Risk Perceptions and Protective Behaviors Toward Bovine Tuberculosis Among Abattoir and Butcher Workers in Ethiopia

Bovine Tuberculosis (BTB) is a serious cause of economic losses and public health threat, especially in developing countries. Humans acquire BTB through consumption of raw or undercooked meat, inhalation of aerosol and occupational exposure. A cross-disciplinary approach to study diseases connecting society and biology helps to understand the ways in which social, cultural, behavioral, and economic circumstances influence a healthy life. The objective of this study was to assess the risk perceptions and protective behaviors toward BTB among abattoir and butcher workers in central Ethiopia. A health belief model was used to generate the desired data following health belief model constructs. A total of 300 meat handlers working in local abattoirs, export abattoirs and butcher houses in Bishoftu, Modjo, Dukem, and Akaki towns of central Ethiopia were selected using a systematic random sampling method. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to assess factors associated with risk of exposure to BTB through the consumption of raw meat. The results showed that among the study participants, 95% heard about BTB and 93% knew that eating raw meat could be a source of BTB for humans. More than 62.7% of the respondents in the high risk group strongly agreed that contracting BTB would prevent them from coming to work, keep them in bed for an extended period of time and cause death. The majority of the respondents believed that free provision of personal protective clothing, compensation with test and slaughter campaigns, television and radio advertisements, educational programs and government-imposed penalties would help in prevention of BTB. Despite the high perceived severity and risk perception, the multivarable logistic regression model showed low-risk protective behavior among male (OR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2–4.3) and older age (>30) individuals (OR: 14.4 95% CI: 2.1–125.8). The study also noted the importance of media for health education as means for prevention of BTB. The authors strongly recommended the need of promotion of behavioral change toward the consumption of raw meat wich would have potential implications for the public health impacts of zoonotic tuberculosis and ultimately help national and global efforts toward prevention and control of tuberculosis

Iridoid glycosides from the root of Acanthus sennii

Context: Acanthus sennii is a plant traditionally used for the treatment of antifungal, cytotoxic, anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, antioxidant, insecticidal, hepatoprotective, immunomodulatory, anti-platelet aggregation and anti-viral potential. Aims: To investigate the phytochemical constituents of roots of Acanthus sennii. Methods: Phytochemical screening tests were conducted to identify the class of compounds present in the root extract. Silica gel column chromatographic technique was applied to separate the constituents of the extracts. Various spectroscopic techniques (IR, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, DEPT-135, COSY, gHSQC, and gHMBC) were applied to determine the structures of isolated compounds. Results: Phytochemical screening of the dichloromethane/methanol (1:1) and methanol (100%) root extract of the plant revealed the presence of phenolic compounds, steroids, flavonoids, and terpenes. Chromatographic separation of dichloromethane/methanol (1:1) root extract of Acanthus sennii yielded two iridoid glycosides (1, 2). Conclusions: The roots of Acanthus senni contain various class of constituents such as flavonoids, phenols, terpenoids, tannins, and iridoid glycosides identified through phytochemical screening test and purification process, which might be responsible for the traditional use of the plant. To the best of our knowledge, these compounds are isolated for the first time from this genus

Evaluation of an adaptive, multimodal intervention to reduce postoperative infections following cesarean delivery in Ethiopia: study protocol of the CLEAN-CS cluster-randomized stepped wedge interventional trial.

BackgroundWe previously developed and pilot tested Clean Cut, a program to prevent postoperative infections by improving compliance with the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) and strengthening adherence to infection control practices. This protocol describes the CheckList Expansion for Antisepsis and iNfection Control in Cesarean Section (CLEAN-CS) trial evaluating our program's ability to reduce infections following CS and other obstetric and gynecological operations in Ethiopia.Methods/designCLEAN-CS is a cluster-randomized stepped wedge interventional trial with five clusters (two hospitals per cluster). It aims to assess the impact of Clean Cut on six critical perioperative infection prevention standards including antiseptic practices, antibiotic administration, and routine SCC use. The trial involves baseline data collection followed by Clean Cut training and implementation in each cluster in randomized order. The intervention consists of (1) modifying and implementing the SSC to fit local practices, (2) process mapping each standard, (3) coupling data and processes with site-specific action plans for improvement, and (4) targeted training focused on process gaps. The primary outcome is 30-day CS infection rates; secondary outcomes include other patient-level complications and compliance with standards. Assuming baseline SSI incidence of 12%, an effect size of 25% absolute reduction, and the ability to recruit 80-90 patients per cluster per month, we require a sample of 8100 patients for significance. We will report our study according to CONSORT.DiscussionA cluster-randomized stepped wedge design is well-suited for evaluating this type of surgical safety program. The targeted standards are not in doubt, yet compliance is frequently difficult. Solutions are available and may be recognized by individuals, but teams dedicated to improvement are often lacking. Clean Cut was successfully piloted but requires a more rigorous methodological assessment. We seek to understand the qualities, characteristics, and resources needed to implement the program, the magnitude of effect on processes and outcomes, and to what degree it can enhance compliance with care standards. Challenges include a fraught social and political environment, pandemic travel restrictions, and a limited budget.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04812522 (registered on March 23, 2021); Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202108717887402 (registered on August 24, 2021)

Safety of integrated mass drug administration of azithromycin, albendazole and ivermectin versus standard treatment regimens: a cluster-randomised trial in EthiopiaResearch in context

Summary: Background: Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) programs require separate and distinct drug regimens for treatment. This has required countries to undertake multiple independent mass drug administration (MDA) programmes, each targeting one or more diseases. The possibility of safely combining different drug regimens together in one MDA may offer several advantages to national programs. We conducted a study to assess the safety of combining ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin in one integrated MDA. Methods: We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority cluster-randomised trial comparing the frequency of adverse events in communities receiving co-administered ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin to that in communities given albendazole and ivermectin MDA followed by azithromycin MDA after a two-week interval. The study took place in 58 gares (small administrative units) across two kebeles (sub-districts) in Kofele woreda (district) in the Oromia region of Ethiopia. We randomly assigned 29 gares to the combined treatment arm and 29 gares to the control arm. The study team revisited all individuals within 48 h and actively collected data on the occurrence of adverse events using a dedicated questionnaire and a pre-specified list of adverse events. The study team followed the same process in the control arm for the azithromycin distribution and again after the ivermectin plus albendazole distribution. Following this initial active surveillance, passive surveillance was undertaken for one week after the first visit. The primary outcome was the frequency of adverse events occurring following MDA. The study team determined that the safety of the combined MDA would be non-inferior to that of separate MDAs if the upper limit of the two-sided CI for the difference in rates was equal to or lower than 5%. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03570814. Findings: The study took place from December 2021 to January 2022. The combined MDA arm consisted of 7292 individuals who were eligible to participate, of whom 7068 received all three medications. The separate MDA arm consisted of 6219 eligible individuals of whom 6211 received ivermectin and albendazole and 4611 received azithromycin two weeks later. Overall, adverse events were reported by 197 (1.2%) of individuals. The most commonly reported adverse events included headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and dizziness. There were no serious adverse events in either arm. The cluster-level mean frequency of reported adverse events varied markedly between clusters, ranging from 0.1 to 10.4%. The cluster-level mean frequency of adverse events was 1.4% in the combined MDA arm and 1.2% following ivermectin and albendazole MDA (absolute difference 0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.6% to +1.1%). This met the pre-defined 1.5% non-inferiority margin. For the combined MDA comparison to the stand-alone azithromycin MDA the absolute difference was −0.4% (1.4 versus 1.8%, 95% CI −0.8 to +1.5) which also met the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Interpretation: This study is the largest of its kind to date and demonstrates that the safety of combined MDA of azithromycin, ivermectin and albendazole is non-inferior to the safety of ivermectin-plus-albendazole MDA then azithromycin MDA conducted separately although we may not have been powered to detect very small differences between arms. Co-administration of these three medicines is safe and feasible in this setting and allows national programs to develop new strategies for integrated MDA programs. Funding: Ivermectin (Mectizan) was donated by the Mectizan Donation Program, albendazole was donated by GlaxoSmithKline, and azithromycin (Zithromax®) was donated by Pfizer via the International Trachoma Initiative (ITI). The trial was funded by ITI using operational research funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perceptions and acceptability of co-administered albendazole, ivermectin and azithromycin mass drug administration, among the health workforce and recipient communities in Ethiopia.

Several neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) employ mass drug administration (MDA) as part of their control or elimination strategies. This has historically required multiple distinct campaigns, each targeting one or more NTDs, representing a strain on both the recipient communities and the local health workforce implementing the distribution. We explored perceptions and attitudes surrounding combined MDA among these two groups of stakeholders. Our qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomized non-inferiority safety trial of combined ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin MDA. Using semi-structured question guides, we conducted 16 key informant interviews with selected individuals involved in implementing MDA within the participating district. To better understand the perceptions of recipient communities, we also conducted four focus group discussions with key community groups. Individuals were selected from both the trial arm (integrated MDA) and the control arm (standard MDA) to provide a means of comparison and discussion. All interviews and focus group discussions were led by fluent Afaan oromo speakers. Interviewers transcribed and later translated all discussions into English. The study team synthesized and analyzed the results via a coding framework and software. Most respondents appreciated the time and effort saved via the co-administered MDA strategy but there were some misgivings amongst community beneficiaries surrounding pill burden. Both the implementing health work force members and beneficiaries reported refusals stemming from lack of understanding around the need for the new drug regimen as well as some mistrust of government officials among the youth. The house-to-house distribution method, adopted as a COVID-19 prevention strategy, was by far preferred by all beneficiaries over central-point MDA, and may have led to greater acceptability of co-administration. Our data demonstrate that a co-administration strategy for NTDs is acceptable to both communities and health staff