Search

Introduction this report is a documentation of a staff risk stratification programme, undertaken in University of Benin Teaching Hospital, with outcomes, and the actions taken to protect staff. Methods an adapted risk stratification tool was circulated to all staff through their respective heads of departments/units. Staff were expected to voluntary assess their health and risk status in the context of COVID-19, using the tool. A central multi-disciplinary screening committee assessed submissions and invited staff who required further evaluation for physical interviews. Respondents were categorized into three risk/exposure groups from lowest to highest - A, B, and C, based on their individual health assessments, occupational exposures, and information obtained from direct interviews. Results the committee received submissions from 746 staff, representing 19.4% (about a fifth) of the hospital's 3,840 staff. One hundred and twenty two of these were invited for physical interviews, of whom 88 (72.1%) were categorized as high risk (Category C): pregnancy (53.4%); bronchial asthma (19.3%); hypertension (11.4%); cancer (3.4%) and sickle cell disease (2.3%); fractures and pulmonary tuberculosis (1%, respectively). These staff were recommended for redeployment from areas of high risk exposure to COVID-19. Conclusion a management-driven risk assessment of hospital staff in preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that a fifth of staff assessed themselves as being vulnerable to adverse outcomes from exposure. It is our hope that similar risk stratification programmes will become standard practice in healthcare facilities during disease outbreaks, especially in Africa.

PubMed: 29599078, 2-s2.0-85044540918, Background: The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Although no virological cure exists for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, existing therapies to control viral replication and prophylaxis to minimise mother-to-child transmission make elimination of HBV feasible. We aimed to estimate the national, regional, and global prevalence of HBsAg in the general population and in the population aged 5 years in 2016, as well as coverage of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: In this modelling study, we used a Delphi process that included a literature review in PubMed and Embase, followed by interviews with experts, to quantify the historical epidemiology of HBV infection. We then used a dynamic HBV transmission and progression model to estimate the country-level and regional-level prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 and the effect of prophylaxis and treatment on disease burden. Findings: We developed models for 120 countries, 78 of which were populated with data approved by experts. Using these models, we estimated that the global prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 was 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·4–4·6), corresponding to 291 992 000 (251 513 000–341 114 000) infections. Of these infections, around 29 million (10%) were diagnosed, and only 4·8 million (5%) of 94 million individuals eligible for treatment actually received antiviral therapy. Around 1·8 (1·6–2·2) million infections were in children aged 5 years, with a prevalence of 1·4% (1·2–1·6). We estimated that 87% of infants had received the three-dose HBV vaccination in the first year of life, 46% had received timely birth-dose vaccination, and 13% had received hepatitis B immunoglobulin along with the full vaccination regimen. Less than 1% of mothers with a high viral load had received antiviral therapy to reduce mother-to-child transmission. Interpretation: Our estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because we took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time. Although some regions are well on their way to meeting prophylaxis and prevalence targets, all regions must substantially scale-up access to diagnosis and treatment to meet the global targets. Funding: John C Martin Foundation. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, H28-kansei-ippan-001 National Academy of Sciences, NAS Novartis Roche World Health Organization, WHO Gilead Sciences Alnylam Pharmaceuticals AbbVie Meso Scale Diagnostics, MSD British Microcirculation Society, BMS Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS: 17H03589 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, MHLW Vetenskapsrådet, VR Siemens Universiteit Antwerpen OLL-683801, DR-S, IGa, SB, SMB, CE, KM, HMN, KP, KR-S, SR, JDS, and HR report grants from John C Martin Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, WHO, National Academy of Sciences, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. MHN reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and personal fees from Novartis, Anylam, and Dynavax, outside the submitted work. PVD acts as chief and principal investigator for vaccine trials done on behalf of the University of Antwerp, Belgium, for which the University obtains research grants from vaccine manufacturers; speaker's fees for presentations on vaccines are paid directly to an educational fund held by the University of Antwerp, and PVD receives no personal remuneration for this work. ACA reports personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. JEA reports fees paid to his hospital for participation on the advisory boards of Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, BMS, Janssen, and AbbVie, and grants from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), AbbVie, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. TB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences; grants and personal fees from BMS, Janssen, Roche, MSD, and Sequana Medical; and personal fees from Bayer, Vertex, Tibotec, Intercept, Sirtex, and Alexion, outside the submitted work. PB reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. MBr reports personal fees from BMS, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. HLYC reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, AbbVie, Roche, MedImmune, and Intellia, outside the submitted work. PBC reports grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VC reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. MCor reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen Idec, Falk Foundation, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Roche Pharma, and Siemens, outside the submitted work. SD and PJ report personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. MHE-S is an advisory board member for Perspectum Diagnostics, and reports grants and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Quadri Pharma, outside the submitted work. RF reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. GBG reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. JG-S reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, and BMS, outside the submitted work. JGer reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, BMS, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. RG reports grants from New South Wales Ministry of Health and provided project advice regarding viral hepatitis treatment to Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. AHa reports unrestricted grants from AbbVie, MSD, Gilead Sciences, BMS, and Novartis, and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work; he was also on advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS. CH reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and MSD, outside the submitted work. JJ reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from Roche, Siemens, Hologic, and Boerhinger Ingleheim, outside the submitted work. JVL reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Cepheid, outside the submitted work. MMan reports personal fees from Roche, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Aevi Genomic Medicine, ENYO Pharma, and CureVac, and grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SMau reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. CM reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD; and grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. BM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, MSD, BMS, Bayer, Intercept, and Sigma-Tau, during the conduct of the study. FN reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, during the conduct of the study. AR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, and MSD, and personal fees form BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Intercept, and Lupin, outside the submitted work. HWR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ENYO Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, PRA Health Sciences, Regulus, and Roche; personal fees from Alnylam and R-Pharm; and grants from Replicor, outside the submitted work. LRR reports grants from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and the Swedish Research Council (Ghana), during the conduct of the study. LRR also reports grants from Gilead Sciences, BTG, Ariad, and Wako, outside the submitted work, and was a consultant and advisory board member for Wako, Medscape, Axis, OncLive, Bayer, Tavec, and Grail. SDR has served as an advisory board member and speaker for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. OS has served as a consultant and on advisory boards for MSD; received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, R-Pharm, and Hepatera; and served as a speaker for Abbott, AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, and R-Pharm. JFS-A reports personal fees from AbbVie and grants from Gilead Sciences and Janssen, outside the submitted work. CSa reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. PS reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and BMS, and personal fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. CSt has consulted with and served on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. VSy reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. KT reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD and Alfa Wasserman; and grants from Janssen, outside the submitted work. AJvdM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. IW reports personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Marcyrl, Mylan, Onxio, and Pharco, outside the submitted work. NW reports personal fees paid to her department from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VWW reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, and MSD, outside the submitted work. M-FY was a speaker or advisory board member for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Fujirebio, Biocartis, and MSD, outside the submitted work. SZ reports consultancy and lecture fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and consultancy fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., This study was funded by the John C Martin Foundation through the Polaris Observatory. We thank the Research on Hepatitis group (H28-kansei-ippan-001 and H25-kanen-ippan-010; led by JT), funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, for their provision of country-level data for Japan, and Örebro County Council for providing ALF grants (OLL-683801) to A-SD, which allowed collection of country-level data for Sweden.

WOS: 000426979400014, PubMed ID: 28404132, Background The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of-and expansion on-the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64-103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1.0% (95% uncertainty interval 0.8-1.1) in 2015, corresponding to 71.1 million (62.5-79.4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections., John C Martin Foundation, John C Martin Foundation.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a leading cause of cancer-related death in Africa, but there is still no comprehensive description of the current status of its epidemiology in Africa. We therefore initiated an African hepatocellular carcinoma consortium aiming to describe the clinical presentation, management, and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Africa.We did a multicentre, multicountry, retrospective observational cohort study, inviting investigators from the African Network for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases to participate in the consortium to develop hepatocellular carcinoma research databases and biospecimen repositories. Participating institutions were from Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Clinical information-demographic characteristics, cause of disease, liver-related blood tests, tumour characteristics, treatments, last follow-up date, and survival status-for patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma between Aug 1, 2006, and April 1, 2016, were extracted from medical records by participating investigators. Because patients from Egypt showed differences in characteristics compared with patients from the other countries, we divided patients into two groups for analysis; Egypt versus other African countries. We undertook a multifactorial analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors affecting survival (assessed from the time of diagnosis to last known follow-up or death).We obtained information for 2566 patients at 21 tertiary referral centres (two in Egypt, nine in Nigeria, four in Ghana, and one each in the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda). 1251 patients were from Egypt and 1315 were from the other African countries (491 from Ghana, 363 from Nigeria, 277 from Ivory Coast, 59 from Cameroon, 51 from Sudan, 33 from Ethiopia, 21 from Tanzania, and 20 from Uganda). The median age at which hepatocellular carcinoma was diagnosed significantly later in Egypt than the other African countries (58 years [IQR 53-63] vs 46 years [36-58]; p0·0001). Hepatitis C virus was the leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma in Egypt (1054 [84%] of 1251 patients), and hepatitis B virus was the leading cause in the other African countries (597 [55%] of 1082 patients). Substantially fewer patients received treatment specifically for hepatocellular carcinoma in the other African countries than in Egypt (43 [3%] of 1315 vs 956 [76%] of 1251; p0·0001). Among patients with survival information (605 [48%] of 1251 in Egypt and 583 [44%] of 1315 in other African countries), median survival was shorter in the other African countries than in Egypt (2·5 months [95% CI 2·0-3·1] vs 10·9 months [9·6-12·0]; p0·0001). Factors independently associated with poor survival were: being from an African countries other than Egypt (hazard ratio [HR] 1·59 [95% CI 1·13-2·20]; p=0·01), hepatic encephalopathy (2·81 [1·72-4·42]; p=0·0004), diameter of the largest tumour (1·07 per cm increase [1·04-1·11]; p0·0001), log α-fetoprotein (1·10 per unit increase [1·02-1·20]; p=0·0188), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4 (2·92 [2·13-3·93]; p0·0001) and no treatment (1·79 [1·44-2·22]; p0·0001).Characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma differ between Egypt and other African countries. The proportion of patients receiving specific treatment in other African countries was low and their outcomes were extremely poor. Urgent efforts are needed to develop health policy strategies to decrease the burden of hepatocellular carcinoma in Africa.None.

This cross-sectional study was carried out in Udo, a rural community in Ovia South-west LGA of Edo state to screen for hypertension and determine blood pressure pattern. Cluster sampling method was used in selecting participants. Data collection was by researcher-administered questionnaire. Blood pressure and anthropometric measurements were determined. A total of 590 respondents with mean age 30.7 ± 14.6 years participated in the study. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 122.08 ± 15.42 mmHg and 79.54 ± 11.55 mmHg, respectively and increased with age. Males had significantly higher mean SBP and DBP than the females (p < 0.001). Prevalence of hypertension was 20.2%, increased significantly with age and was higher in males than in females (p < 0.001). This study revealed that hypertension is a problem even in the rural areas. Therefore need for intervention programmes targeted at non-communicable diseases like hypertension which is usually symptomless. Keywords: Blood Presure, Pattern, Hypertension Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research Vol. 5 (2) 2006: pp. 79-86

spp restricted to the large intestine. It is a common disease thriving in areas of poor hygiene. Most cases present as self limiting diarrhea or dysentery but a small proportion present with severe disease and complications. Treatment is relatively simple in uncomplicated cases but the emphasis must be on preventive measures (improved hygiene) rather than treatment. IFEMED Journal Vol. 14 (1) 2008: pp. 89-91

Gambiense sleeping sickness is a parasitic disease that is difficult to diagnose due to insidious clinical signs and transient parasitaemias and it poses a major pubic health problem in the Abraka area of Delta State, Nigeria. Passive case detection (PCD) is defined as sleeping sickness cases diagnosed in patients who present voluntarily to the health institution for attention. PCD has remained the mainstay of intervention and control of the disease in this area. This study was conducted to obtain relevant information based on PCD in assessing current situation of the disease and to highlight some challenges evident from the baseline data. The Baptist Medical Centre, (BMC) Eku is located in the Abraka Sleeping Sickness Focus (ASSF). The case records of 73 patients (38 males and 35 females) admitted to the Medical Wards of BMC, Eku between June 1999 and May 2004, with a diagnosis of gambiense sleeping sickness were reviewed for reporting. Five milliliters of venous blood was obtained from each patient into Ethlyene Diamine Tetraacetic acid (EDTA) bottle for microscopy. Lymph node fluid and tissue biopsies were taken from those with lymphadenopathy and CSF collected for screening from all the patients. Buffy coat layer (BCL) and deposits of lymph node fluid (LNF) and CSF were examined for trypanosomes. All patients received three courses of intravascular Melarsoprol at a dose of 2 to 3.6mgkg-1 day-1 for three days for a course, with one week interval between the courses. Trypanosome parasites were detected in blood samples of 2(2.7%) and in the lymph node fluid of 8(11%) patients. All patients were positive by CSF microscopy. The highest prevalence of infection was among patients aged between 26-35 years with 35.6% infection rate, 23.3 percent was recorded among those aged 36-45 years. Of all the 73 cases treated at the BMC, only 10(13.7%) were previously treated in hospital while 44(60.3%) were in traditional centers. Thus traditional care for sleeping sickness is widely practiced in the study area. Keywords : Sleeping sickness, Treatment seeking behaviour, Traditional healers, Abraka, Nigeria Sahel Medical Journal Vol. 10 (3) 2007: pp. 89-92