warfarin did not significantly lower the risk of thromboembolism compared to non-anticoagulation. Conclusion AF patients with EHRA type 2 VHD are at significant risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding. Furthermore, NOACs were more effective than VKAs in preventing thromboembolic events in this group of patients without conferring an added risk of major bleeding. Moreover, rivaroxaban appears to be particularly efficacious.