A comparative study of clinical presentation and risk factors for adverse outcome in patients hospitalised with acute respiratory disease due to MERS coronavirus or other causes

Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS) first emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and remains a global health concern. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical features and risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with RT-PCR confirmed MERS and in those with acute respiratory disease who were MERS-CoV negative, presenting to the King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh between October 2012 and May 2014. The demographics, clinical and laboratory characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with RT-PCR confirmed MERS-CoV infection was compared with those testing negative MERS-CoV PCR. Health care workers (HCW) with MERS were compared with MERS patients who were not health care workers. One hundred and fifty nine patients were eligible for inclusion. Forty eight tested positive for MERS CoV, 44 (92%) being hospital acquired infections and 23 were HCW. There were 111 MERS-CoV negative patients with acute respiratory illnesses included in this study as 'negative controls'. Patient with confirmed MERS-CoV infection were not clinically distinguishable from those with negative MERS-CoV RT-PCR results although diarrhoea was commoner in MERS patients. A high level of suspicion in initiating laboratory tests for MERS-CoV is therefore indicated. Variables associated with adverse outcome were older age and diabetes as a co-morbid illness. Interestingly, co-morbid illnesses other than diabetes were not significantly associated with poor outcome. Health care workers with MERS had a markedly better clinical outcome compared to non HCW MERS patients.published_or_final_versio

Lemierre's syndrome due to Klebsiella pneumoniae in a 63-year-old man with diabetes: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Lemierre's syndrome was originally documented to be caused by <it>Fusobacterium necrophorum</it>. It is a very rare condition with a prevalence of one to 14.4 instances per million. Its presentation is varied, not only in composition but also in the infecting organism. Treatment with anticoagulants has been controversial and applied only on a case-by-case basis.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 63-year-old Saudi man who had had uncontrolled diabetes mellitus for 47 years presented to our facility with a five-day history of swelling on the right side of his neck and fever. The swelling progressively increased in size and was associated with pain, dysphagia, odynophagia, change of voice ('hot potato voice'), and reduced appetite. Abscess content culture and sensitivity testing revealed <it>Klebsiella pneumoniae</it>. However, blood culture results were repeatedly negative. The abscess was incised and drained without any complication. Our patient was treated with clindamycin and cefuroxime. Warfarin was also administered concurrently for six weeks, for an isolated internal jugular vein thrombosis (IJV), with complete resolution of the thrombus. Normoglycemia was achieved and our patient was discharged after complete wound healing and the return of his biochemical parameters to normal.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Only two cases of Lemierre's syndrome in patients with diabetes due to <it>K. pneumoniae </it>have been reported previously. A review of the literature suggested that an association exists between deep neck infections due to <it>K. pneumoniae </it>and diabetes mellitus. The reasons for this association are still not clear. This poses a question as to whether diabetes mellitus specifically predisposes these patients to infection with this organism. It is suggested that clinicians should consider infectious agents other than <it>F. necrophorum </it>in the causation of Lemierre's syndrome, especially in patients with diabetes.</p

International nosocomial infection control consortium (INICC) report, data summary of 36 countries, for 2004-2009

The results of a surveillance study conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) from January 2004 through December 2009 in 422 intensive care units (ICUs) of 36 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe are reported. During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN; formerly the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system [NNIS]) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infections, we gathered prospective data from 313,008 patients hospitalized in the consortium's ICUs for an aggregate of 2,194,897 ICU bed-days. Despite the fact that the use of devices in the developing countries' ICUs was remarkably similar to that reported in US ICUs in the CDC's NHSN, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were significantly higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals; the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection in the INICC ICUs of 6.8 per 1,000 central line-days was more than 3-fold higher than the 2.0 per 1,000 central line-days reported in comparable US ICUs. The overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia also was far higher (15.8 vs 3.3 per 1,000 ventilator-days), as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (6.3 vs. 3.3 per 1,000 catheter-days). Notably, the frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to imipenem (47.2% vs 23.0%), Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (76.3% vs 27.1%), Escherichia coli isolates to ceftazidime (66.7% vs 8.1%), Staphylococcus aureus isolates to methicillin (84.4% vs 56.8%), were also higher in the consortium's ICUs, and the crude unadjusted excess mortalities of device-related infections ranged from 7.3% (for catheter-associated urinary tract infection) to 15.2% (for ventilator-associated pneumonia). Copyright © 2012 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: A national retrospective study

BACKGROUND The global battle to contain the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rages on. Previous studies described the clinical characteristics of COVID-19, but knowledge gaps remain in the Middle East region. Identifying these features will help in mapping the disease and guiding pandemic management. A multi-center, retrospective cross-sectional study was initiated to describe the demographic data, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of COVID-19 cases across all the regions of Saudi Arabia. METHODS The analysis included all laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 patients from the 1st of March 2020 to 31st of March 2020 across all regions of Saudi Arabia. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, incubation periods, laboratory findings, and patient outcomes data were retrieved from 1519 cases in the Health Electronic Surveillance Network Database. RESULTS The median age was 36 years and 54.3% (n = 825) of the patients were men. Patients working in health care facilities represented 12.5% of the cases (n = 190) and 9.3% of cases were asymptomatic. The median incubation period was 6 days. The most common symptoms were cough (89.4%), fever (85.6%), and sore throat (81.6%); 20.1% of the patients had underlying comorbidities. Hypertension was seen in 8.8% and diabetes in 7.6% of all the cases. The percentage of cases with temperatures &gt;38֯C was 20.3% (n = 129), and 1.6% of patients had heart rates ≥125 beats/min and 4.7% of them had respiratory rates of &gt;24 breaths/min. Lymphocytopenia occurred in 37.5% of cases. Overall, 71.6% of patients were admitted to hospitals and 4.7% required ICU treatment. We could not completely assess the clinical courses or final outcomes of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION In this multi-center retrospective study, fever and cough were common symptoms. Special attention should be addressed toward asymptomatic carriers and workers in health care facilities as they play a key role in disease transmission

A Comparative Study of Clinical Presentation and Risk Factors for Adverse Outcome in Patients Hospitalised with Acute Respiratory Disease Due to MERS Coronavirus or Other Causes.

Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS) first emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and remains a global health concern. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical features and risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with RT-PCR confirmed MERS and in those with acute respiratory disease who were MERS-CoV negative, presenting to the King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh between October 2012 and May 2014. The demographics, clinical and laboratory characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with RT-PCR confirmed MERS-CoV infection was compared with those testing negative MERS-CoV PCR. Health care workers (HCW) with MERS were compared with MERS patients who were not health care workers. One hundred and fifty nine patients were eligible for inclusion. Forty eight tested positive for MERS CoV, 44 (92%) being hospital acquired infections and 23 were HCW. There were 111 MERS-CoV negative patients with acute respiratory illnesses included in this study as "negative controls". Patient with confirmed MERS-CoV infection were not clinically distinguishable from those with negative MERS-CoV RT-PCR results although diarrhoea was commoner in MERS patients. A high level of suspicion in initiating laboratory tests for MERS-CoV is therefore indicated. Variables associated with adverse outcome were older age and diabetes as a co-morbid illness. Interestingly, co-morbid illnesses other than diabetes were not significantly associated with poor outcome. Health care workers with MERS had a markedly better clinical outcome compared to non HCW MERS patients

Factors associated with fatal outcome in 48 MERS cases.

<p>Factors associated with fatal outcome in 48 MERS cases.</p

Time from hospital admission to death.

<p>A: Comparing patients with MERS-CoV infection (red line) and those negative for MERS-CoV (black line) (p = 0.01). B: Comparing health care workers with MERS CoV (red dotted line; group1), non-HCW with MERS (red solid line; group 2) and patients without MERS-CoV infection (black solid line; group 3). Log rank test group 1 vs. group 2 p = 0.003; group 2 vs group 3 p = 0.45; group 1 vs group 3 p<0.001.</p