Serologic evidence of seasonal influenza A and B in HIV patients on combined antiretroviral therapy in Lagos, Nigeria

Background: Influenza and HIV are endemic in Nigeria but there is no epidemiological data on the co-infection of influenza A and B among HIV patients.Objective: We investigated seasonal influenza A and B, and co-infection among HIV patients on combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) in Lagos, Nigeria.Methods: In a prospective cross-sectional study, clear sera collected from 174 HIV-positive patients between August and September 2018 were analysed for immunoglobulin M-specific antibodies to seasonal influenza A subtypes H1N1 and H3N2, and influenza B by enzyme immunoassay. Results: A total of 39.7% (69/174) of HIV patients were seropositive for influenza A or B viruses with 84.1% (58/69) being positive for influenza A, 13.04% (9/69) seropositive for both influenza A and B, and only 2.9% (2/69) positive for influenza B mono-infection. Median age was 44 (mean 45, mode 40, range 18­74) years. The 41­50 years age group had the highest seroprevalence (39.1%; 27/69). Seropositivity was highest among women (65.2%; 45/69). A total of 88.4% (61/69) of HIV patients seropositive for influenza A or B were on fixed dose cART, while 73.9% (51/69) were virologically suppressed. Furthermore, 27.5% (19/69) were immunocompromised, of which 21.1% (4/19) were severely immunosuppressed (cluster of differentiation 4 < 200 cells/mm>3).Conclusion: Influenza A and B was prevalent among HIV patients on cART, which may predispose them to life-threatening complications. We recommend strong advocacy on the need to reduce the risk of exposure to influenza and for the provision of an influenza vaccine in Nigeria

Experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists

To report the experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among a cross-section of Nigerian dentists. Information requested included personal experience on wrong-site tooth/teeth extraction and its after-effect, possible reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction and documentation of the event in patients' case. Respondents were also asked if they were aware of any colleagues who had previously experienced wrong-site tooth extraction and possible legal implication of the event, and if they aware of the universal protocol for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong person surgery. Twenty-two [13%] of the respondents reported having extracted a wrong tooth. The event occurred within 5 years after graduation in most cases. Most respondents [53.6%] informed the patient immediately after the event. Only 68% of the respondents documented the event in patient's case record. Most common reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction were heavy workload, presence of multiple condemned teeth and miscommunication between dentists. Fifty-five percent of respondents were aware of a colleague who had extracted a wrong tooth. The most probable legal implication of wrong-site tooth extraction according to the respondents was litigation by the patient. Only 25% of dentists were aware of a universal protocol for preventing wrong-site surgery. Wrong tooth/teeth extraction is not an uncommon event in the studied environment. The need to be familiar with universal protocol on wrong-site surgery and its legal implications are highlighted