Search

BackgroundIn September 2022, Uganda experienced an outbreak of Sudan virus disease (SVD), mainly in central Uganda. As a result of enhanced surveillance activities for Ebola disease, samples from several patients with suspected viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) were sent to the VHF Program at Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Entebbe, Uganda, and identified with infections caused by other viral etiologies. Herein, we report the epidemiologic and laboratory findings of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) cases that were detected during the SVD outbreak response.MethodologyWhole blood samples from VHF suspected cases were tested for Sudan virus (SUDV) by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); and if negative, were tested for CCHF virus (CCHFV) by RT-PCR. CCHFV genomic sequences generated by metagenomic next generation sequencing were analyzed to ascertain strain relationships.Principal findingsBetween September 2022 and January 2023, a total of 2,626 samples were submitted for VHF testing at UVRI. Overall, 13 CCHF cases (including 7 deaths; case fatality rate of 53.8%), aged 4 to 60 years, were identified from 10 districts, including several districts affected by the SVD outbreak. Four cases were identified within the Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU) at Mubende Hospital. Most CCHF cases were males engaged in livestock farming or had exposure to wildlife (n = 8; 61.5%). Among confirmed cases, the most common clinical symptoms were hemorrhage (n = 12; 92.3%), fever (n = 11; 84.6%), anorexia (n = 10; 76.9%), fatigue (n = 9; 69.2%), abdominal pain (n = 9; 69.2%) and vomiting (n = 9; 69.2%). Sequencing analysis showed that the majority of identified CCHFV strains belonged to the Africa II clade previously identified in Uganda. Two samples, however, were identified with greater similarity to a CCHFV strain that was last reported in Uganda in 1958, suggesting possible reemergence.Conclusions/significanceIdentifying CCHFV from individuals initially suspected to be infected with SUDV emphasizes the need for comprehensive VHF testing during filovirus outbreak responses in VHF endemic countries. Without expanded testing, CCHFV-infected patients would have posed a risk to health care workers and others while receiving treatment after a negative filovirus diagnosis, thereby complicating response dynamics. Additionally, CCHFV-infected cases could acquire an Ebola infection while in the ETU, and upon release because of a negative Ebola virus result, have the potential to spread these infections in the community.

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.