BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recommends outpatient influenza-like illness (ILI) and inpatient severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) surveillance. We evaluated two influenza surveillance systems in South Africa: one for ILI and another for SARI.MethodologyThe Viral Watch (VW) programme has collected virological influenza surveillance data voluntarily from patients with ILI since 1984 in private and public clinics in all 9 South African provinces. The SARI surveillance programme has collected epidemiological and virological influenza surveillance data since 2009 in public hospitals in 4 provinces by dedicated personnel. We compared nine surveillance system attributes from 2009–2012.ResultsWe analysed data from 18,293 SARI patients and 9,104 ILI patients. The annual proportion of samples testing positive for influenza was higher for VW (mean 41%) than SARI (mean 8%) and generally exceeded the seasonal threshold from May to September (VW: weeks 21–40; SARI: weeks 23–39). Data quality was a major strength of SARI (most data completion measures >90%; adherence to definitions: 88–89%) and a relative weakness of the VW programme (62% of forms complete, with limited epidemiologic data collected; adherence to definitions: 65–82%). Timeliness was a relative strength of both systems (e.g. both collected >93% of all respiratory specimens within 7 days of symptom onset). ILI surveillance was more nationally representative, financially sustainable and expandable than the SARI system. Though the SARI programme is not nationally representative, the high quality and detail of SARI data collection sheds light on the local burden and epidemiology of severe influenza-associated disease.ConclusionsTo best monitor influenza in South Africa, we propose that both ILI and SARI should be under surveillance. Improving ILI surveillance will require better quality and more systematic data collection, and SARI surveillance should be expanded to be more nationally representative, even if this requires scaling back on information gathered.

Although third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) is available in South Africa's public sector, its cost is substantially higher than first and second line. Identifying risk factors for failure on second-line treatment remains crucial to reduce the need for third-line drugs. We conducted a case–control study including 194 adult patients (≥18 years; 70 cases and 124 controls) who initiated second-line ART in Johannesburg, South Africa. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess predictors of virologic failure (defined as 2 consecutive viral load measures ≥1000 copies/mL, ≥3 months after switching to second line). Variables included a social instability index, ART adherence, self-reported as well as diagnosed adverse drug reactions (ADRs), HIV disclosure, depression, and factors affecting access to HIV clinics. Overall 60.0% of cases and 54.0% of controls were female. Mean ages of cases and controls were 41.8 ± 9.6 and 43.3 ± 8.0, respectively. Virologic failure was predicted by ART adherence <90% [odds ratio (OR) 4.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 2.1–10.5], younger age (<40 years of age; OR 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3–1.1), high social instability (OR 3.8; 95% CI: 1.30–11.5), self-reported ADR (OR 1.9; 95% CI: 1.0–3.5), disclosure to friends/colleagues rather than partner/relatives (OR 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3–9.1), and medium/high depression compared to low/no depression (OR 4.4; 95% CI: 1.5–13.4). Our results suggest complex socioeconomic factors contributing to risk of virologic failure, possibly by impacting ART adherence, among patients on second-line therapy in South Africa. Identifying patients with possible indicators of nonadherence could facilitate targeted interventions to reduce the risk of second-line treatment failure and mitigate the demand for third-line regimens.

Background.Despite the large number of tuberculosis (TB) patients treated in South Africa (SA), there are few descriptions in the published literature of drug-susceptible TB patient characteristics, mode of diagnosis or treatment outcomes in routine public sector treatment programmes. Objective. To enhance the evidence base for public sector TB treatment service delivery, we reported the characteristics of and outcomes for a retrospective cohort of adult TB patients at public sector clinics in the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (JHB), SA. Methods. We collected medical record data for a retrospective cohort of adult (≥18 years) TB patients registered between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012 at three public sector clinics in JHB. Data were abstracted from National TB Programme clinic cards and the TB case registers routinely maintained at study sites. We report patient characteristics, mode of diagnosis, mode of treatment supervision, treatment characteristics, HIV status and treatment outcomes for this cohort. Results. A total of 544 patients were enrolled in the cohort. Most (86%) were new TB cases, 81% had pulmonary TB, 58% were smearpositive at treatment initiation and 71% were HIV co-infected. Among 495 patients with treatment outcomes reported, 80% (n=394) had successful outcomes, 11% (n=55) were lost to follow-up, 8% (n=40) died and 1% (n=6) failed treatment. Conclusions. Primary healthcare clinics in JHB are achieving relatively high rates of success in treating drug-susceptible TB. Missing laboratory results were common, including follow-up smears, cultures and drug susceptibility tests, making it difficult to assess adherence to guidelines and leaving scope for substantial improvements in record-keeping at the clinics involved.

Background To ensure patients continue to get early access to antibiotics at admission, while also safely reducing antibiotic use in hospitals, one needs to target the continued need for antibiotics as more diagnostic information becomes available. UK Department of Health guidance promotes an initiative called ‘Start Smart then Focus’: early effective antibiotics followed by active ‘review and revision’ 24–72 h later. However in 2017, < 10% of antibiotic prescriptions were discontinued at review, despite studies suggesting that 20–30% of prescriptions could be stopped safely. Methods/design Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital) is a complex ‘review and revise’ behavioural intervention targeting healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine (the largest consumers of non-prophylactic antibiotics in hospitals). The primary study objective is to evaluate whether ARK-Hospital can safely reduce the total antibiotic burden in acute/general medical inpatients by at least 15%. The primary hypotheses are therefore that the introduction of the behavioural intervention will be non-inferior in terms of 30-day mortality post-admission (relative margin 5%) for an acute/general medical inpatient, and superior in terms of defined daily doses of antibiotics per acute/general medical admission (co-primary outcomes). The unit of observation is a hospital organisation, a single hospital or group of hospitals organised with one executive board and governance framework (National Health Service trusts in England; health boards in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). The study comprises a feasibility study in one organisation (phase I), an internal pilot trial in three organisations (phase II) and a cluster (organisation)-randomised stepped-wedge trial (phase III) targeting a minimum of 36 organisations in total. Randomisation will occur over 18 months from November 2017 with a further 12 months follow-up to assess sustainability. The behavioural intervention will be delivered to healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine. Outcomes will be assessed in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine, collected through routine electronic health records in all patients. Discussion ARK-Hospital aims to provide a feasible, sustainable and generalisable mechanism for increasing antibiotic stopping in patients who no longer need to receive them at ‘review and revise’. Trial registration ISRCTN Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN12674243 . Registered on 10 April 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3497-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.