Julius J. Lutwama

An outbreak of Ebola in Uganda.

An outbreak of Ebola disease was reported from Gulu district, Uganda, on 8 October 2000. The outbreak was characterized by fever and haemorrhagic manifestations, and affected health workers and the general population of Rwot‐Obillo, a village 14 km north of Gulu town. Later, the outbreak spread to other parts of the country including Mbarara and Masindi districts. Response measures included surveillance, community mobilization, case and logistics management. Three coordination committees were formed: National Task Force (NTF), a District Task Force (DTF) and an Interministerial Task Force (IMTF). The NTF and DTF were responsible for coordination and follow‐up of implementation of activities at the national and district levels, respectively, while the IMTF provided political direction and handled sensitive issues related to stigma, trade, tourism and international relations. The international response was coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the umbrella organization of the Global Outbreak and Alert Response Network. A WHO/CDC case definition for Ebola was adapted and used to capture four categories of cases, namely, the ‘alert’, ‘suspected’, ‘probable’ and ‘confirmed cases’. Guidelines for identification and management of cases were developed and disseminated to all persons responsible for surveillance, case management, contact tracing and Information Education Communication (IEC). For the duration of the epidemic that lasted up to 16 January 2001, a total of 425 cases with 224 deaths were reported countrywide. The case fatality rate was 53%. The attack rate (AR) was highest in women. The average AR for Gulu district was 12.6 cases/10 000 inhabitants when the contacts of all cases were considered and was 4.5 cases/10 000 if limited only to contacts of laboratory confirmed cases. The secondary AR was 2.5% when nearly 5000 contacts were followed up for 21 days. Uganda was finally declared Ebola free on 27 February 2001, 42 days after the last case was reported. The Governments role in coordination of both local and international support was vital. The NTF and the corresponding district committees harmonized implementation of a mutually agreed programme. Community mobilization using community‐based resource persons and political organs, such as Members of Parliament was effective in getting information to the public. This was critical in controlling the epidemic. Past experience in epidemic management has shown that in the absence of regular provision of information to the public, there are bound to be deleterious rumours. Consequently rumour was managed by frank and open discussion of the epidemic, providing daily updates, fact sheets and press releases. Information was regularly disseminated to communities through mass media and press conferences. Thus all levels of the community spontaneously demonstrated solidarity and response to public health interventions. Even in areas of relative insecurity, rebel abductions diminished considerably.

Assessment of core capacities for the international health regulations (IHR[2005]) - Uganda, 2009

BackgroundUganda is currently implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR[2005]) within the context of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR). The IHR(2005) require countries to assess the ability of their national structures, capacities, and resources to meet the minimum requirements for surveillance and response. This report describes the results of the assessment undertaken in Uganda.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional assessment using the protocol developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The data collection tools were adapted locally and administered to a convenience sample of HR(2005) stakeholders, and frequency analyses were performed.ResultsUgandan national laws relevant to the IHR(2005) existed, but they did not adequately support the full implementation of the IHR(2005). Correspondingly, there was a designated IHR National Focal Point (NFP), but surveillance activities and operational communications were limited to the health sector. All the districts (13/13) had designated disease surveillance offices, most had IDSR technical guidelines (92%, or 12/13), and all (13/13) had case definitions for infectious and zoonotic diseases surveillance. Surveillance guidelines were available at 57% (35/61) of the health facilities, while case definitions were available at 66% (40/61) of the health facilities. The priority diseases list, surveillance guidelines, case definitions and reporting tools were based on the IDSR strategy and hence lacked information on the IHR(2005). The rapid response teams at national and district levels lacked food safety, chemical and radio-nuclear experts. Similarly, there were no guidelines on the outbreak response to food, chemical and radio-nuclear hazards. Comprehensive preparedness plans incorporating IHR(2005) were lacking at national and district levels. A national laboratory policy existed and the strategic plan was being drafted. However, there were critical gaps hampering the efficient functioning of the national laboratory network. Finally, the points of entry for IHR(2005) implementation had not been designated.ConclusionsThe assessment highlighted critical gaps to guide the IHR(2005) planning process. The IHR(2005) action plan should therefore be developed to foster national and international public health security.

Ebola haemorrhagic fever outbreak in Masindi District, Uganda: outbreak description and lessons learned

BackgroundEbola haemorrhagic fever (EHF) is infamous for its high case-fatality proportion (CFP) and the ease with which it spreads among contacts of the diseased. We describe the course of the EHF outbreak in Masindi, Uganda, in the year 2000, and report on response activities.MethodsWe analysed surveillance records, hospital statistics, and our own observations during response activities. We used Fishers exact tests for differences in proportions, t-tests for differences in means, and logistic regression for multivariable analysis.ResultsThe response to the outbreak consisted of surveillance, case management, logistics and public mobilisation. Twenty-six EHF cases (24 laboratory confirmed, two probable) occurred between October 21st and December 22nd, 2000. CFP was 69% (18/26). Nosocomial transmission to the index case occurred in Lacor hospital in Gulu, outside the Ebola ward. After returning home to Masindi district the index case became the origin of a transmission chain within her own extended family (18 further cases), from index family members to health care workers (HCWs, 6 cases), and from HCWs to their household contacts (1 case). Five out of six occupational cases of EHF in HCWs occurred after the introduction of barrier nursing, probably due to breaches of barrier nursing principles. CFP was initially very high (76%) but decreased (20%) due to better case management after reinforcing the response team. The mobilisation of the community for the response efforts was challenging at the beginning, when fear, panic and mistrust had to be countered by the response team.ConclusionsLarge scale transmission in the community beyond the index family was prevented by early case identification and isolation as well as quarantine imposed by the community. The high number of occupational EHF after implementing barrier nursing points at the need to strengthen training and supervision of local HCWs. The difference in CFP before and after reinforcing the response team together with observations on the ward suggest a critical role for intensive supportive treatment. Collecting high quality clinical data is a priority for future outbreaks in order to identify the best possible FHF treatment regime under field conditions.

Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever Associated with Novel Virus Strain, Uganda, 2007-2008

Case-fatality rate is lower for this strain than for the other 3 Ebola species known to be pathogenic to humans.

Proportion of Deaths and Clinical Features in Bundibugyo Ebola Virus Infection, Uganda

The first known Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) outbreak caused by Bundibugyo Ebola virus occurred in Bundibugyo District, Uganda, in 2007. Fifty-six cases of EHF were laboratory confirmed. Although signs and symptoms were largely nonspecific and similar to those of EHF outbreaks caused by Zaire and Sudan Ebola viruses, proportion of deaths among those infected was lower (≈40%).

Outbreak of Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever Among Miners in Kamwenge and Ibanda Districts, Uganda, 2007

Marburg hemorrhagic fever was detected among 4 miners in Ibanda District, Uganda, from June through September, 2007. Infection was likely acquired through exposure to bats or bat secretions in a mine in Kamwenge District, Uganda, and possibly human-to-human transmission between some patients. We describe the epidemiologic investigation and the health education response.

Clinical Manifestations and Case Management of Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever Caused by a Newly Identified Virus Strain, Bundibugyo, Uganda, 2007–2008

A confirmed Ebola haemorrhagic fever (EHF) outbreak in Bundibugyo, Uganda, November 2007–February 2008, was caused by a putative new species (Bundibugyo ebolavirus). It included 93 putative cases, 56 laboratory-confirmed cases, and 37 deaths (CFR = 25%). Study objectives are to describe clinical manifestations and case management for 26 hospitalised laboratory-confirmed EHF patients. Clinical findings are congruous with previously reported EHF infections. The most frequently experienced symptoms were non-bloody diarrhoea (81%), severe headache (81%), and asthenia (77%). Seven patients reported or were observed with haemorrhagic symptoms, six of whom died. Ebola care remains difficult due to the resource-poor setting of outbreaks and the infection-control procedures required. However, quality data collection is essential to evaluate case definitions and therapeutic interventions, and needs improvement in future epidemics. Organizations usually involved in EHF case management have a particular responsibility in this respect.

Reemerging Sudan Ebola Virus Disease in Uganda, 2011

Two large outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever occurred in Uganda in 2000 and 2007. In May 2011, we identified a single case of Sudan Ebola virus disease in Luwero District. The establishment of a permanent in-country laboratory and cooperation between international public health entities facilitated rapid outbreak response and control activities.

Using next generation sequencing to identify yellow fever virus in Uganda

In October and November 2010, hospitals in northern Uganda reported patients with suspected hemorrhagic fevers. Initial tests for Ebola viruses, Marburg virus, Rift Valley fever virus, and Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever virus were negative. Unbiased PCR amplification of total RNA extracted directly from patient sera and next generation sequencing resulted in detection of yellow fever virus and generation of 98% of the virus genome sequence. This finding demonstrated the utility of next generation sequencing and a metagenomic approach to identify an etiological agent and direct the response to a disease outbreak.

Persistent immune responses after Ebola virus infection.

More than a decade after infection with the Gulu strain of Sudan Ebola virus, persons in Uganda were found to have persistent immune responses.