Challenges and prospects of managing non-acute medical conditions among pastoral populations in sub-Saharan Africa.

In Africa, pastoral populations face several underrecognized health issues. The livelihoods of pastoralists revolve around possession of livestock and they are constantly moving in search of water and pasturage. They are predisposed to chronic zoonotic infections but may also suffer from non-acute non-zoonotic cosmopolitan infectious and non-infectious chronic medical conditions. Given their migratory lifestyle, livelihood, geographic inaccessibility, communication barriers, illiteracy and poverty, it is challenging for pastoralists to access lengthy inpatient clinical care and long-term periodic follow-up that may be required to achieve control or cure of subacute, chronic or lifelong diseases. The challenges and management modalities of complicated subacute bacterial endocarditis requiring critical clinical considerations, long-term medical and surgical interventions in a stateless Arab camel herder are described to highlight the plight of pastoralists. Innovative clinical and public health strategies are suggested to authorities and healthcare institutions to improve access to care for non-acute diseases among them.

Utility and impact of early diagnostic assessment of sepsis on mortality in an emergency department of a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.

Context: Currently, little is known about the timely application of clinical screening tools and blood sampling for decision-making in the management of patients with suspected sepsis in the accident and emergency units of hospitals in Nigeria. Aim: The aim of the study was to ascertain the association between the time taken for the conduct of serum lactate and blood culture investigations following a clinical suspicion of sepsis, and the mortality of patients admitted to a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Methods: Over a 6-month period (November 2021 to April 2022), 119 patients hospitalised for sepsis or septic shock at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital were followed until discharge or death. The proportion of patients whose serum lactate, serum procalcitonin and blood culture samples was taken was also determined. Predictors of mortality were determined using bivariate analysis and logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to predict survival using sepsis diagnostic criteria. Results: Eighty (67%) of 119 sepsis patients met systemic inflammatory response syndrome or quick sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment criteria. Only 3 (2.5%) patients had blood cultures and serum procalcitonin and 0 (0%) had serum lactate tests. Forty-one (34.5%) patients died, but clinical and laboratory procedures for sepsis management were not linked to death. A shorter hospital stay increased the death risk (χ2 = 14.83, P = 0.002). Conclusion: This study revealed low compliance with sepsis care guidelines and no impact of timely clinical and laboratory procedures on sepsis mortalities. Further study is needed to explore patient care models that can improve the objective assessment and treatment of sepsis patients in emergency departments of busy tertiary hospitals.

Assessment of the utility of a screening tool for COVID-19 diagnosis in an accident and emergency department in Lagos, Nigeria: A pilot study.

The use of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard laboratory test for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it has the disadvantage of a long turnaround time and cost. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) formulated a case definition for COVID-19. We sought to determine the utility of a 14-item, point-weighted clinical screening questionnaire adapted from the NCDC case definition in identifying patients more likely to have the disease. This was to aid prompt clinical decision-making. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 113 non-surgical patients presenting to the Accident and Emergency Department (A and E) of Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria. Patients were stratified based on screening scores into low (0-2), moderate (3-5) and high (6) pre-test categories. Patients with low and high scores ≥6 were admitted to the A and E and the COVID-19 holding ward, respectively, while the moderate group had chest computed tomography scans to aid further decision-making, pending the outcome of their RT-PCR results. The validity of the triage score as compared to the RT-PCR test result was calculated and the kappa score of agreement was utilised to evaluate the concordance between two triage scores. The optimum cut-off score was also obtained based on the maximal Younden's index. Results: The frequencies of low, moderate and high pre-test scores were 34 (30%), 43 (38.1%) and 36 (31.9%), respectively. Overall, 38.1% (43/113) were RT-PCR positive. RT-PCR was positive in 26.5% (9/34) with low screening scores, 55.8% (24/43) with moderate scores and 27.8% (10/36) with high scores. The sensitivity and specificity of a high score of 6 were 25% and 92.86%, while the lower score of 3 had sensitivity and specificity of 62.5% and 58.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The screening tool showed a high specificity in its initial design, which suggests that anyone with a low score using this tool has a high probability of testing negative. We recommend a cut-off score of 4 (score A) or 6 (score B) of the current screening tool be used to increase the chances of identifying persons with COVID-19 for RT-PCR testing.