Antimicrobial Resistance Situational Analysis 2019−2020: Design and Performance for Human Health Surveillance in Uganda

Antibiotic resistance and its mechanisms have been known for over six decades, but global efforts to characterize its routine drivers have only gained momentum in the recent past. Drivers of clinical and community resistance go beyond just clinical practice, which is why one-health approaches offer the most realistic option for controlling antibiotic resistance. It is noteworthy that the emergence of resistance occurs naturally in the environment, but akin to climate change, the current accelerated emergence and spread bears hallmarks of anthropomorphic influence. If left unchecked, this can undo the medical and agricultural advancements of the last century. The WHO recommends that nations develop, adopt, and implement strategies that track the changing trends in antibiotic resistance levels to tackle this problem. This article examines efforts and progress in developing and implementing a human health antimicrobial resistance surveillance strategy in Uganda. We do so within the context of the National Action Plan for tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR-NAP) launched in 2018. We discuss the technical milestones and progress in implementing surveillance of GLASS priority pathogens under this framework. The preliminary output of the framework examines the performance and compares AMR and AMU surveillance data to explain observed trends. We conclude that Uganda is making progress in developing and implementing a functional AMR surveillance strategy for human health

Prevalence of genital high-risk human papillomavirus infections and associated factors among women living with human immunodeficiency virus in Uganda

Abstract Background Women living with HIV are at risk for cervical dysplasia and cancer worldwide. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that testing for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection be incorporated into cervical cancer screening programs using molecular nucleic acid tests (NATs) but this has not previously been done in Uganda. The country’s coverage for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) screening remains low at less than 10% for women aged 25–49 years. This study determined the genital prevalence of hrHPV infection and the associated factors among women living with HIV in Uganda. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 selected health facilities among participants who were on Antiretroviral therapy (ART). Participants who consented to participate were instructed on how to collect their own high vaginal swabs using a cervical brush for HPV molecular testing (HPV DNA or HPV RNA) and their demographics data was collected using a standard questionnaire. Laboratory diagnosis for HPV molecular testing was done using Gene xpert machines and Hologic Aptima Machine. Modified Poisson regression analysis was conducted to determine the associated factors. Results This study involved 5856 HIV positive participants on ART. A total of 2006 out of 5856 (34.3%) participants had high risk HPV infections. HPV infections by genotypes were: HPV16 317(15.8%), HPV 18/45 308 (15.4%) and other high-risk HPV 1381 (68.8%). The independent factors associated with all hrHPV were parity, education level, having more than one partner, and engaging in early sex. Smoking was associated with HPV 16, HPV 18/45 and other hrHPV. Age was associated with all hrHPV, marital status with HPV 16, and occupation with HPV 16. Conclusions The prevalence of genital high-risk HPV infections among HIV positive women attending ART clinics in public facilities in Uganda was high. Other hrHPV genotype was the commonest compared to 18/45 and HPV 16. The integration of cervical cancer screening in ART programmes remains paramount to support the early detection of cervical cancer and Non-invasive self-collected urine and vaginal sampling for cervical cancer screening present an opportunity

Effectiveness of thermal screening in detection of COVID-19 among truck drivers at Mutukula Land Point of Entry, Uganda.

IntroductionDespite the limited evidence for its effectiveness, thermal screening at points of entry has increasingly become a standard protocol in numerous parts of the globe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to determine the effectiveness of thermal screening as a key step in diagnosing COVID-19 in a resource-limited setting.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study based on a review of body temperature and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 test results records for truck drivers entering Uganda through Mutukula between 15th May and 30th July 2020. All records missing information for body temperature, age, gender, and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 status were excluded from the data set. A data set of 7,181 entries was used to compare thermal screening and Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay test results using the diagnostic statistical test in STATAv15 software. The prevalence of COVID-19 amongst the truck drivers based on Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay results was determined. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive and negative Likelihood ratios were obtained using Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 assay as the gold standard.ResultsBased on our gold standard test, the proportion of persons that tested positive for COVID-19 was 6.7% (95% CI: 6.1-7.3). Of the 7,181 persons that were thermally screened, 6,844 (95.3%) were male. The sample median age was 38 years (interquartile range, IQR: 31-45 years). The median body temperature was 36.5°C (IQR: 36.3-36.7) and only n (1.2%) had a body temperature above 37.5°C. The sensitivity and specificity of thermal screening were 9.9% (95% CI: 7.4-13.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 99.3-99.6) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 57.8 (95% CI: 46.5-68.6) and 93.9 (95% CI: 93.3-94.4) respectively. The positive and negative Likelihood Ratios (LRs) were 19 (95% CI: 12.4-29.1) and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93) respectively.ConclusionIn this study population, the use of Thermal screening alone is ineffective in the detection of potential COVID-19 cases at point of entry. We recommend a combination of screening tests or additional testing using highly sensitive molecular diagnostics such as Polymerase Chain Reaction