Detection of hepatitis viruses in suspected cases of Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers in Nigeria.

There have been several Viral Hemorrhagic Fever (VHF) outbreaks in Nigeria which remains a public health concern. Despite the increasing number of suspected cases of VHF due to heightened surveillance activities and growing awareness, only a few cases are laboratory-confirmed to be VHF. Routinely, these samples are only tested for Lassa virus and Yellow fever virus with occasional testing for Dengue virus when indicated. The aetiology of the disease in these VHF suspected cases in Nigeria which are negative for Lassa, Yellow fever and Dengue viruses remains a puzzle. Since the clinical features exhibited by suspected VHF cases are like other endemic illnesses such as Hepatitis, there is a need to investigate the diversity and co-infections of hepatitis viruses as differentials and possible co-morbidity in suspected cases of VHFs in Nigeria. A total of three hundred and fifty (350) blood samples of 212 (60.6%) males and 138 (39.4%) females, aged <1-70 years with a mean age of 25 ±14.5, suspected of VHFs and tested negative for Lassa, Yellow fever and Dengue viruses were investigated for Hepatitis A, B, C and E viruses at the Centre for Human and Zoonotic Virology (CHAZVY), College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL) using serologic and molecular techniques. The serologic analysis of these VHF suspected cases samples revealed that 126 (36%) were positive for at least one hepatitis virus. Individual prevalence for each of the hepatitis virus screened for showed that 37 (10.6%), 18 (5.1%) and 71 (20.3%) were positive for HBV, HCV and HEV respectively. All the samples were negative for HAV. A co-infection rate of 11.9% was also observed, with HCV/HEV co-infections being the most prevalent and the Northern region having the greatest burden of infection. The evidence of hepatitis virus infections in suspected cases of VHF was documented. Thus, their associations as co-morbidities and/or mortalities in this category of individuals require further investigations in endemic countries such as Nigeria. Therefore, the possible inclusion of screening for hepatitis viruses and other aetiologic agents that could mimic infections in suspected cases of VHFs in Nigeria should be thoroughly evaluated to guide informed policy on the diagnosis and management of these cases.

Saliva sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2: A possible alternative for mass testing.

Molecular diagnostic testing has played a critical role in the global response to the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, since its first outbreak in late 2019. At the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, nasopharyngeal swab sample analysis for COVID-19 diagnosis using the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique was the most widely used. However, due to the high cost and difficulty of sample collection, the number of available sample types for COVID-19 diagnosis is rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The use of nasal swabs, saliva, and oral fluids as viable sample options for the effective detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been implemented successfully in different settings since 2020. These alternative sample type provides a plethora of advantages including decreasing the high exposure risk to frontline workers, enhancing the chances of home self-sampling, reducing the cost, and significantly increasing testing capacity. This study sought to ascertain the effectiveness of Saliva samples as an alternative for COVID-19 diagnosis in Nigeria. Demographic data, paired samples of Nasopharyngeal Swab and Drooling Saliva were obtained from 309 consenting individuals aged 8-83 years presenting for COVID-19 testing. All samples were simultaneously assayed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp, N, and E genes using the GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RT-PCR test kit. Out of 309 participants, only 299 with valid RT-PCR results comprising 159 (53.2%) males and 140 (46.8%) females were analyzed in this study using the R Statistical package. Among the 299 samples analyzed, 39 (13.0%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in at least one specimen type. Both swabs and saliva were positive in 20 (51.3%) participants. Ten participants (25.6%) had swab positive/saliva-negative results and 9 participants (23.1%) had saliva positive/swab-negative results. The percentage of positive and negative agreement of the saliva samples with the nasopharyngeal swab were 67% and 97% respectively with positive and negative predictive values as 69% and 96% respectively. The findings indicate that drooling saliva samples have good and comparable diagnostic accuracy to the nasopharyngeal swabs with moderate sensitivities and high specificities.