BackgroundThe management of patients with chronic hepatitis B infection is quite complex because it requires an in-depth knowledge of the natural history of the disease. This study was aimed at characterizing HBV infected patients in order to determine the phase of the infection and identify the proportion eligible for treatment using 3 different guidelines.MethodsHBV chronically infected patients (negative for HIV and HCV) were enrolled and the following tests were done for them: ALT, AST, HBV viral load, HBV serologic panel and Full blood count. APRI score was calculated for all patients. These patients were classified into immunotolerant, immune clearance, immune control and immune escape phases of the infection. The WHO and the 2018 AASLD criteria was also used to identify those who need treatment. Patients were clinically examined for signs and symptoms. Questionnaire was administered to all participants to ascertain their treatment status. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 21.ResultsA total of 283 participants (101 females and 182 males) with a mean age of 31.3±8.5 were enrolled. Fifty-two (18.4%) were eligible for treatment (Immune clearance and immune escape phases) and they recorded a significantly higher mean APRI score (0.71±0.51) as compared to those in the immune control and immune tolerant phase (0.43±0.20). Based on WHO and AASLD criteria, 12(4.2%) and 15 (5.3%) were eligible for treatment respectively and these were all subsets of the 52 cases mentioned above. Six (2.1%) and 29 (10.2%) of those identified under the immune control phase were on tenofovir and traditional medication respectively.ConclusionConsidering treatment for patients in the immune clearance and immune escape phases of the infection can be a reliable strategy to implement in our setting as this may probably tie with considerations from other treatment guidelines. Fifty-two (18.4%) patients were eligible for treatment and none of them were among the 2.1% of patients put on Tenofovir based treatment. This calls for the need for more trained health experts to periodically assess patients, implement an adequate treatment guideline and place the right patients on treatment in Cameroon.

Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an under-recognized disorder, which is associated with a high risk for mortality, development of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective We sought to describe and compare the causes and outcomes of AKI amongst adult patients in Douala general hospital (DGH) and Buea regional hospital (BRH). Methods A hospital-based retrospective cohort analytic study was carried from February to April 2021. Convenience sampling was used. We included Patient’s files admitted from January 2016 to December 2020 aged > 18 years, with AKI diagnosed by a nephrologist and recorded values of serum creatinine (sCr) on admission and discharge. Data were analysed using SPSSv26. Chi-square, fisher, median mood’s and regression logistic test were used, values were considered significant at p < 0.05. Results Of the 349 files included 217 was from DGH and 132 from BRH. Community acquired AKI were more present in BRH 87.12% (n = 115) than DGH 84.79% (n = 184) (p = 0.001). Stage III AKI was the most common presentation in both hospital. Pre-renal AKI was more common (p = 0.013) in DGH (65.44%, n = 142) than BRH (46.97%, n = 62). Sepsis and volume depletion were more prevalent in urban area with (64.51 and 30.41% vs. 46.21 and 25.75%) while severe malaria was more present in Semi-urban area (8.33% vs. 1.84%, p = 0.011). Complete and partial renal recovery was 64.97% (n = 141) in DGH and 69.69% (n = 92) in BRH (p = 0.061). More patients had dialysis in BRH 73.07% (n = 57) than in DGH 23.33% (n = 21). More patient died in DGH 33.18% (n = 72) died than in BRH 19.70% (n = 26) (p = 0.007). Stage III was significantly associated with non-renal recovery in both DGH (p = 0.036) and BRH (p = 0.009) while acute tubular necrosis was associated with non-renal outcome in DGH (p = 0.037). Conclusions AKI was mainly due to sepsis, volume depletion and nephrotoxicity. Complete and partial recovery of kidney function were high in both settings. Patient outcome was poorer in DGH.

Background: HBV infection affects millions of people globally and this can be partly attributed to its high degree of transmissibility. This study was aimed at identifying some prevailing epidemiological factors associated with HBV infection and uptake of HBV testing in South West region of Cameroon.Methods: This was a hospital-based case-control study which enrolled HBV infected participants and “healthy” controls ≥18 years old. Venous blood collected from participants was used to conduct HBV panel test. Data on demographic and behavioral risk factors as well as reasons for doing the HBV test for the first time were collected using a questionnaire. Results: A total of 424 participants were enrolled (212 “healthy” controls and 212 HBV infected cases). Male sex (odds ratio [OR]=2.08, p=0.010) , ≤ secondary education level (OR=4.83, p<0.001), low income level (OR=3.79, p<0.001), rural settlement (OR=2.17, p=0.031), history of sexually transmitted infections (STI) (OR=4.24, p<0.001) and ignorance of sex partners HBsAg status (OR=2.70, p=0.003) all had an independent and significant association with HBV infection. Top 3 reasons for doing HBsAg test were free screening (40.3%), Blood donation (15.0%) and administrative requirements (14.9%). Seven (1.7%) participants got tested for the first time after symptoms were identified by a doctor.Conclusion: Male sex, low income level, ≤ secondary education level, rural settlement, history of STI and ignorance of sex partners HBsAg status were significantly associated with HBV infection. Free screening, blood donation and administrative requirements were the most common reasons for doing HBsAg test. Uptake of HBsAg testing and early detection can be improved if more sensitization and free/opportunistic screenings are carried out. A significant drop in the cost of the test could encourage more people to get tested as well.

Background: Despite the enormous strides in haemodialysis technology and patient care in high-income countries, patients still experience a lot of symptoms which impair their quality of life (QoL). Data on symptom burden is lacking in low-income countries where the haemodialysis population is younger and access to care is limited. Objectives: To assess the symptom burden in patients on maintenance haemodialysis, its associated factors, patients’ attitude, and practice. Materials and Methods: All consenting patients on maintenance haemodialysis for at least 3 months in 2 referral hospitals in Yaoundé, Cameroon, were screened for symptoms. We excluded patients with dementia or those with acute illness. We used the Dialysis symptom index (DSI) and the modified Subjective Global Assessment tool to assess symptom burden and nutritional status, respectively. We analysed the data using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 26.0. A dialysis symptom index above the 75th percentile was considered a higher symptom burden. Results: we enrolled 181 participants (64.1% males) with a mean ±SD age of 46.46±14.19years. The median (IQR) dialysis vintage was 37[12-67.5] months and 37% (n=67) were on recombinant erythropoietin. All patients experienced at least a symptom with a median (IQR) of 12[8.0 – 16.0] symptoms per patient. Feeling tired/lack of energy (79%, n=143), decreased interest in sex (73.5%, n=133), dry skin (70.2%, n=127), difficulty becoming sexually aroused (62.4%, n=113), worrying (60.2%, n=109), bone/joint pain (56.4%, n=102), feeling nervous (50.8%, n=92), muscle cramps (50.8%, n=92) and dry mouth (50.3%, n=91) were the most frequent symptoms. The median (IQR) DSI severity score was 41[22.5-58.5] with 24.9% (n=45) having a higher symptom burden. Diabetes mellitus (AOR 5.50; CI 4.66-18.28, p=0.005), malnutrition (AOR 17.68; CI 3.02-103.59, p=0.001), poorly controlled diastolic blood pressure (AOR 4.19; CI 1.20-14.62, p=0.025) and less than 2 weekly sessions of dialysis (AOR 9.05, CI 2.83-28.91, p=<0.001) were independently associated with a higher symptom burden. Out of every 10 patients, 3 did not report their symptoms to the physicians with cost concern as the most reason (70.4%, n=38). Conclusion: In this young population where access to dialysis is limited, the symptom burden is high (100%). Active screening and management of enabling factors may reduce symptom burden and cost concern is the frequent reason symptoms are not reported to physicians.

No abstract