 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract

In January 2020, the coronavirus disease was declared, by the World Health Organization as a global public health emergency. Recommendations from the WHO COVID Emergency Committee continue to support strengthening COVID surveillance systems, including timely access to effective diagnostics. Questions were raised about the validity of considering the RT-PCR as the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnosis. It has been suggested that a variety of methods should be used to evaluate advocated tests. Dogs had been successfully trained and employed to detect diseases in humans. Here we show that upon training explosives detection dogs on sniffing COVID-19 odor in patients’ sweat, those dogs were able to successfully screen out 3249 individuals who tested negative for the SARS-CoV-2, from a cohort of 3290 individuals. Additionally, using Bayesian analysis, the sensitivity of the K9 test was found to be superior to the RT-PCR test performed on nasal swabs from a cohort of 3134 persons. Given its high sensitivity, short turn-around-time, low cost, less invasiveness, and ease of application, the detection dogs test lends itself as a better alternative to the RT-PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals.

Background: Three-quarters of all annual neonatal deaths in developing countries are attributable to neonatal sepsis. In primary care settings, poor cord hygiene due to improper handling of the infant’s cord is a major contributor to the occurrence of neonatal sepsis. The objective of this study was to describe the umbilical cord practices among mothers attending a primary care facility, assess the relationship between umbilical cord hygiene and neonatal sepsis, its impact on the population, as well as the influence of other neonatal and maternal factors on this relationship. Methods: A case-control study was conducted to assess the umbilical cord hygiene-neonatal sepsis relationship among neonates attending a primary care facility between August and October 2018. All cases were selected, while controls were systematically random sampled, as per study eligibility criteria. Exposure variables were summarized using descriptive statistics. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate the association between umbilical cord hygiene and neonatal sepsis adjusting for the effect of potential confounders. Subsequently, a population attributable fraction (PAF) was estimated. Results: The proportion of mothers with improper hygiene was 35.3%: 72.1% among the cases and 16.3% among the controls’ caregivers. The odds of neonatal sepsis were 13 times higher (OR=13.24; 95% CI: [7.5; 23.4]) among infants whose caregivers had improper hygiene compared to those who had proper hygiene. None of the neonatal and maternal covariates confounded the umbilical cord hygiene-neonatal sepsis association. This odds ratio gave a PAF of 66.7% (95% CI: 62.5; 69.0). Conclusions: Improper cord hygiene is prevalent in this low resource setting. Improper cord hygiene has a strong positive association with neonatal sepsis. Observing good cord care practices could avert up to 67% of newborn infections. This calls for inclusion of comprehensive cord care practices in the antenatal care educational package.

No abstract