COVID-19 and the law in Uganda: a case study on development and application of the public health act from 2020 to 2021.

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.

Uganda's experience in Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness, 2018-2019.

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.

Evaluation of Infection Prevention and Control Readiness at Frontline Health Care Facilities in High-Risk Districts Bordering Ebola Virus Disease-Affected Areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Uganda, 2018.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) in health care facilities is essential to protecting patients, visitors, and health care personnel from the spread of infectious diseases, including Ebola virus disease (Ebola). Patients with suspected Ebola are typically referred to specialized Ebola treatment units (ETUs), which have strict isolation and IPC protocols, for testing and treatment (1,2). However, in settings where contact tracing is inadequate, Ebola patients might first seek care at general health care facilities, which often have insufficient IPC capacity (3-6). Before 2014-2016, most Ebola outbreaks occurred in rural or nonurban communities, and the role of health care facilities as amplification points, while recognized, was limited (7,8). In contrast to these earlier outbreaks, the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak occurred in densely populated urban areas where access to health care facilities was better, but contact tracing was generally inadequate (8). Patients with unrecognized Ebola who sought care at health care facilities with inadequate IPC initiated multiple chains of transmission, which amplified the epidemic to an extent not seen in previous Ebola outbreaks (3-5,7). Implementation of robust IPC practices in general health care facilities was critical to ending health care-associated transmission (8). In August 2018, when an Ebola outbreak was recognized in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), neighboring countries began preparing for possible introduction of Ebola, with a focus on IPC. Baseline IPC assessments conducted in frontline health care facilities in high-risk districts in Uganda found IPC gaps in screening, isolation, and notification. Based on findings, additional funds were provided for IPC, a training curriculum was developed, and other corrective actions were taken. Ebola preparedness efforts should include activities to ensure that frontline health care facilities have the IPC capacity to rapidly identify suspected Ebola cases and refer such patients for treatment to protect patients, staff members, and visitors.

Building National Health Security Through a Rapid Self-Assessment and Annual Operational Plan in Uganda, May to September 2021.

Uganda established a National Action Plan for Health Security in 2019, following a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) of International Health Regulations (2005) capacities in 2017. The action plan enhanced national health security awareness, but implementation efforts were affected by limited funding, excess of activities, and challenges related to monitoring and evaluation. To improve implementation, Uganda conducted a multisectoral health security self-assessment in 2021 using the second edition of the JEE tool and developed a 1-year operational plan. From 2017 to 2021, Uganda's composite ReadyScore improved by 20%, with improvement in 13 of the 19 technical areas. Indicator scores showing limited capacity declined from 30% to 20%, and indicators with no capacity declined from 10% to 2%. More indicators had developed (47% vs 40%), demonstrated (29% vs 20%), and sustained (2% vs 0%) capacities in 2021 compared with 2017. Using the self-assessment JEE scores, 72 specific activities from the International Health Regulations (2005) benchmarks tool were selected for inclusion in a 1-year operational plan (2021-2022). In contrast to the 264 broad activities in the 5-year national action plan, the operational plan prioritized a small number of activities to enable sectors to focus limited resources on implementation. While certain capacities improved before and during implementation of the action plan, countries may benefit from using short-term operational planning to develop realistic and actionable health security plans to improve health security capacities.

Availability of the core components of the World Health Organization infection prevention and control strategies in health facilities in Southwestern Uganda: Implications for control of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) practices are required to prevent nosocomial infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. In low- and middle-income countries, where resources are often limited, IPC practices are infrequently assessed. AIM: To assess the availability of the core components of World Health Organization (WHO) IPC practices at health facilities in Southwestern Uganda. METHODS: We assessed the availability of WHO IPC core components using a modified WHO IPC Assessment tool. We determined differences between government versus private ownership and by type of health facility. FINDINGS: We assessed 111 of 224 (50%) health facilities in four districts. The most frequently achieved core component of IPC strategies was environmental cleanliness with 75 of 111 (68%) facilities scoring >85%. The most infrequently achieved core component of IPC strategies was personal protective equipment (PPE) with only one of seven (14%) hospitals and no other facilities scoring >85%. Of the 20 hospital or health center IV facilities, five (25%) received an overall score of >85% compared to only one of 91 (1%) health center II or III facilities (odds ratio [OR] 30.0 [95% CI: 3.27-274.99], p=0.003). Of the 73 government facilities, two (3%) received an overall score of >85% compared to five of 38 (13%) private facilities (OR 0.24 [95% CI: 0.04-1.37], p=0.11). CONCLUSION: Few facilities in four districts in Southwestern Uganda achieved >85% availability of WHO IPC core components. Provision of PPE in these facilities should be prioritized.

Intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 prior to the second wave of the pandemic in Uganda: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The resurgence in cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in many countries suggests complacency in adhering to COVID-19 preventive guidelines. Vaccination, therefore, remains a key intervention in mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study investigated the level of adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among Ugandans. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of 1053 Ugandan adults was conducted in March 2021 using telephone interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants reported on adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures and intention to be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Overall, 10.2% of the respondents adhered to the COVID-19 preventive guidelines and 57.8% stated definite intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Compared with women, men were less likely to adhere to COVID-19 guidelines (Odds Ratio (OR)=0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99). Participants from the northern (4.0%, OR=0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.92), western (5.1%, OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65) and eastern regions (6.5%, OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92), respectively, had lower odds of adhering to the COVID-19 guidelines than those from the central region (14.7%). A higher monthly income of ≥US$137 (OR=2.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.58) and a history of chronic disease (OR=1.81, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.86) were predictors of adherence. Concerns about the chances of getting COVID-19 in the future (Prevalence Ratio (PR)=1.26, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48) and fear of severe COVID-19 infection (PR=1.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.38) were the strongest predictors for a definite intention, while concerns for side effects were negatively associated with vaccination intent (PR=0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.83). CONCLUSION: Behaviour change programmes need to be strengthened to promote adherence to COVID-19 preventive guidelines as vaccination is rolled out as another preventive measure. Dissemination of accurate, safe and efficacious information about the vaccines is necessary to enhance vaccine uptake.

Low isoniazid and rifampicin concentrations in TB/HIV co-infected patients in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited data available on exposure to anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs in this region. Peloquin has described reference ranges [1] however some studies have demonstrated that patients actually achieve concentrations below these ranges [2]. There is limited data about exposure to anti-TB drugs in the HIV/TB co-infected population in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our objective is to describe the concentration of anti-TB drug levels in a well characterized prospective cohort of adult patients starting treatment for pulmonary TB. METHODS: This study is an ongoing study carried out in the TB/HIV integrated clinic at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Kampala, Uganda. Sputum culture and microscopy was done for all patients. We performed pharmacokinetic blood sampling of anti-TB drugs for 1 hour, 2 hours and 4 hours post dose at 2 weeks, 8 weeks and 24 weeks after initiation of anti-TB treatment using ultraviolet high-performance liquid chromatography (UV-HPLC). We described the maximum concentration (Cmax) of isoniazid (H), rifampicin (R), ethambutol (E) and pyrazinamide (Z) and compare them with the values observed by Peloquin et al. referenced in other studies. RESULTS: We started 113 HIV infected adults on a fixed dose combination of HREZ. The median age of our population was 33 years, of which 52% were male with a median BMI of 19 kg/m(2) and a median CD4 cell count of 142 cells/µL. In 90% of the participants, the diagnosis of TB was based on microscopy and or cultures. The boxplot graph shows the median Cmax and IQR of H and R. CONCLUSION: We observed lower concentrations of isoniazid and rifampicin in our study population of HIV/TB co-infected patients. The implications of these findings are not yet clear. We therefore need to correlate our findings with the response to TB treatment.