BACKGROUND: In October 2022, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) confirmed the first case of a Sudan Virus Disease (SVD) outbreak in the Kampala Metropolitan area (KMA). A multicomponent infection prevention and control (IPC) strategy was implemented to control the spread of Orthoebolavirus sudanense (SUDV) in KMA. We describe the deployment of this strategy, its effect on IPC capacities, and the successful control of the SVD outbreak in KMA during the 2022 outbreak. METHODOLOGY: The multicomponent IPC strategy included (1) IPC pillar coordination: an IPC task force convened by government and health partner representatives and designated focal persons at the district level (2) Ring IPC: intense and targeted IPC support was developed to provide support to healthcare facilities (HCFs) and communities around each confirmed case, (3) IPC in HCFs: HCFs were assessed using a modified WHO SVD IPC scorecard rapid assessment tool that measured 15 IPC capacity domains, mentorship and IPC supplies were provided to HCFs with low scores on the rapid assessment. RESULTS: A KMA task force was established, and 13 IPC Rings were activated; 790 HCFs were assessed for IPC readiness, and 2,235 healthcare workers (HCWs) were trained. The mean (± standard-deviation) IPC score was 59.2% (± 18.6%) at baseline and increased to 65.5% (± 14.7%) at follow-up after 2 weeks (p < 0.001) of support. The mean IPC scores at baseline were lowest for primary HCFs (57%) and private-for-profit HCFs (47.1%). Similar gaps were revealed across all HCFs, with eight out of 15 (53.3%) IPC capacity areas assessed, resulting in scores < 50% at baseline. At follow-up, only four out of 15 (26.7%) capacity areas (26.7%) were below this threshold. CONCLUSION: The IPC strategy enhanced the IPC capacities at HCFs and could be adopted for future outbreaks. Leadership commitment and resource allocation to IPC during non-outbreak periods are critical for preparedness, rapid response, and access to safe care.

COVID-19 vaccination was launched in March 2021 in Uganda and initially prioritized persons >50 years of age, persons with underlying conditions, healthcare workers, teachers, and security forces. However, uptake remained low 5 months after the program launch. Makerere University's Infectious Diseases Institute supported Uganda's Ministry of Health in optimizing COVID-19 vaccination uptake models by using point-of-care, place of worship, and place of work engagement and the Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment model in 47 of 135 districts in Uganda, where we trained influencers to support mobilization for vaccination outreach under each model. During July-December, vaccination rates increased significantly in targeted regions, from 92% to 130% for healthcare workers, 40% to 90% for teachers, 25% to 33% for security personnel, 6% to 15% for persons >50 years of age, and 6% to 11% for persons with underlying conditions. Our approach could be adopted in other targeted vaccination campaigns for future pandemics.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we established and sustained local production of Alcohol-Based Hand Rub (ABHR) at a district scale for healthcare facilities and community, public locations in four districts in Uganda. District officials provided space and staff for production units. The project renovated space for production, trained staff on ABHR production, and transported ABHR to key locations. The production officer conducted internal ABHR quality assessments while trained district health inspectors conducted external quality assessments prior to distribution. Information, education, and communication materials accompanied ABHR distribution. Onsite ABHR consumption was moni-tored by site staff using stock cards. On average, it took 11 days (range: 8–14) and 5,760 USD (range: 4,400–7,710) to setup a production unit. From March to December 2021, 21,600 L of quality-controlled ABHR were produced for 111 healthcare facilities and community locations at an average cost of 4.30 USD/L (range: 3.50–5.76). All ABHR passed both internal and external quality control (average ethanol concentration of 80%, range: 78–81%). This case study demonstrated that establishing centralized, local production of quality-controlled, affordable ABHR at a district-wide scale is feasible and strengthens the ability of healthcare workers and community locations to access and use ABHR during infectious disease outbreaks in low-resource countries. © 2023 The Authors.

Uganda is highly vulnerable to public health emergencies (PHEs) due to its geographic location next to the Congo Basin epidemic hot spot, placement within multiple epidemic belts, high population growth rates, and refugee influx. In view of this, Uganda's Ministry of Health established the Public Health Emergency Operations Center (PHEOC) in September 2013, as a central coordination unit for all PHEs in the country. Uganda followed the World Health Organization's framework to establish the PHEOC, including establishing a steering committee, acquiring legal authority, developing emergency response plans, and developing a concept of operations. The same framework governs the PHEOC's daily activities. Between January 2014 and December 2021, Uganda's PHEOC coordinated response to 271 PHEs, hosted 207 emergency coordination meetings, trained all core staff in public health emergency management principles, participated in 21 simulation exercises, coordinated Uganda's Global Health Security Agenda activities, established 6 subnational PHEOCs, and strengthened the capacity of 7 countries in public health emergency management. In this article, we discuss the following lessons learned: PHEOCs are key in PHE coordination and thus mitigate the associated adverse impacts; although the functions of a PHEOC may be legalized by the existence of a National Institute of Public Health, their establishment may precede formally securing the legal framework; staff may learn public health emergency management principles on the job; involvement of leaders and health partners is crucial to the success of a public health emergency management program; subnational PHEOCs are resourceful in mounting regional responses to PHEs; and service on the PHE Strategic Committee may be voluntary.

Background: Molecular diagnostics are considered the most promising route to achievement of rapid, universal drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). We aimed to generate a WHO-endorsed catalogue of mutations to serve as a global standard for interpreting molecular information for drug resistance prediction. Methods: In this systematic analysis, we used a candidate gene approach to identify mutations associated with resistance or consistent with susceptibility for 13 WHO-endorsed antituberculosis drugs. We collected existing worldwide MTBC whole-genome sequencing data and phenotypic data from academic groups and consortia, reference laboratories, public health organisations, and published literature. We categorised phenotypes as follows: methods and critical concentrations currently endorsed by WHO (category 1); critical concentrations previously endorsed by WHO for those methods (category 2); methods or critical concentrations not currently endorsed by WHO (category 3). For each mutation, we used a contingency table of binary phenotypes and presence or absence of the mutation to compute positive predictive value, and we used Fisher's exact tests to generate odds ratios and Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p values. Mutations were graded as associated with resistance if present in at least five isolates, if the odds ratio was more than 1 with a statistically significant corrected p value, and if the lower bound of the 95% CI on the positive predictive value for phenotypic resistance was greater than 25%. A series of expert rules were applied for final confidence grading of each mutation. Findings: We analysed 41 137 MTBC isolates with phenotypic and whole-genome sequencing data from 45 countries. 38 215 MTBC isolates passed quality control steps and were included in the final analysis. 15 667 associations were computed for 13 211 unique mutations linked to one or more drugs. 1149 (73%) of 15 667 mutations were classified as associated with phenotypic resistance and 107 (07%) were deemed consistent with susceptibility. For rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, fluoroquinolones, and streptomycin, the mutations' pooled sensitivity was more than 80%. Specificity was over 95% for all drugs except ethionamide (914%), moxifloxacin (916%) and ethambutol (933%). Only two resistance mutations were identified for bedaquiline, delamanid, clofazimine, and linezolid as prevalence of phenotypic resistance was low for these drugs. Interpretation: We present the first WHO-endorsed catalogue of molecular targets for MTBC drug susceptibility testing, which is intended to provide a global standard for resistance interpretation. The existence of this catalogue should encourage the implementation of molecular diagnostics by national tuberculosis programmes. Funding: Unitaid, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Uganda's proximity to the tenth Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) presents a high risk of cross-border EVD transmission. Uganda conducted preparedness and risk-mapping activities to strengthen capacity to prevent EVD importation and spread from cross-border transmission. We adapted the World Health Organization (WHO) EVD Consolidated Preparedness Checklist to assess preparedness in 11 International Health Regulations domains at the district level, health facilities, and points of entry; the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Border Health Capacity Discussion Guide to describe public health capacity; and the CDC Population Connectivity Across Borders tool kit to characterize movement and connectivity patterns. We identified 40 ground crossings (13 official, 27 unofficial), 80 health facilities, and more than 500 locations in 12 high-risk districts along the DRC border with increased connectivity to the EVD epicenter. The team also identified routes and congregation hubs, including origins and destinations for cross-border travelers to specified locations. Ten of the 12 districts scored less than 50% on the preparedness assessment. Using these results, Uganda developed a national EVD preparedness and response plan, including tailored interventions to enhance EVD surveillance, laboratory capacity, healthcare professional capacity, provision of supplies to priority locations, building treatment units in strategic locations, and enhancing EVD risk communication. We identified priority interventions to address risk of EVD importation and spread into Uganda. Lessons learned from this process will inform strategies to strengthen public health emergency systems in their response to public health events in similar settings.

BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the 10th Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in DRC on 1st Aug 2018, several neighboring countries have been developing and implementing preparedness efforts to prevent EVD cross-border transmission to enable timely detection, investigation, and response in the event of a confirmed EVD outbreak in the country. We describe Uganda's experience in EVD preparedness. RESULTS: On 4 August 2018, the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) and the National Task Force (NTF) for public health emergencies to plan, guide, and coordinate EVD preparedness in the country. The NTF selected an Incident Management Team (IMT), constituting a National Rapid Response Team (NRRT) that supported activation of the District Task Forces (DTFs) and District Rapid Response Teams (DRRTs) that jointly assessed levels of preparedness in 30 designated high-risk districts representing category 1 (20 districts) and category 2 (10 districts). The MoH, with technical guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), led EVD preparedness activities and worked together with other ministries and partner organisations to enhance community-based surveillance systems, develop and disseminate risk communication messages, engage communities, reinforce EVD screening and infection prevention measures at Points of Entry (PoEs) and in high-risk health facilities, construct and equip EVD isolation and treatment units, and establish coordination and procurement mechanisms. CONCLUSION: As of 31 May 2019, there was no confirmed case of EVD as Uganda has continued to make significant and verifiable progress in EVD preparedness. There is a need to sustain these efforts, not only in EVD preparedness but also across the entire spectrum of a multi-hazard framework. These efforts strengthen country capacity and compel the country to avail resources for preparedness and management of incidents at the source while effectively cutting costs of using a "fire-fighting" approach during public health emergencies.

Background: Uganda is an ecological hot-spot with infectious disease transmission belts which exacerbates its vulnerability to epidemics. Its proximity to the Congo Basin, climate change pressure on eco-systems, increased international travel and globalization, and influx of refugees due to porous borders, has compounded the problem. Public Health Events are a major challenge in the region with significant impact on Global Health Security. Objective: The country developed a multi-hazard plan with the purpose of harmonizing processes and guiding stakeholders on strengthening emergency preparedness and response. Method: Comprehensive risk profiling, identification of preparedness gaps and capacities were developed using a preparedness logic model, which is a step by step process. A multidisciplinary team was constituted; the Strategic Tool for Analysis of Risks was used for risk profiling and identification of hazards; a desk review of relevant documents informed the process and finally, approval was sought from the National Task Force for public health emergencies. Results: Target users and key public health preparedness and response functions of the multi-hazard plan were identified. The key capabilities identified were: coordination; epidemiology and surveillance; laboratory; risk communication and social mobilization. In each of these capabilities, key players were identified. Risk profiling classified road traffic accident, cholera, malaria and typhoid as very high risk. Meningitis, VHF, drought, industrial accidents, terrorism, floods and landslides were high risk. Hepatitis E, avian influenza and measles were low risk and the only plague fell into the category of very low risk. Risk profiling using STAR yielded good results. All risk categories required additional preparedness activities, and very high and high-risk categories required improved operational response capacity and risk mitigation measures. Conclusion: Uganda successfully developed a national multi-hazard emergency preparedness and response plan using the preparedness logic model. The plan is now ready for implementation by the Uganda MoH and partners.

Uganda is currently implementing the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), aiming at accelerating compliance to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005). To assess progress toward compliance, a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO). Based on this evaluation, we present the process and lessons learned. Uganda's methodological approach to the JEE followed the WHO recommendations, including conducting a whole-of-government in-country self-assessment prior to the final assessment, using the same tool at both assessments, and generating consensus scores during the final assessment. The in-country self-assessment process began on March 24, 2017, with a multisectoral representation of 203 subject matter experts from 81 institutions. The final assessment was conducted between June 26 and 30, 2017, by 15 external evaluators. Discrepancies between the in-country and final scores occurred in 27 of 50 indicators. Prioritized gaps from the JEE formed the basis of the National Action Plan for Health Security. We learned 4 major lessons from this process: subject matter experts should be adequately oriented on the scoring requirements of the JEE tool; whole-of-government representation should be ensured during the entire JEE process; equitable multisectoral implementation of IHR activities must be ensured; and over-reliance on external support is a threat to sustainability of GHSA gains.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug resistant and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis (TB) have become major threats to control of tuberculosis globally. The rates of anti-TB drug resistance in Uganda are not known. We conducted a national drug resistance survey to investigate the levels and patterns of resistance to first and second line anti-TB drugs among new and previously treated sputum smear-positive TB cases. METHODS: Sputum samples were collected from a nationally representative sample of new and previously treated sputum smear-positive TB patients registered at TB diagnostic centers during December 2009 to February 2011 using a weighted cluster sampling method. Culture and drug susceptibility testing was performed at the national TB reference laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 1537 patients (1397 new and 140 previously treated) were enrolled in the survey from 44 health facilities. HIV test result and complete drug susceptibility testing (DST) results were available for 1524 (96.8%) and 1325 (85.9%) patients, respectively. Of the 1209 isolates from new cases, resistance to any anti-TB drug was 10.3%, 5% were resistant to isoniazid, 1.9% to rifampicin, and 1.4% were multi drug resistant. Among the 116 isolates from previously treated cases, the prevalence of resistance was 25.9%, 23.3%, 12.1% and 12.1% respectively. Of the 1524 patients who had HIV testing 469 (30.7%) tested positive. There was no association between anti-TB drug resistance (including MDR) and HIV infection. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anti-TB drug resistance among new patients in Uganda is low relative to WHO estimates. The higher levels of MDR-TB (12.1%) and resistance to any drug (25.3%) among previously treated patients raises concerns about the quality of directly observed therapy (DOT) and adherence to treatment. This calls for strengthening existing TB control measures, especially DOT, routine DST among the previously treated TB patients or periodic drug resistance surveys, to prevent and monitor development and transmission of drug resistant TB.