Analysis of sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with Lassa fever disease and mortality in Nigeria.

Over past decades, there has been increasing geographical spread of Lassa fever (LF) cases across Nigeria and other countries in West Africa. This increase has been associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite increasing focus on the disease by both local and international scientists. Many of these studies on LF have been limited to few specialised centres in the country. This study was done to identify sociodemographic and clinical predictors of LF disease and related deaths across Nigeria. We analysed retrospective surveillance data on suspected LF cases collected during January-June 2018 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors independently associated with laboratory-confirmed LF diagnosis, and with LF-related deaths. There were confirmed 815 of 1991 suspected LF cases with complete records during this period. Of these, 724/815 confirmed cases had known clinical outcomes, of whom 100 died. LF confirmation was associated with presentation of gastrointestinal tract (aOR 3.47, 95% CI: 2.79-4.32), ear, nose and throat (aOR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.80-4.15), general systemic (aOR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.65-2.70) and chest/respiratory (aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.28-2.29) symptoms. Other factors were being male (aOR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.06-1.63), doing business/trading (aOR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.47-3.16) and farming (aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.12-2.68). Factors associated with LF mortality were a one-year increase in age (aOR 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04), bleeding (aOR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.07-4.00), and central nervous manifestations (aOR 5.02, 95% CI: 3.12-10.16). Diverse factors were associated with both LF disease and related death. A closer look at patterns of clinical variables would be helpful to support early detection and management of cases. The findings would also be useful for planning preparedness and response interventions against LF in the country and region.

Epidemiological description of and response to a large yellow fever outbreak in Edo state Nigeria, September 2018 - January 2019.

BACKGROUND: Edo State Surveillance Unit observed the emergence of a disease with "no clear-cut-diagnosis", which affected peri-urban Local Government Areas (LGAs) from September 6 to November 1, 2018. On notification, the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control deployed a Rapid Response Team (RRT) to support outbreak investigation and response activities in the State. This study describes the epidemiology of and response to a large yellow fever (YF) outbreak in Edo State. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive outbreak investigation of YF outbreak in Edo State. A suspected case of YF was defined as "Any person residing in Edo State with acute onset of fever and jaundice appearing within 14 days of onset of the first symptoms from September 2018 to January 2019". Our response involved active case search in health facilities and communities, retrospective review of patients' records, rapid risk assessment, entomological survey, rapid YF vaccination coverage assessment, blood sample collection, case management and risk communication. Descriptive data analysis using percentages, proportions, frequencies were made. RESULTS: A total of 209 suspected cases were line-listed. Sixty-seven (67) confirmed in 12 LGAs with 15 deaths [Case fatality rate (CFR 22.4%)]. Among confirmed cases, median age was 24.8, (range 64 (1-64) years; Fifty-one (76.1%) were males; and only 13 (19.4%) had a history of YF vaccination. Vaccination coverage survey involving 241 children revealed low YF vaccine uptake, with 44.6% providing routine immunisation cards for sighting. Risk of YF transmission was 71.4%. Presence of Aedes with high-larval indices (House Index ≥5% and/or Breteau Index ≥20) were established in all the seven locations visited. YF reactive mass vaccination campaign was implemented. CONCLUSION: Edo State is one of the states in Nigeria with the highest burden of yellow fever. More males were affected among the confirmed. Major symptoms include fever, jaundice, weakness, and bleeding. Majority of surveillance performance indicators were above target. There is a high risk of transmission of the disease in the state. Low yellow fever vaccination coverage, and presence of yellow fever vectors (Ae.aegypti, Ae.albopictus and Ae.simpsoni) are responsible for cases in affected communities. Enhanced surveillance, improved laboratory sample management, reactive vaccination campaign, improved yellow fever case management and increased risk communication/awareness are very important mitigation strategies to be sustained in Edo state to prevent further spread and mortality from yellow fever.

An assessment of infection prevention and control preparedness of healthcare facilities in Nigeria in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (February-May 2020).

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) activities play a large role in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings. This study describes the state of IPC preparedness within health facilities in Nigeria during the early phase of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We carried out a cross sectional study of health facilities across Nigeria using a COVID-19 IPC checklist adapted from the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The IPC aspects assessed were the existence of IPC committee and teams with terms of reference and workplans, IPC training, availability of personal protective equipment and having systems in place for screening, isolation and notification of COVID-19 patients. Existence of the assessed aspects was regarded as preparedness in that aspect. Results: In total, 461 health facilities comprising, 350 (75.9%) private and 111 (24.1%) public health facilities participated. Only 19 (4.1%) health facilities were COVID-19 treatment centres with 68% of these being public health facilities. Public health facilities were better prepared in the areas of IPC programme with 69.7% of them having an IPC focal point versus 32.3% of private facilities. More public facilities (59.6%) had an IPC workplan versus 26.8% of private facilities. Neither the public nor the private facilities were adequately prepared for triaging, screening, and notifying suspected cases, as well as having trained staff and equipment to implement triaging. Conclusions: The results highlight the need for government, organisations and policymakers to establish conducive IPC structures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in healthcare settings.