Pre-post effects of a tetanus care protocol implementation in a sub-Saharan African intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Tetanus is a vaccine-preventable, neglected disease that is life threatening if acquired and occurs most frequently in regions where vaccination coverage is incomplete. Challenges in vaccination coverage contribute to the occurrence of non-neonatal tetanus in sub-Saharan countries, with high case fatality rates. The current WHO recommendations for the management of tetanus include close patient monitoring, administration of immune globulin, sedation, analgesia, wound hygiene and airway support [1]. In response to these recommendations, our tertiary referral hospital in Tanzania implemented a standardized clinical protocol for care of patients with tetanus in 2006 and a subsequent modification in 2012. In this study we aimed to assess the impact of the protocol on clinical care of tetanus patients and their outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined provision of care and outcomes among all patients admitted with non-neonatal tetanus to the ICU at Bugando Medical Centre between 2001 and 2016 in this retrospective cohort study. We compared three groups: the pre-protocol group (2001-2005), the Early protocol group (2006-2011), and the Late protocol group (2012-2016) and determined associations with mortality by univariable logistic regression. We observed a significant increase in provision of care as per protocol between the Early and Late groups. Patients in the Late group had a significantly higher utilization of mechanical ventilation (69.9% vs 22.0%, p40%). Institution of a standardized tetanus management protocol, in accordance with WHO recommendations, decreased immediate mortality related to primary causes of death after tetanus. However, this was offset by an increase in death due to later ICU complications such as sepsis. Our results illustrate the complexity in achieving mortality reduction even in illnesses thought to require few critical care interventions. Improving basic ICU care and strengthening vaccination programs to prevent tetanus altogether are essential components of efforts to decrease the mortality caused by this lethal, neglected disease

Consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum.

Microdialysis enables the chemistry of the extracellular interstitial space to be monitored. Use of this technique in patients with acute brain injury has increased our understanding of the pathophysiology of several acute neurological disorders. In 2004, a consensus document on the clinical application of cerebral microdialysis was published. Since then, there have been significant advances in the clinical use of microdialysis in neurocritical care. The objective of this review is to report on the International Microdialysis Forum held in Cambridge, UK, in April 2014 and to produce a revised and updated consensus statement about its clinical use including technique, data interpretation, relationship with outcome, role in guiding therapy in neurocritical care and research applications.We gratefully acknowledge financial support for participants as follows: P.J.H. - National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Professorship and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge; I.J. – Medical Research Council (G1002277 ID 98489); A. H. - Medical Research Council, Royal College of Surgeons of England; K.L.H.C. - NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme); M.G.B. - Wellcome Trust Dept Health Healthcare Innovation Challenge Fund (HICF-0510-080); L. H. - The Swedish Research Council, VINNOVA and Uppsala Berzelii Technology Centre for Neurodiagnostics; S. M. - Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico; D.K.M. - NIHR Senior Investigator Award to D.K.M., NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Neuroscience Theme), FP7 Program of the European Union; M. O. - Swiss National Science Foundation and the Novartis Foundation for Biomedical Research; J.S. - Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (Instituto de Salud Carlos III) (PI11/00700) co-financed by the European Regional Development; M.S. – NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; N. S. - Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3930-

Consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum

This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3930-yMicrodialysis enables the chemistry of the extracellular interstitial space to be measured. Use of this technique in patients with acute brain injury has increased our understanding of the pathophysiology of several acute neurological disorders. In 2004 a consensus document on the clinical application of cerebral microdialysis was published. Since then there have been significant advances in the clinical use of microdialysis in neurocritical care. The objective of this review is to report on the International Microdialysis Forum held in Cambridge, UK, in April 2014 and to produce a revised and updated consensus statement about its clinical use including technique, data interpretation, relationship with outcome, role in guiding therapy in neurocritical care and research applications.We gratefully acknowledge financial support for participants as follows: P.J.H. - National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Professorship and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge; I.J. ? Medical Research Council (G1002277 ID 98489); A. H. - Medical Research Council, Royal College of Surgeons of England; K.L.H.C. - NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme); M.G.B. - Wellcome Trust Dept Health Healthcare Innovation Challenge Fund (HICF-0510-080); L. H. - The Swedish Research Council, VINNOVA and Uppsala Berzelii Technology Centre for Neurodiagnostics; S. M. - Fondazione IRCCS C? Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico; D.K.M. - NIHR Senior Investigator Award to D.K.M., NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Neuroscience Theme), FP7 Program of the European Union; M. O. - Swiss National Science Foundation and the Novartis Foundation for Biomedical Research; J.S. - Fondo de Investigaci?n Sanitaria (Instituto de Salud Carlos III) (PI11/00700) co-financed by the European Regional Development; M.S. ? NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; N. S. - Fondazione IRCCS C? Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico

Hypertonic saline infusion for treating intracranial hypertension after severe traumatic brain injury

Abstract Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major cause of mortality and disability. Post-traumatic intracranial hypertension (ICH) further complicates the care of patients. Hyperosmolar agents are recommended for the treatment of ICH, but no consensus or high-level data exist on the use of any particular agent or the route of administration. The two agents used commonly are hypertonic saline (HTS) and mannitol given as bolus therapy. Smaller studies suggest that HTS may be a superior agent in reducing the ICH burden, but neither agent has been shown to improve mortality or functional outcome. In a recently published analysis of pooled data from three prospective clinical trials, continuous infusion of HTS correlated with serum hypernatremia and reduced ICH burden in addition to improving 90-day mortality and functional outcome. This lays the foundation for the upcoming continuous hyperosmolar therapy for traumatic brain-injured patients (COBI) randomized controlled trial to study the outcome benefit of continuous HTS infusion to treat ICH after severe TBI. This is much anticipated and will be a high impact trial should the results be replicated. However, this would still leave a question over the use of mannitol bolus therapy which will need to be studied

Multimodality Monitoring in Acute Brain Injury

Major advances in microelectronics have produced new techniques for monitoring the injured brain; some, such as ion sensitive microelectrodes and continuous single-photon microscopy, remain confined to animal studies; others have transitioned rapidly into clinical use, including: Microdialysis Thermal dilution blood flow monitoring Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS

Analyses of reported severe adverse events after immunization with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the United States: One year on

OBJECTIVE: To analyze rates of reported severe adverse events after immunization (sAEFI) attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the United States (US) using safety surveillance data. METHODS: Observational study of sAEFI reported to the vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) between December 13, 2020, to December 13, 2021, and attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs across all US states and territories. All sAEFI in conjunction with mRNA (BNT-162b2 or mRNA-1273) or adenovector (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccines were included. The 28-day crude cumulative rates for reported emergency department (ED) visits and sAEFI viz. hospitalizations, life-threatening events and deaths following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were calculated. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of reported sAEFI were compared between mRNA and adenovector vaccines using generalized Poisson regression models. RESULTS: During the study period, 485 million SARS-CoV-2 vaccines doses were administered nationwide, and 88,626 sAEFI reported in VAERS. The 28-day crude cumulative reporting rates per 100,000 doses were 14.97 (95% confidence interval, 14.86–18.38) for ED visits, 5.32 (5.26–5.39) for hospitalizations, 1.72 (1.68–1.76) for life-threatening events, and 1.08 (1.05–1.11) for deaths. Females had two-fold rates for any reported AEFI compared to males, but lower adjusted IRRs for sAEFI. Cumulative rates per dose for reported sAEFI attributed to adenovector vaccine were 2–3-fold higher, and adjusted IRRs 1.5-fold higher than mRNA vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall cumulative rates for reported sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the US over 1 year were very low; single-dose adenovector vaccine had 1.5-fold higher adjusted rates for reported sAEFI, which may however equate with multiple-doses mRNA vaccine regimens. These data indicate absence of high risks of sAEFI following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and support safety equipoise between mRNA and adenovector vaccines. Public health messaging of these data is critical to overcome heuristic biases. Furthermore, these data may support ongoing adenovector vaccine use, especially in low- and middle-income countries due to affordability, logistical and cold chain challenges

Affordability impacts therapeutic intensity of acute management of severe traumatic brain injury patients:An exploratory study in Tanzania

Introduction: Quality health care in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is constrained by financing of care. Research question: What is the effect of ability to pay on critical care management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI)? Material and Methods: Data on sTBI patients admitted to a tertiary referral hospital in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, were collected between 2016 and 2018, and included payor mechanisms for hospitalization costs. Patients were grouped as those who could afford care and those who were unable to pay. Results: Sixty-seven patients with sTBI were included. Of those enrolled, 44 (65.7%) were able to pay and 15 (22.3%) were unable to pay costs of care upfront. Eight (11.9%) patients did not have a documented source of payment (unknown identity or excluded from further analysis). Overall mechanical ventilation rates were 81% (n=36) in the affordable group and 100% (n=15) in the unaffordable group (p=0.08). Computed tomography (CT) rates were 71.6% (n=48) overall, 100% (n=44) and 0% respectively (p<0.01); Surgical rates were 16.4% (n=11) overall, 18.2% (n=8) vs. 13.3% (n=2) (p=0.67) respectively. Two-week mortality was 59.7% overall (n=40), 47.7% (n=21) in the affordable group and 73.3% (n=11) in the unaffordable group (p=0.09) (adjusted OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.07-2.41, p=0.32). Discussion and Conclusion: Ability to pay appears to have a strong association with the use of head CT and a weak association with mechanical ventilation in the management of sTBI. Inability to pay increases redundant or sub-optimal care, and imposes a financial burden on patients and their relatives

Reported rates of all-cause serious adverse events following immunization with BNT-162b in 5-17-year-old children in the United States.

Vaccine development against COVID-19 has mitigated severe disease. However, reports of rare but serious adverse events following immunization (sAEFI) in the young populations are fuelling parental anxiety and vaccine hesitancy. With a very early season of viral illnesses including COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, metapneumovirus and several others, children are facing a winter with significant respiratory illness burdens. Yet, COVID-19 vaccine and booster uptake remain sluggish due to the mistaken beliefs that children have low rates of severe COVID-19 illness as well as rare but severe complications from COVID-19 vaccine are common. In this study we examined composite sAEFI reported in association with COVID-19 vaccines in the United States (US) amongst 5-17-year-old children, to ascertain the composite reported risk associated with vaccination. Between December 13, 2020, and April 13, 2022, a total of 467,890,599 COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered to individuals aged 5-65 years in the US, of which 180 million people received at least 2 doses. In association with these, a total of 177,679 AEFI were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event reporting System (VAERS) of which 31,797 (17.9%) were serious. The rates of ED visits per 100,000 recipients were 2.56 (95% CI: 2.70-3.47) amongst 5-11-year-olds, 18.25 (17.57-18.95) amongst 12-17-year-olds and 33.74 (33.36-34.13) amongst 18-65-year olds; hospitalizations were 1.07 (95% CI 0.87-1.32) per 100,000 in 5-11-year-olds, 6.83 (6.42-7.26) in 12-17-year olds and 8.15 (7.96-8.35) in 18-65 years; life-threatening events were 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08-0.25) per 100,000 in 5-11-year olds, 1.22 (1.05-1.41) in 12-17-year-olds and 2.96 (2.85-3.08) in 18-65 year olds; and death 0.03 (95% CI 0.01-0.10) per 100,000 in 5-11 year olds, 0.08 (0.05-0.14) amongst 12-17-year olds and 0.76 (0.71-0.82) in 18-65 years age group. The results of our study from national population surveillance data demonstrate rates of reported serious AEFIs amongst 5-17-year-olds which appear to be significantly lower than in 18-65-year-olds. These low risks must be taken into account in overall recommendation of COVID-19 vaccination amongst children