Browsing by Author "Bulafu, Douglas"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Drivers of the Second Wave and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in Uganda: A Retrospective Study of Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases
    (ResearchSquare, 2022) Walekhwa, Abel Wilson; Nakazibwe, Brenda; Nantongo, Mary; Wafula, Solomon Tsebeni; Bulafu, Douglas; Nsereko, Godfrey
    The COVID-19 continued to pose several public health, social, economic challenges and the drivers for the occurrence of different COVID-19 waves remains undocumented in Uganda. We conducted a crosssectional population-based survey among recovered COVID-19 cases to establish the drivers of SAR-CoV2 infections. We performed a retrospective study and interviewed 1120 recovered COVID-19 cases from 10 selected districts in Uganda. We further conducted 38 Key Informant Interviews of members of the COVID-19 District Taskforce and 19 in-depth interviews among COVID-19 survivors from March to June, 2021.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of three protocols for direct susceptibility testing for gram negative-Enterobacteriaceae from patient samples in Uganda...
    (Nature Publishing Group, 2024-02-01) Aruhomukama, Dickson; Magiidu, Walusimbi Talemwa; Katende, George; Ebwongu, Robert Innocent; Bulafu, Douglas; Kasolo, Rajab; Nakabuye, Hellen; Musoke, David; Asiimwe, Benon
    In Uganda, the challenge of generating and timely reporting essential antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data has led to overreliance on empirical antibiotic therapy, exacerbating the AMR crisis. To address this issue, this study aimed to adapt a one-step AMR testing protocol alongside an SMS (Short Message Service) result relay system (SRRS), with the potential to reduce the turnaround time for AMR testing and result communication from 4 days or more to 1 day in Ugandan clinical microbiology laboratories. Out of the 377 samples examined, 54 isolates were obtained. Notably, E. coli (61%) and K. pneumoniae (33%) were the most frequently identified, majority testing positive for ESBL. Evaluation of three AMR testing protocols revealed varying sensitivity and specificity, with Protocol A (ChromID ESBL-based) demonstrating high sensitivity (100%) but no calculable specificity, Protocol B (ceftazidime-based) showing high sensitivity (100%) and relatively low specificity (7.1%), and Protocol C (cefotaxime-based) exhibiting high sensitivity (97.8%) but no calculable specificity. ESBL positivity strongly correlated with resistance to specific antibiotics, including cefotaxime, ampicillin, and aztreonam (100%), cefuroxime (96%), ceftriaxone (93%), and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole (87%). The potential of integrating an SRRS underscored the crucial role this could have in enabling efficient healthcare communication in AMR management. This study underscores the substantial potential of the tested protocols for accurately detecting ESBL production in clinical samples, potentially, providing a critical foundation for predicting and reporting AMR patterns. Although considerations related to specificity warrant careful assessment before widespread clinical adoption.