Search

Abstract Background Historically, malaria has been the predominant cause of acute febrile illness (AFI) in sub-Saharan Africa. However, during the last two decades, malaria incidence has declined due to concerted public health control efforts, including the widespread use of rapid diagnostic tests leading to increased recognition of non-malarial AFI etiologies. Our understanding of non-malarial AFI is limited due to lack of laboratory diagnostic capacity. We aimed to determine the etiology of AFI in three distinct regions of Uganda. Methods A prospective clinic-based study that enrolled participants from April 2011 to January 2013 using standard diagnostic tests. Participant recruitment was from St. Paul’s Health Centre (HC) IV, Ndejje HC IV, and Adumi HC IV in the western, central and northern regions, which differ by climate, environment, and population density. A Pearson's chi-square test was used to evaluate categorical variables, while a two-sample t-test and Krukalis-Wallis test were used for continuous variables. Results Of the 1281 participants, 450 (35.1%), 382 (29.8%), and 449 (35.1%) were recruited from the western, central, and northern regions, respectively. The median age (range) was 18 (2–93) years; 717 (56%) of the participants were female. At least one AFI pathogen was identified in 1054 (82.3%) participants; one or more non-malarial AFI pathogens were identified in 894 (69.8%) participants. The non-malarial AFI pathogens identified were chikungunya virus, 716 (55.9%); Spotted Fever Group rickettsia (SFGR), 336 (26.2%) and Typhus Group rickettsia (TGR), 97 (7.6%); typhoid fever (TF), 74 (5.8%); West Nile virus, 7 (0.5%); dengue virus, 10 (0.8%) and leptospirosis, 2 (0.2%) cases. No cases of brucellosis were identified. Malaria was diagnosed either concurrently or alone in 404 (31.5%) and 160 (12.5%) participants, respectively. In 227 (17.7%) participants, no cause of infection was identified. There were statistically significant differences in the occurrence and distribution of TF, TGR and SFGR, with TF and TGR observed more frequently in the western region (p = 0.001; p

Abstract 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.