Field evaluation of the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test in Uganda using nasopharyngeal samples.

OBJECTIVES: There is a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing to identify COVID-19 cases. Real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test but a number of constraints prevent its widespread implementation, including cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low cost and easy to use rapid antigen test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point of care. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases and low-risk volunteers were tested with the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and the results were compared with the qRT-PCR results. RESULTS: In total, 262 samples were collected, including 90 qRT-PCR positives. The majority of samples were from males (89%) with a mean age of 34 years and only 13 (14%) of the positives were mildly symptomatic. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 70.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 60-79) and 92% (95% CI: 87-96), respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy was 84% (95% CI: 79-88). The antigen test was more likely to be positive for samples with qRT-PCR Ct values ≤29, with a sensitivity of 92%. CONCLUSIONS: The STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test performed less than optimally in this evaluation. However, the test may still have an important role to play early in infection when timely access to molecular testing is not available but the results should be confirmed by qRT-PCR

Ebola: missed opportunities for Europe-Africa research

The current unprecedented Ebola virus disease outbreak in parts of west Africa, which has caused more than 11 200 deaths, has emphasised how the medical and scientific communities lack specific pathways for tackling relevant logistical, design, and ethical issues for assessment of novel diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines through implementation of appropriate clinical trials.1,2 The phenomenal outbreak arose because of several weaknesses in local, regional, and international public health responses, which delayed provision and implementation of effective interventions

Being Ready to Treat Ebola Virus Disease Patients

As the outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa continues, clinical preparedness is needed in countries at risk for EVD (e.g., United States) and more fully equipped and supported clinical teams in those countries with epidemic spread of EVD in Africa. Clinical staff must approach the patient with a very deliberate focus on providing effective care while assuring personal safety. To do this, both individual health care providers and health systems must improve EVD care. Although formal guidance toward these goals exists from the World Health Organization, Medecin Sans Frontières, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups, some of the most critical lessons come from personal experience. In this narrative, clinicians deployed by the World Health Organization into a wide range of clinical settings in West Africa distill key, practical considerations for working safely and effectively with patients with EVD

Continental concerted efforts to control the seventh outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease in Uganda: the first 90 days of the response

On 20th September 2022, Uganda declared the 7th outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) caused by the Sudan Ebola strain following the confirmation of a case admitted at Mubende Regional Referral Hospital. Upon confirmation, the Government of Uganda immediately activated the national incident management system to initiate response activities. Additionally, a multi-country emergency stakeholder meeting was held in Kampala; convening Ministers of Health from neighbouring Member States to undertake cross-border preparedness and response actions. The outbreak spanned 69 days and recorded a total of 164 cases (142 confirmed, 22 probable), 87 recoveries and 77 deaths (case fatality ratio of 47%). Nine out of 136 districts were affected with transmission taking place in 5 districts but spilling over in 4 districts without secondary transmission. As part of the response the Government was able to galvanise robust community mobilisation and initiated assessment of medical counter measures including therapeutics, new diagnostics and vaccines. This paper highlights the response actions put in place that contributed to the containment of this outbreak in addition to the challenges faced with a special focus on key recommendations for better control of future outbreaks

Uganda's experience in Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness, 2018-2019.

BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the 10th Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in DRC on 1st Aug 2018, several neighboring countries have been developing and implementing preparedness efforts to prevent EVD cross-border transmission to enable timely detection, investigation, and response in the event of a confirmed EVD outbreak in the country. We describe Uganda's experience in EVD preparedness. RESULTS: On 4 August 2018, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) and the National Task Force (NTF) for public health emergencies to plan, guide, and coordinate EVD preparedness in the country. The NTF selected an Incident Management Team (IMT), constituting a National Rapid Response Team (NRRT) that supported activation of the District Task Forces (DTFs) and District Rapid Response Teams (DRRTs) that jointly assessed levels of preparedness in 30 designated high-risk districts representing category 1 (20 districts) and category 2 (10 districts). The MoH, with technical guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), led EVD preparedness activities and worked together with other ministries and partner organisations to enhance community-based surveillance systems, develop and disseminate risk communication messages, engage communities, reinforce EVD screening and infection prevention measures at Points of Entry (PoEs) and in high-risk health facilities, construct and equip EVD isolation and treatment units, and establish coordination and procurement mechanisms. CONCLUSION: As of 31 May 2019, there was no confirmed case of EVD as Uganda has continued to make significant and verifiable progress in EVD preparedness. There is a need to sustain these efforts, not only in EVD preparedness but also across the entire spectrum of a multi-hazard framework. These efforts strengthen country capacity and compel the country to avail resources for preparedness and management of incidents at the source while effectively cutting costs of using a "fire-fighting" approach during public health emergencies

New filovirus disease classification and nomenclature.

The recent large outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Western Africa resulted in greatly increased accumulation of human genotypic, phenotypic and clinical data, and improved our understanding of the spectrum of clinical manifestations. As a result, the WHO disease classification of EVD underwent major revision

Outbreak of yellow fever in central and southwestern Uganda, February–may 2016

Abstract Background On 28 March, 2016, the Ministry of Health received a report on three deaths from an unknown disease characterized by fever, jaundice, and hemorrhage which occurred within a one-month period in the same family in central Uganda. We started an investigation to determine its nature and scope, identify risk factors, and to recommend eventually control measures for future prevention. Methods We defined a probable case as onset of unexplained fever plus ≥1 of the following unexplained symptoms: jaundice, unexplained bleeding, or liver function abnormalities. A confirmed case was a probable case with IgM or PCR positivity for yellow fever. We reviewed medical records and conducted active community case-finding. In a case-control study, we compared risk factors between case-patients and asymptomatic control-persons, frequency-matched by age, sex, and village. We used multivariate conditional logistic regression to evaluate risk factors. We also conducted entomological studies and environmental assessments. Results From February to May, we identified 42 case-persons (35 probable and seven confirmed), of whom 14 (33%) died. The attack rate (AR) was 2.6/100,000 for all affected districts, and highest in Masaka District (AR = 6.0/100,000). Men (AR = 4.0/100,000) were more affected than women (AR = 1.1/100,000) (p = 0.00016). Persons aged 30–39 years (AR = 14/100,000) were the most affected. Only 32 case-patients and 128 controls were used in the case control study. Twenty three case-persons (72%) and 32 control-persons (25%) farmed in swampy areas (ORadj = 7.5; 95%CI = 2.3–24); 20 case-patients (63%) and 32 control-persons (25%) who farmed reported presence of monkeys in agriculture fields (ORadj = 3.1, 95%CI = 1.1–8.6); and 20 case-patients (63%) and 35 control-persons (27%) farmed in forest areas (ORadj = 3.2; 95%CI = 0.93–11). No study participants reported yellow fever vaccination. Sylvatic monkeys and Aedes mosquitoes were identified in the nearby forest areas. Conclusion This yellow fever outbreak was likely sylvatic and transmitted to a susceptible population probably by mosquito bites during farming in forest and swampy areas. A reactive vaccination campaign was conducted in the affected districts after the outbreak. We recommended introduction of yellow fever vaccine into the routine Uganda National Expanded Program on Immunization and enhanced yellow fever surveillance

Non-randomised Ebola trials-lessons for optimal outbreak research

Peter William Horby and colleagues1,2 contest our views about the need for randomised clinical trials (RCT)3 and the missed opportunities for an effective Europe–Africa research framework4 during the recent Ebola virus disease outbreak in west Africa. In stating their case against the need for randomised studies, the authors quote Byar and colleagues5 as supporting the use of non-randomised designs. However, Byar and colleagues in fact do strongly support randomisation, and recommend randomisation even in phase 1 trials. They emphasise the pivotal role of randomisation, and suggest that in emerging infections, the use of non-randomised studies was justified only when five conditions were simultaneously met: (1) “there must be sufficient experience to ensure that the patients not receiving therapy will have a uniformly poor prognosis”; (2) “the therapy must not be expected to have substantial side-effects”; (3) “there must be a justifiable expectation that the potential benefit to the patient will be sufficiently large to make interpretation of a non-RCT unambiguous”; (4) “the scientific rationale for the treatment must be sufficiently strong that a positive result would be widely accepted”; and (5) “there must be no other treatment appropriate to use as a control”. As we have argued,3 these conditions were not met during the recent Ebola virus disease epidemic

Non-randomised Ebola trials-lessons for optimal outbreak research

International audienceno abstrac