RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic that has been used to treat hospital-acquired gram-positive infections for more than 5 decades. However, the literature is divided regarding the therapeutic advantages of vancomycin loading doses in neonates. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the effect of vancomycin loading doses on therapeutic target attainment in neonates with sepsis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the vancomycin target attainment (area under the curve 0-24 hours/minimum inhibitory concentration ≥400) in neonates before and after the 2019 change in vancomycin prescription guidelines at a neonatal unit in Cape Town, South Africa. As the standard of care, Bayesian modelling software was used to compute the area under the curve from the trough concentrations. RESULTS: Two hundred ten neonates were included. Multivariate regression analysis showed a 2-fold increase in the odds of target attainment among neonates receiving a loading dose of vancomycin. Early target attainment (within 8-12 hours of treatment initiation) was significantly higher in the loading dose group compared with the no loading dose group [97/105 (92.4%) versus 64/105 (61.0%); P < 0.001]. However, the overall proportion of neonates achieving target attainment at 24 hours was similar between groups [73/105 (69.5%) in the loading dose group versus 62/105 (59.0%) in the no loading dose group; P = 0.110]. The nephrotoxicity rates were low [2/105 (1.9%) in the loading dose group and 2/105 (1.9%) in the no loading dose group]. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a vancomycin loading dose to neonates may facilitate early therapeutic target attainment.
RESUMO
Background: Healthcare-associated infections account for substantial neonatal in-hospital mortality. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) whole body skin application could reduce sepsis by lowering bacterial colonisation density, although safety and optimal application regimen is unclear. Emollients, including sunflower oil, may independently improve skin condition, thereby reducing sepsis. We aimed to inform which concentration and frequency of CHG, with or without emollient, would best balance safety and the surrogate marker of efficacy of reduction in bacterial colonisation, to be taken forward in a future pragmatic trial evaluating clinical outcomes of sepsis and mortality. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial, neonates in two hospital sites (South Africa, Bangladesh) aged 1-6 days with gestational age ≥ 28 weeks and birthweight 1000-1999 g were randomly assigned in a factorial design stratified by site to three different concentrations of CHG (0.5%, 1%, and 2%), with or without emollient (sunflower oil) applied on working days vs alternate working days. A control arm received neither product. Caregivers were unblinded although laboratory staff were blinded to randomisation Co-primary outcomes were safety (change in neonatal skin condition score incorporating dryness, erythema, and skin breakdown) and efficacy in reducing bacterial colonisation density (change in total skin bacterial log10 CFU from randomisation to day-3 and day-8). The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 69836999. Findings: Between Apr 12 2021 and Jan 18 2022, 208 infants were randomised and 198 were included in the final analysis. Skin condition scores were low with mean 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 208) at baseline, 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 199) at day 3 and 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 189) at day 8, with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.3, 95% CI = (-1.2, 0.6), p = 0.55. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4), p = 0.30), increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.4), p = 0.33), emollient (estimate = -0.5, (-1.2, 0.3), p = 0.23) or with control (estimate = -0.9, (-2.3, 0.4), p = 0.18). Mean log10 CFU was 4.9 (sd = 3.0; N = 208) at baseline, 6.3 (sd = 3.1; N = 198) at day 3 and 8.4 (sd = 2.6; N = 183) with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.23); p = 0.23. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6), p = 0.96), with increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-0.9, 0.2); p = 0.17), with emollient (estimate = 0.4, 95% CI = (-0.2, 0.9); p = 0.18) or with control (estimate = -0.2, 95% CI = (-1.3, 0.9); p = 0.73). By day-8, overall 158/183 (86%) of neonates were colonised with Enterobacterales, and 72/183 (39%) and 69/183 (9%) with Klebsiella spp resistant to third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenems, respectively. There were no CHG-related SAEs, emollient-related SAEs, grade 3 or 4 skin scores or grade 3 or 4 hypothermias. Interpretation: In this pilot trial of CHG with or without sunflower oil, no safety issues were identified, and further trials examining clinical outcomes are warranted. The relatively late start application of emollient, at a mean of 3.8 days of life, may have reduced the impact of the intervention although no subgroup effects were detected. There was no clear evidence in favour of a specific concentration of chlorhexidine, and there was rapid colonisation with Enterobacterales with frequent antimicrobial resistance, regardless of skin application regimen. Funding: The MRC Joint Applied Global Health award, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), MRC Clinical Trials Unit core funding (UKRI) and St. George's, University of London.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene (HH) is a cornerstone of programmes to prevent healthcare associated infections (HAI) globally, but HH interventions are seldom reported from African neonatal units. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study evaluating the impact of a multi-modal intervention (SafeHANDS) on HH compliance rates, alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) usage, the Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF) score, and healthcare-associated bloodstream infection (HA-BSI) rates at a 132-bed South African neonatal unit (4 wards and 1 neonatal intensive care unit [NICU]). The intervention included a campaign logo, HH training, maternal education leaflets, ABHR bottles for staff, and the setting of HH performance targets with feedback. Three 5-month study phases were completed in July 2020 (baseline), December 2020 (early) and May 2021 (intensive). RESULTS: A total of 2430 HH opportunities were observed: 1002 (41.3%) at baseline, 630 (25.9%) at early and 798 (32.8%) at intensive study phases. At baseline, the overall neonatal unit HH compliance rate was 61.6%, ABHR use was 70 mL/patient day, and the baseline HHSAF score was 'basic' (165). The overall neonatal unit HH compliance rate was unchanged from baseline to intensive phases (617/1002 [61.6%] vs. 497/798 [62.3%]; p = 0.797). The ABHR use remained similar between phases (70 versus 73 mL/patient day). The HHSAF score improved to 'intermediate' level (262). There was no change in the neonatal unit HA-BSI rate. CONCLUSION: Despite improvement in the HHSAF score, no improvement in overall HH compliance rates, ABHR usage, or HA-BSI rates was observed. Future HH interventions in resource-limited neonatal units should incorporate implementation science and behaviour modification strategies to better understand the barriers and facilitators of HH best practice.