Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Budd-Chiari syndrome: long-term effect on outcome with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcome of Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) is not well studied. To address this, the records of 47 consecutive patients with BCS evaluated in one center from January 1989 to April 2004, were analyzed

Prevalence and Antibiogram Pattern of <i>Klebsiella pneumoniae</i> in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Makkah, Saudi Arabia: An 11-Year Experience

Infectious disease is one of the greatest causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, the situation is worsening. In order to prevent this crisis, antimicrobial resistance needs to be monitored carefully to control the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence of infection caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae and investigate the antimicrobial profile pattern of K. pneumoniae in the last eleven years. This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected from January 2011 to December 2021. From 2011 to 2021, a total of 61,027 bacterial isolates were collected from clinical samples, among which 14.7% (n = 9014) were K. pneumoniae. The antibiotic susceptibility pattern of K. pneumoniae revealed a significant increase in the resistance rate in most tested antibiotics during the study period. A marked jump in the resistance rate was seen in amoxicillin/clavulanate and piperacillin/tazobactam, from 33.6% and 13.6% in 2011 to 71.4% and 84.9% in 2021, respectively. Ceftazidime, cefotaxime, and cefepime resistance rates increased from 29.9%, 26.2%, and 53.9%, respectively, in 2011 to become 84.9%, 85.1%, and 85.8% in 2021. Moreover, a significant increase in the resistance rate was seen in both imipenem and amikacin, with an average resistance rate rise from 6.6% for imipenem and 11.9% for amikacin in 2011 to 59.9% and 62.2% in 2021, respectively. The present study showed that the prevalence and drug resistance of K. pneumoniae increased over the study period. Thus, preventing hospital-acquired infection and the reasonable use of antibiotics must be implemented to control and reduce antimicrobial resistance

Comparative Assessment of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Seven Surface Disinfectants against Eight Bacterial Strains in Saudi Arabia: An In Vitro Study

Environmental conditions in hospitals facilitate the growth and spread of pathogenic bacteria on surfaces such as floors, bed rails, air ventilation units, and mobile elements. These pathogens may be eliminated with proper disinfecting processes, including the use of appropriate surface disinfectants. In this study, we aimed to evaluate of the antibacterial effects of seven surface disinfectants (HAMAYA, DAC, AJAX, Jif, Mr. MUSCLE, CLOROX, and BACTIL) against eight bacterial strains Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Acinetobacter baumannii, Serratia marcescens, Escherichia coli, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis-ATCC 51299, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-ATCC 43300, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa-ATCC 1544, using two methods. The first was to determine the effective contact time of disinfectant against the tested bacterial strains, and the second was an assessment of the disinfection efficacy of each disinfectant on six types of contaminated surfaces with on a mixture of the eight tested bacterial strains. The results showed the efficacy of the disinfectants against the tested strains depending on the effective contact time. BACTIL disinfectant showed an efficacy of 100% against all tested strains at the end of the first minute of contact time. HAMAYA, DAC, Jif, Mr. MUSCLE, and CLOROX showed 100% efficiency at the end of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and fourteenth minutes, respectively, while AJAX disinfectant required nineteen minutes of contact time to show 100% efficacy against all tested strains