Search

Summary: Background: Clinical severity scores can identify patients at risk of severe disease and death, and improve patient management. The modified early warning score (MEWS), the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and the Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) were developed as risk-stratification tools, but they have not been fully validated in low-resource settings where fever and infectious diseases are frequent reasons for health care seeking. We assessed the performance of MEWS, qSOFA, and UVA in predicting mortality among febrile patients in the Lao PDR, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. Methods: We prospectively enrolled in- and outpatients aged ≥ 15 years who presented with fever (≥37.5 °C) from June 2018–March 2021. We collected clinical data to calculate each severity score. The primary outcome was mortality 28 days after enrolment. The predictive performance of each score was determined using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Findings: A total of 2797 participants were included in this analysis. The median (IQR) age was 32 (24–43) years, 38% were inpatients, and 60% (1684/2797) were female. By the time of follow-up, 7% (185/2797) had died. The AUC (95% CI) for MEWS, qSOFA and UVA were 0.67 (0.63–0.71), 0.68 (0.64–0.72), and 0.82 (0.79–0.85), respectively. The AUC comparison found UVA outperformed both MEWS (p

Background: Bloodstream infections caused by Enterobacterales show high frequency of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in many Low- and Middle-Income Countries. We aimed to describe the variation in circumstances for management of such resistant infections in a group of African public-sector hospitals participating in a major research study. Methods: We gathered data from eight hospitals across sub-Saharan Africa to describe hospital services, infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship activities, using two WHO-generated tools. We collected monthly cross-sectional data on availability of antibiotics in the hospital pharmacies for bloodstream infections caused by Enterobacterales. We compared the availability of these antibiotics to actual patient-level use of antibiotics in confirmed Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (BSI). Results: Hospital circumstances for institutional management of resistant BSI varied markedly. This included self-evaluated infection prevention level (WHO-IPCAF score: median 428, range 155 to 687.5) and antibiotic stewardship activities (WHO stewardship toolkit questions: median 14.5, range 2 to 23). These results did not correlate with national income levels. Across all sites, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin were the most consistently available antibiotic agents, followed by amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, gentamicin and co-trimoxazole. There was substantial variation in the availability of some antibiotics, especially carbapenems, amikacin and piperacillin-tazobactam with degree of access linked to national income level. Investigators described out-of-pocket payments for access to additional antibiotics at 7/8 sites. The in-pharmacy availability of antibiotics correlated well with actual use of antibiotics for treating BSI patients. Conclusions: There was wide variation between these African hospitals for a range of important circumstances relating to treatment and control of severe bacterial infections, though these did not all correspond to national income level. For most antibiotics, patient-level use reflected in-hospital drug availability, suggesting external antibiotics supply was infrequent. Antimicrobial resistant bacterial infections could plausibly show different clinical impacts across sub-Saharan Africa due to this contextual variation.

Introduction Fever commonly leads to healthcare seeking and hospital admission in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. There is only limited guidance for clinicians managing non-malarial fevers, which often results in inappropriate treatment for patients. Furthermore, there is little evidence for estimates of disease burden, or to guide empirical therapy, control measures, resource allocation, prioritisation of clinical diagnostics or antimicrobial stewardship. The Febrile Illness Evaluation in a Broad Range of Endemicities (FIEBRE) study seeks to address these information gaps.Methods and analysis FIEBRE investigates febrile illness in paediatric and adult outpatients and inpatients using standardised clinical, laboratory and social science protocols over a minimum 12-month period at five sites in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeastern and Southern Asia. Patients presenting with fever are enrolled and provide clinical data, pharyngeal swabs and a venous blood sample; selected participants also provide a urine sample. Laboratory assessments target infections that are treatable and/or preventable. Selected point-of-care tests, as well as blood and urine cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, are performed on site. On day 28, patients provide a second venous blood sample for serology and information on clinical outcome. Further diagnostic assays are performed at international reference laboratories. Blood and pharyngeal samples from matched community controls enable calculation of AFs, and surveys of treatment seeking allow estimation of the incidence of common infections. Additional assays detect markers that may differentiate bacterial from non-bacterial causes of illness and/or prognosticate illness severity. Social science research on antimicrobial use will inform future recommendations for fever case management. Residual samples from participants are stored for future use.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from all relevant institutional and national committees; written informed consent is obtained from all participants or parents/guardians. Final results will be shared with participating communities, and in open-access journals and other scientific fora. Study documents are available online (https://doi.org/10.17037/PUBS.04652739).