Despite the growing number of people on antiretroviral therapy (ART), there is limited information about virological non-suppression and its determinants among HIV-positive (HIV+) individuals enrolled in HIV care in many resource-limited settings. We estimated the proportion of virologically non-suppressed patients, and identified the factors associated with virological non-suppression. We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using routinely collected program data from viral load (VL) samples collected across the country for testing at the Central Public Health Laboratories (CPHL) in Uganda. Data were generated between August 2014 and July 2015. We extracted data on socio-demographic, clinical and VL testing results. We defined virological non-suppression as having ≥1000 copies of viral RNA/ml of blood for plasma or ≥5000 copies of viral RNA/ml of blood for dry blood spots. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with virological non-suppression. The study was composed of 100,678 patients; of these, 94,766(94%) were for routine monitoring, 3492(4%) were suspected treatment failures while 1436(1%) were repeat testers after suspected failure. The overall proportion of non-suppression was 11%. Patients on routine monitoring registered the lowest (10%) proportion of non-suppressed patients. Virological non-suppression was higher among suspected treatment failures (29%) and repeat testers after suspected failure (50%). Repeat testers after suspected failure were six times more likely to have virological non-suppression (ORadj = 6.3, 95%CI = 5.5–7.2) when compared with suspected treatment failures (ORadj = 3.3, 95%CI = 3.0–3.6). The odds of virological non-suppression decreased with increasing age, with children aged 0–4 years (ORadj = 5.3, 95%CI = 4.6–6.1) and young adolescents (ORadj = 4.1, 95%CI = 3.7–4.6) registering the highest odds. Poor adherence (ORadj = 3.4, 95%CI = 2.9–3.9) and having active TB (ORadj = 1.9, 95%CI = 1.6–2.4) increased the odds of virological non-suppression. However, being on second/third line regimens (ORadj = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.78–0.95) protected patients against virological non-suppression. Young age, poor adherence and having active TB increased the odds of virological non-suppression while second/third line ART regimens were protective against non-suppression. We recommend close follow up and intensified targeted adherence support for repeat testers after suspected failure, children and adolescents.

In December 2019, a new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was identified in China. This virus spread quickly and in March, 2020, it was declared a pandemic. Scientists predicted the worst scenario to occur in Africa since it was the least developed of the continents in terms of human development index, lagged behind others in achievement of the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs), has inadequate resources for provision of social services, and has many fragile states. In addition, there were relatively few research reporting findings on COVID-19 in Africa. On the contrary, the more developed countries reported higher disease incidences and mortality rates. However, for Africa, the earlier predictions and modelling into COVID-19 incidence and mortality did not fit into the reality. Therefore, the main objective of this forum is to bring together infectious diseases and public health experts to give an overview of COVID-19 in Africa and share their thoughts and opinions on why Africa behaved the way it did. Furthermore, the experts highlight what needs to be done to support Africa to consolidate the status quo and overcome the negative effects of COVID-19 so as to accelerate attainment of the SDGs.

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.

Most African countries have recorded relatively lower COVID-19 burdens than Western countries. This has been attributed to early and strong political commitment and robust implementation of public health measures, such as nationwide lockdowns, travel restrictions, face mask wearing, testing, contact tracing, and isolation, along with community education and engagement. Other factors include the younger population age strata and hypothesized but yet-to-be confirmed partially protective cross-immunity from parasitic diseases and/or other circulating coronaviruses. However, the true burden may also be underestimated due to operational and resource issues for COVID-19 case identification and reporting. In this perspective article, we discuss selected best practices and challenges with COVID-19 contact tracing in Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. Best practices from these country case studies include sustained, multi-platform public communications; leveraging of technology innovations; applied public health expertise; deployment of community health workers; and robust community engagement. Challenges include an overwhelming workload of contact tracing and case detection for healthcare workers, misinformation and stigma, and poorly sustained adherence to isolation and quarantine. Important lessons learned include the need for decentralization of contact tracing to the lowest geographic levels of surveillance, rigorous use of data and technology to improve decision-making, and sustainment of both community sensitization and political commitment. Further research is needed to understand the role and importance of contact tracing in controlling community transmission dynamics in African countries, including among children. Also, implementation science will be critically needed to evaluate innovative, accessible, and cost-effective digital solutions to accommodate the contact tracing workload.

On 28 March, 2016, the Ministry of Health received a report on three deaths from an unknown disease characterized by fever, jaundice, and hemorrhage which occurred within a one-month period in the same family in central Uganda. We started an investigation to determine its nature and scope, identify risk factors, and to recommend eventually control measures for future prevention. We defined a probable case as onset of unexplained fever plus ≥1 of the following unexplained symptoms: jaundice, unexplained bleeding, or liver function abnormalities. A confirmed case was a probable case with IgM or PCR positivity for yellow fever. We reviewed medical records and conducted active community case-finding. In a case-control study, we compared risk factors between case-patients and asymptomatic control-persons, frequency-matched by age, sex, and village. We used multivariate conditional logistic regression to evaluate risk factors. We also conducted entomological studies and environmental assessments. From February to May, we identified 42 case-persons (35 probable and seven confirmed), of whom 14 (33%) died. The attack rate (AR) was 2.6/100,000 for all affected districts, and highest in Masaka District (AR = 6.0/100,000). Men (AR = 4.0/100,000) were more affected than women (AR = 1.1/100,000) (p = 0.00016). Persons aged 30–39 years (AR = 14/100,000) were the most affected. Only 32 case-patients and 128 controls were used in the case control study. Twenty three case-persons (72%) and 32 control-persons (25%) farmed in swampy areas (OR_adj = 7.5; 95%CI = 2.3–24); 20 case-patients (63%) and 32 control-persons (25%) who farmed reported presence of monkeys in agriculture fields (OR_adj = 3.1, 95%CI = 1.1–8.6); and 20 case-patients (63%) and 35 control-persons (27%) farmed in forest areas (OR_adj = 3.2; 95%CI = 0.93–11). No study participants reported yellow fever vaccination. Sylvatic monkeys and Aedes mosquitoes were identified in the nearby forest areas. This yellow fever outbreak was likely sylvatic and transmitted to a susceptible population probably by mosquito bites during farming in forest and swampy areas. A reactive vaccination campaign was conducted in the affected districts after the outbreak. We recommended introduction of yellow fever vaccine into the routine Uganda National Expanded Program on Immunization and enhanced yellow fever surveillance.

We conducted an online survey in the first two months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in Uganda to assess the level and determinants of adherence to and satisfaction with the COVID-19 preventive measures recommended by the government. We generated Likert scales for adherence and satisfaction outcome variables and measured them with four preventive measures, including handwashing, wearing face masks, physical distancing, and coughing/sneezing hygiene. Of 1726 respondents (mean age: 36 years; range: 12–72), 59% were males, 495 (29%) were adherent to, and 545 (32%) were extremely satisfied with all four preventive measures. Adherence to all four measures was associated with living in Kampala City Centre (AOR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.6) and receiving COVID-19 information from health workers (AOR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.01–1.5) or village leaders (AOR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.02–1.9). Persons who lived with younger siblings had reduced odds of adherence to all four measures (AOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61–0.93). Extreme satisfaction with all four measures was associated with being female (AOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) and health worker (AOR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.5). Experiencing violence at home (AOR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09–0.67) was associated with lower satisfaction. Following reported poor adherence and satisfaction with preventive measures, behavior change programs using health workers should be expanded throughout, with emphasis on men.