BackgroundMeasurement of blood pressure (BP) is done poorly because of both human and machine errors.AimTo assess the difference between BP recorded in a pragmatic way and that recorded using standard guidelines; to assess differences between wrist- and mercury sphygmomanometer-based readings; and to assess the impact on clinical decision-making.SettingRoyal Swaziland Sugar Corporation Mhlume hospital, Swaziland.MethodAfter obtaining consent, BP was measured in a pragmatic way by a nurse practitioner who made treatment decisions. Thereafter, patients had their BP re-assessed using standard guidelines by mercury (gold standard) and wrist sphygmomanometer.ResultsThe prevalence of hypertension was 25%. The mean systolic BP was 143 mmHg (pragmatic) and 133 mmHg (standard) using a mercury sphygmomanometer; and 140 mmHg for standard BP assessed using wrist device. The mean diastolic BP was 90 mmHg, 87 mmHg and 91 mmHg for pragmatic, standard mercury and wrist, respectively. Bland Altman analyses showed that pragmatic and standard BP measurements were different and could not be interchanged clinically. Treatment decisions between those based on pragmatic BP and standard BP agreed in 83.3% of cases, whilst 16.7% of participants had their treatment outcomes misclassified. A total of 19.5% of patients were started erroneously on anti-hypertensive therapy based on pragmatic BP.ConclusionClinicians need to revert to basic good clinical practice and measure BP more accurately in order to avoid unnecessary additional costs and morbidity associated with incorrect treatment resulting from disease misclassification. Contrary to existing research, wrist devices need to be used with caution.

Background. Analytical variability in CD4 enumeration is well known, but few studies from southern Africa have quantified the inter- and intra-laboratory variability in CD4 count measurements. In addition, the possible impact of time lapse after sample collection on CD4 reliability is not well understood. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation Hospital and three laboratories, Lab A (comparator), Lab B (national reference) and Lab C (rural hospital). Blood from HIV-infected individuals was collected using routine venepuncture into separate specimens for each of the three laboratories. The samples were further subdivided at each laboratory: one was run at 12 hours and the second at 24 hours after venepuncture. The results of absolute CD4 count and CD4 percentage testing were compared within (intra-laboratory) and between (inter-laboratory) laboratories. Results. Among 53 participants, the mean CD4 count at 12 hours was 373 cells/μl, 396 cells/μl and 439 cells/μl, and at 24 hours 359 cells/μl, 389 cells/ μl and 431 cells/μl, for laboratories A, B and C, respectively. The coefficient of intra-laboratory variation was 4%, 8% and 20% for CD4 count for laboratories A, B and C, respectively. Comparing 12- and 24-hour measurements, the mean difference (bias) within the laboratories between the two time points (and limits of agreement, LOAs) was 14 (-46 to 73), 8 (-161 to 177) and 7 (20 to 33) cells/μl for labs A, B and C, respectively. Comparing Lab A versus Lab B, lab A versus Lab C and Lab B versus Lab C, the inter-laboratory bias for the CD4 count at 12 hours was -32, -64 and -38 cells/μl, respectively. The corresponding LOAs were -213 to 150, -183 to 55, and -300 to 224, respectively. At 24 hours, the biases and LOAs were similar to those at 12 hours. Conclusions. CD4 counts appeared reliable at all three laboratories. Lab B and Lab C were clinically interchangeable with the comparator laboratory, Lab A, but not between themselves. Time to measurement does not affect the interlaboratory agreement within 12 and 24 hours. S Afr J HIV Med 2012;13(2):59-63.

Background: Dog bites may lead to transmission of bacteria and viruses over and above tetanus and rabies. Theoretically human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C may be transmitted after dog bites where transfer of blood from one victim to another occur in clinical practice HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C are not considered when making treatment decisions, nor adequate patient history taken to consider all potential risks after dog bites in succession.Objective: To present case of suspected HIV transmission after dog bites in close succession involving two HIV sero-discordant victims.Management and outcome: HIV rapid test and/or HIV Ribonucleic acid (RNA) polymerasechain reaction (PCR) results for the victim(s) at presentation and a month later.Results: Two night patrol guards presented to casualty after dog bites in close succession by the same dog. They were managed according to the dog bite protocol. Thinking out of the box, the first victim was found to be HIV positive by rapid test whilst the second victim was negative based on both HIV rapid test and HIV RNA PCR. One month after the dogbites, a case of HIV sero-conversion was confirmed in the second victim despite post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).Discussion: Although an isolated case, shouldn’t clinicians re-think the significance of HIV transmission after animal bites where there is repeated blood exposure in several people insuccession?Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of the potential of HIV, Hepatitis B and C transmission, when faced with dog bites in succession.