Search

Abstract Background Despite the discovery of vaccines, the control, and prevention of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relied on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). This article describes the development and application of the Public Health Act to implement NPIs for COVID-19 pandemic control in Uganda. Methods This is a case study of Uganda’s experience with enacting COVID-19 Rules under the Public Health Act Cap. 281. The study assessed how and what Rules were developed, their influence on the outbreak progress, and litigation. The data sources reviewed were applicable laws and policies, Presidential speeches, Cabinet resolutions, statutory instruments, COVID-19 situation reports, and the registry of court cases that contributed to a triangulated analysis. Results Uganda applied four COVID-19 broad Rules for the period March 2020 to October 2021. The Minister of Health enacted the Rules, which response teams, enforcement agencies, and the general population followed. The Presidential speeches, their expiry period and progress of the pandemic curve led to amendment of the Rules twenty one (21) times. The Uganda Peoples Defense Forces Act No. 7 of 2005, the Public Finance Management Act No. 3 of 2015, and the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management supplemented the enacted COVID-19 Rules. However, these Rules attracted specific litigation due to perceived infringement on certain human rights provisions. Conclusions Countries can enact supportive legislation within the course of an outbreak. The balance of enforcing public health interventions and human rights infringements is an important consideration in future. We recommend public sensitization about legislative provisions and reforms to guide public health responses in future outbreaks or pandemics.

Abstract Background The global need for well-trained field epidemiologists has been underscored in the last decade in multiple pandemics, the most recent being COVID-19. Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) are in-service training programs that improve country capacities to respond to public health emergencies across different levels of the health system. Best practices for FETP implementation have been described previously. The Uganda Public Health Fellowship Program (PHFP), or Advanced-FETP in Uganda, is a two-year fellowship in field epidemiology funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and situated in the Uganda National Institute of Public Health (UNIPH). We describe how specific attributes of the Uganda PHFP that are aligned with best practices enabled substantial contributions to the COVID-19 response in Uganda. Methods We describe the PHFP in Uganda and review examples of how specific program characteristics facilitate integration with Ministry of Health needs and foster a strong response, using COVID-19 pandemic response activities as examples. We describe PHFP activities and outputs before and during the COVID-19 response and offer expert opinions about the impact of the program set-up on these outputs. Results Unlike nearly all other Advanced FETPs in Africa, PHFP is delinked from an academic degree-granting program and enrolls only post-Master’s-degree fellows. This enables full-time, uninterrupted commitment of academically-trained fellows to public health response. Uganda’s PHFP has strong partner support in country, sufficient technical support from program staff, Ministry of Health (MoH), CDC, and partners, and full-time dedicated directorship from a well-respected MoH staff member. The PHFP is physically co-located inside the UNIPH with the emergency operations center (EOC), which provides a direct path for health alerts to be investigated by fellows. It has recognized value within the MoH, which integrates graduates into key MoH and partner positions. During February 2020-September 2021, PHFP fellows and graduates completed 67 major COVID-related projects. PHFP activities during the COVID-19 response were specifically requested by the MoH or by partners, or generated de novo by the program, and were supervised by all partners. Conclusion Specific attributes of the PHFP enable effective service to the Ministry of Health in Uganda. Among the most important is the enrollment of post-graduate fellows, which leads to a high level of utilization of the program fellows by the Ministry of Health to fulfill real-time needs. Strong leadership and sufficient technical support permitted meaningful program outputs during COVID-19 pandemic response. Ensuring the inclusion of similar characteristics when implementing FETPs elsewhere may allow them to achieve a high level of impact.

Abstract Background Several repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been investigated for treatment of COVID-19, but none was confirmed to be efficacious. While in vitro studies have demonstrated antiviral properties of HCQ, data from clinical trials were conflicting regarding its benefit for COVID-19 treatment. Drugs that limit viral replication may be beneficial in the earlier course of the disease thus slowing progression to severe and critical illness. Design We conducted a randomized open label Phase II clinical trial from October–December 2020. Methods Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were included in the study if they were 18 years and above and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 made in the last 3 days. Patients were randomized in blocks, to receive either HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days plus standard of care (SOC) treatment or SOC treatment alone. SARS COV-2 viral load (CT values) from RT-PCR testing of samples collected using nasal/orapharyngeal swabs was performed at baseline, day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. The primary outcome was median time from randomization to SARS COV-2 viral clearance by day 6. Results Of the 105 participants enrolled, 55 were assigned to the intervention group (HCQ plus SOC) and 50 to the control group (SOC only). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. Viral clearance did not differ by treatment arm, 20 and 19 participants respectively had SARS COV-2 viral load clearance by day 6 with no significant difference, median (IQR) number of days to viral load clearance between the two groups was 4(3–4) vs 4(2–4): p = 0.457. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes (symptom resolution and adverse events) between the intervention group and the control group. There were no significant differences in specific adverse events such as elevated alkaline phosphatase, prolonged QTc interval on ECG, among patients in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Conclusion Our results show that HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days was safe but not associated with reduction in viral clearance or symptom resolution among adults with COVID-19 in Uganda. Trial registration: NCT04860284.

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.

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.

INTRODUCTION:In October 2017, a blood sample from a resident of Kween District, Eastern Uganda, tested positive for Marburg virus. Within 24 hour of confirmation, a rapid outbreak response was initiated. Here, we present results of epidemiological and laboratory investigations. METHODS:A district task force was activated consisting of specialised teams to conduct case finding, case management and isolation, contact listing and follow up, sample collection and testing, and community engagement. An ecological investigation was also carried out to identify the potential source of infection. Virus isolation and Next Generation sequencing were performed to identify the strain of Marburg virus. RESULTS:Seventy individuals (34 MVD suspected cases and 36 close contacts of confirmed cases) were epidemiologically investigated, with blood samples tested for MVD. Only four cases met the MVD case definition; one was categorized as a probable case while the other three were confirmed cases. A total of 299 contacts were identified; during follow- up, two were confirmed as MVD. Of the four confirmed and probable MVD cases, three died, yielding a case fatality rate of 75%. All four cases belonged to a single family and 50% (2/4) of the MVD cases were female. All confirmed cases had clinical symptoms of fever, vomiting, abdominal pain and bleeding from body orifices. Viral sequences indicated that the Marburg virus strain responsible for this outbreak was closely related to virus strains previously shown to be circulating in Uganda. CONCLUSION:This outbreak of MVD occurred as a family cluster with no additional transmission outside of the four related cases. Rapid case detection, prompt laboratory testing at the Uganda National VHF Reference Laboratory and presence of pre-trained, well-prepared national and district rapid response teams facilitated the containment and control of this outbreak within one month, preventing nationwide and global transmission of the disease.