Search

BackgroundHIV, diabetes and hypertension have a high disease burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Healthcare is organised in separate clinics, which may be inefficient. In a cohort study, we evaluated integrated management of these conditions from a single chronic care clinic.ObjectivesTo determined the feasibility and acceptability of integrated management of chronic conditions in terms of retention in care and clinical indicators.Design and settingProspective cohort study comprising patients attending 10 health facilities offering primary care in Dar es Salaam and Kampala.InterventionClinics within health facilities were set up to provide integrated care. Patients with either HIV, diabetes or hypertension had the same waiting areas, the same pharmacy, were seen by the same clinical staff, had similar provision of adherence counselling and tracking if they failed to attend appointments.Primary outcome measuresRetention in care, plasma viral load.FindingsBetween 5 August 2018 and 21 May 2019, 2640 patients were screened of whom 2273 (86%) were enrolled into integrated care (832 with HIV infection, 313 with diabetes, 546 with hypertension and 582 with multiple conditions). They were followed up to 30 January 2020. Overall, 1615 (71.1%)/2273 were female and 1689 (74.5%)/2266 had been in care for 6 months or more. The proportions of people retained in care were 686/832 (82.5%, 95% CI: 79.9% to 85.1%) among those with HIV infection, 266/313 (85.0%, 95% CI: 81.1% to 89.0%) among those with diabetes, 430/546 (78.8%, 95% CI: 75.4% to 82.3%) among those with hypertension and 529/582 (90.9%, 95% CI: 88.6 to 93.3) among those with multimorbidity. Among those with HIV infection, the proportion with plasma viral load ConclusionIntegrated management of chronic diseases is a feasible strategy for the control of HIV, diabetes and hypertension in Africa and needs evaluation in a comparative study.

Introduction HIV programmes in sub-Saharan Africa are well funded but programmes for diabetes and hypertension are weak with only a small proportion of patients in regular care. Healthcare provision is organised from stand-alone clinics. In this cluster randomised trial, we are evaluating a concept of integrated care for people with HIV infection, diabetes or hypertension from a single point of care. Methods and analysis 32 primary care health facilities in Dar es Salaam and Kampala regions were randomised to either integrated or standard vertical care. In the integrated care arm, services are organised from a single clinic where patients with either HIV infection, diabetes or hypertension are managed by the same clinical and counselling teams. They use the same pharmacy and laboratory and have the same style of patient records. Standard care involves separate pathways, that is, separate clinics, waiting and counselling areas, a separate pharmacy and separate medical records. The trial has two primary endpoints: retention in care of people with hypertension or diabetes and plasma viral load suppression. Recruitment is expected to take 6 months and follow-up is for 12 months. With 100 participants enrolled in each facility with diabetes or hypertension, the trial will provide 90% power to detect an absolute difference in retention of 15% between the study arms (at the 5% two-sided significance level). If 100 participants with HIV infection are also enrolled in each facility, we will have 90% power to show non-inferiority in virological suppression to a delta=10% margin (ie, that the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two arms will not exceed 10%). To allow for lost to follow-up, the trial will enrol over 220 persons per facility. This is the only trial of its kind evaluating the concept of a single integrated clinic for chronic conditions in Africa. Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by ethics committee of The AIDS Support Organisation, National Institute of Medical Research and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Dissemination of findings will be done through journal publications and meetings involving study participants, healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Trial registration number NCT43896688.

IntroductionAccurate and affordable laboratory testing is key to timely diagnosis and appropriate management of patients with COVID-19. New laboratory test protocols are released into the market under emergency use authorisation with limited evidence on diagnostic test accuracy. As such, robust evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and the costs of available tests is urgently needed to inform policy and practice especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to determine the diagnostic test accuracy, cost-effectiveness and utility of laboratory test strategies for COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.Methods and analysisThis will be a multistaged, protocol-driven systematic review conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. We will search for relevant literature in at least six public health databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the WHO Global Index Medicus. In addition, we will search Cochrane Library, COVID-END and grey literature databases to identify additional relevant articles before double-screening and abstraction of data. We will conduct a structured narrative and quantitative synthesis of the results guided by the Fryback and Thornbury framework for assessing a diagnostic test. The primary outcome is COVID-19 diagnostic test accuracy. Using the GRADE approach specific to diagnostic accuracy tests, we will appraise the overall quality of evidence and report the results following the original PRISMA statement. The protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).Ethics and disseminationEthical review was done by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The published article will be accessible to policy and decision makers. The findings of this review will guide clinical practice and policy decisions and highlight areas for future research.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020209528.

ObjectivesWe determined the prevalence of controlled prescription drug (CPD) non-medical and lifetime use and their predictors among patients at three public psychiatric clinics in Uganda to identify missed care opportunities, enhanced screening priorities, and drug control needs.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 1275 patients was performed from November to December 2018. Interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaires, desk review guide and urine drug assays were employed. Questionnaire recorded CPD non-medical and illicit drug use history from patients’ files, CPD lifetime use and risk factors. Desk review guide recorded recently prescribed drugs in patients’ files to corroborate with urine assays. Predictors were analysed by multivariate logistic regression.ResultsFrom desk review, 145 (11.4%) patients had history of CPD non-medical use and 36 (2.8%) had used illicit drugs. Of 988 patients who provided urine, 166 (16.8%) self-medicated CPDs, particularly benzodiazepines while 12 (1.2%) used illicit drugs. Of those with drug-positive urine, 123 (69.1%) had no documented history of CPD non-medical and illicit drug use. Being an inpatient (OR=10.90, pConclusionsCPD non-medical use is common among Uganda’s psychiatric patients, and more prevalent than illicit drug use. Rapid diagnostic assays may be needed in psychiatric care in resource limited settings. It is necessary to assess how CPD non-medical use impacts mental care outcomes and patient safety. High risk groups like inpatients and tobacco consumers should be prioritised in psychiatric screening.

With more than 9.3 million cases and 480 000 deaths recorded to date,1 COVID-19 pandemic has put global emergency preparedness and the capacity of national health systems to predict and respond to major emergencies under a sharp scrutiny. The response to the pandemic is focused on testing, case management and control measures such as personal hygiene, quarantine and social distancing. However, in most African countries, as elsewhere, these measures are not backed by reliable context-specific data. Instead, they are largely dependent on epidemic curves from China and Europe which appear to differ from those in sub-Saharan Africa. Given the massive economic and social disruptions occasioned by the control measures, governments and other stakeholders are desperate for accurate real-time data on the pandemic’s progress and to inform intervention strategies. Furthermore, scarcity of medical and laboratory resources due to increased demand globally coupled with international travel restrictions has forced countries to look inwards for local innovations and adaptations in COVID-19 testing options and interventions, as well as personal protective equipment (PPE). Consequently, attention has turned to the contribution of local researchers in the pandemic response and by extension, countries’ science preparedness. With respect to health emergencies, science preparedness can be defined as ‘a collaborative effort to establish and sustain a scientific research framework that can inform and enable emergency planners, responders and the whole community to better prepare for, respond to, and recover from major public health emergencies and disasters’.2 As such, science preparedness is an integral part of emergency responsiveness despite receiving less attention than health service preparedness. Although researchers, research support personnel, research infrastructure and mobilisable resources form the core of science preparedness, mounting a robust science-backed emergency recovery response entails complex interplay between multiple elements and actors. As illustrated in figure 1, mechanisms to expedite ethical approval of …

Summary box The incidence of diabetes and hypertension has risen sharply in sub-Saharan Africa alongside a continuing high burden of HIV infection.1 In many settings, the prevalence figures among adults are 4%–5% for diabetes, above 25% for hypertension and 5%–20% for HIV infection.2–4 All these conditions require lifelong treatment, and they have increased substantially the demand for chronic care services in Africa, where health systems have, until recently, focused on tackling acute infectious diseases.5 There is considerable inequity in service provision for chronic diseases. HIV services, including antiretroviral therapy, are available widely for free and are organised typically in stand-alone clinics. Over 65% of people estimated to be living with HIV infection are in regular care.6 In contrast, this figure is only about 5%–20% for people living with diabetes or hypertension.3 7 A major challenge is that medicines for diabetes and hypertension are generally not provided free of charge and have to be purchased by patients. Even in those countries that do provide free medicines for hypertension and diabetes, shortages are common and patients then have to purchase the medicines from private suppliers. Our research collaboration is evaluating a biomedical diabetes preventive intervention in people living with HIV infection in a placebo-controlled randomised trial and, separately, evaluating integrated healthcare provision compared with standard care for people living with HIV, diabetes or hypertension in a cluster-randomised controlled trial.8 There are no data on the effectiveness of these approaches from Africa. Therefore, these trials have clinical and health …

Many claims about the effects of treatments, though well intentioned, are wrong. Indeed, they are sometimes deliberately misleading to serve interests other than the well-being of patients and the public. People need to know how to spot unreliable treatment claims so that they can protect themselves and others from harm. The ability to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims is often lacking. Acquiring this ability depends on being familiar with, and correctly applying, some key concepts, for example, that’ association is not the same as causation.’ The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Project has identified 36 such concepts and shown that people can be taught to use them in decision making. A randomised trial in Uganda, for example, showed that primary school children with poor reading skills could be taught to apply 12 of the IHC Key Concepts. The list of IHC Key Concepts has proven to be effective in providing a framework for developing and evaluating IHC resources to help children to think critically about treatment claims. The list also provides a framework for retrieving, coding and organising other teaching and learning materials for learners of any age. It should help teachers, researchers, clinicians, and patients to structure critical thinking about the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.