In vitro activity effects of combinations of cephalothin, dicloxacillin, imipenem, vancomycin and amikacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. strains

BACKGROUND: combinations of drugs has been proposed as an alternative for oxacillin-resistant staphylococci infections, however, limited information about in vitro combinations are available for multi-resistant strains. The objective of this study was to describe the interaction of beta-lactams in combination with vancomycin or amikacin against 26 oxacillin and amikacin-resistant nosocomial Staphylococcus spp. isolates. METHODS: activity of dicloxacillin plus amikacin, cephalothin plus amikacin, cephalothin plus vancomycin, imipenem plus vancomycin and vancomycin plus amikacin was evaluated by checkerboard synergy tests and the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FIC) was calculated. Results: dicloxacillin plus amikacin, and cephalothin plus amikacin were synergistic or partially synergistic in 84.6% and 100% respectively. For nearly half of the isolates the mean concentrations of dicloxacillin, cephalothin and amikacin at which FIC indexes were calculated were achievable therapeutically. Vancomycin plus amikacin had synergistic effect only against two isolates, and partially synergistic in 38.6%. For the combinations vancomycin plus cephalothin and vancomycin plus imipenem the effect was additive in 76.9% and 80.7% respectively. CONCLUSION: in this study the checkerboard analysis showed that amikacin in combination with cephalothin or dicloxacillin was synergistic against most of the resistant strains of S. aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Vancomycin in combination with a beta-lactam (cephalothin or imipenem) showed additivity. An indifferent effect predominated for the combination vancomycin plus amikacin. Even though a synergistic effect is expected when using a beta-lactam plus amikacin combination, it is possible that the effect cannot be clinically achievable. Careful selection of antimicrobial combinations and initial MICs are mandatory for future evaluations

Clinical presentation of pediatric patients with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in a single center in Mexico City

BackgroundThe clinical spectrum of COVID-19 is broad, from asymptomatic to severe cases and death. The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical course of patients attended during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a third-level pediatric hospital.MethodsDesign: prospective cohort study. Patients with viral respiratory disease or suspected cases of COVID-19 were evaluated at the Pediatric Hospital, National Medical Center XXI Century, Mexico City, from 21 March 2020 to 13 January 2021. Statistical analysis: Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used for comparisons; a logistic regression model was constructed to identify clinical or laboratory characteristics associated with critical disease. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsA total of 697 patients met the operational definition of viral respiratory disease or suspected cases of COVID-19 and underwent real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing. Patients with a positive result were included. Of the 181 patients (26%), 121 (66.8%) had mild disease and were treated as outpatients and 60 (33.1%) were hospitalized. A total of six patients met the criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Of the 60 inpatients, 65% were males, and 82% had one or more comorbidities. The main comorbidities were cancer (42%) and overweight (15%). The median hospital stay was 9 days. The inpatients had a higher frequency of fever, general malaise, dyspnea, chills, polypnea, and cyanosis than the outpatients (p < 0.05). Only 21.4% of the outpatients had one or more comorbidities, which were lower than in the hospitalized patients (p < 0.001). Laboratory data at admission were similar between critically ill and those with moderate and severe disease. The patients who developed pneumonia were at higher risk of critical disease, while older age was associated with a better prognosis. A total of 13 of the 60 inpatients died (mortality 7.1%). All but one had one or more comorbidities: four had cancer, four congenital heart disease, one chronic kidney disease and epilepsy, one Epstein–Barr virus-induced hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, one obesity, and one diabetes mellitus.ConclusionHospital mortality is high, especially in children with comorbidities. Despite 2 years having passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the epidemiological and clinical data on children are still helpful to improve their prognosis

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) report, data summary for 2003-2008, issued June 2009

Q3Artículo original95-106We report the results of the International Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2003 throughDecember 2008 in 173 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. During the 6-year study, using Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN; formerly the National Nosocomial Infec-tion Surveillance system [NNIS]) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection, we collected prospective datafrom 155,358 patients hospitalized in the consortium’s hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 923,624 days. Although device utilizationin the developing countries’ ICUs was remarkably similar to that reported from US ICUs in the CDC’s NHSN, rates of device-asso-ciated nosocomial infection were markedly higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals: the pooled rate of central venous catheter(CVC)-associated bloodstream infections (BSI) in the INICC ICUs, 7.6 per 1000 CVC-days, is nearly 3-fold higher than the 2.0 per1000 CVC-days reported from comparable US ICUs, and the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was also farhigher, 13.6 versus 3.3 per 1000 ventilator-days, respectively, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI),6.3 versus 3.3 per 1000 catheter-days, respectively. Most strikingly, the frequencies of resistance ofStaphylococcus aureusisolatesto methicillin (MRSA) (84.1% vs 56.8%, respectively),Klebsiella pneumoniaeto ceftazidime or ceftriaxone (76.1% vs 27.1%, respec-tively),Acinetobacter baumanniito imipenem (46.3% vs 29.2%, respectively), andPseudomonas aeruginosato piperacillin (78.0%vs 20.2%, respectively) were also far higher in the consortium’s ICUs, and the crude unadjusted excess mortalities of device-relatedinfections ranged from 23.6% (CVC-associated bloodstream infections) to 29.3% (VAP)

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway : a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.Peer reviewe

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened

The research protocol. Part I

One of the principal aims in research is the publication of the study in scientific journals. This implies two challenges: the first one, the election of an adequate research design, and the second one, the concrete and simple wording of the results for the study to be accepted in the most appropriate journal according to the scope. Despite numerous supporting documents are available for both issues, the publication process is long, tiresome, and can discourage the most enthusiastic researcher. This is the first of a series of articles with the objective to describe the steps from the research question to the publication of the study. First of all, the importance of the research design will be addressed. The structure of the protocol is essential to achieve the objectives, and provides a way to organize the investigation in a logic, comprehensible and efficient manner