Colistin resistance increases 28-day mortality in bloodstream infections due to carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Mortality due to K. pneumoniae bacteremia is on rise, particularly in regions with high rates of carbapenem and colistin resistance. We aimed to define risk factors for colistin resistance and its impact on mortality. Patients diagnosed with "carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CRKp)" bacteremia between 2014 and 2018 were divided into two groups as "colistin susceptible (ColS)" and "colistin resistant (ColR)" based on broth microdilution method. Retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare characteristics and outcomes. Multiple logistic regression model was used to define independent risk factors for acquired colistin resistance and Cox proportional hazard model for 28-day mortality. A total of 82 patients (39 ColS and 43 ColR) were included. Mean age was 61.5 years, and 50 (61%) were male. Colistin resistance was significantly increased with duration of hospital stay (p = 0.007) and prior colistin use (p = 0.007). Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 66%. Age (p = 0.014) and colistin resistance significantly increased 28-day (p = 0.009) mortality. Microbiological response to treatment within 7 days favors survival. PFGE analysis revealed an outbreak with K. pneumoniae ST78 and ST45 clones. Patients treated with combined antimicrobials had significantly lower 28-day mortality (p = 0.045) in comparison to monotherapy. However, types of combinations did not show significant superiority on each other. Colistin resistance increases 28-day mortality in CRKp bacteremia. Although combined regimens are more effective than monotherapy, existing antibacterial combinations have no apparent superiority to each other. New treatment options are pivotal.

Real-life experience: sensitivity and specificity of nasal and saliva samples for COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak has spread rapidly around the world, continues to show its effect, and it is not clear how long it will continue. For the diagnosis of COVID-19, it is important to ensure the comfort of the patients and to protect the healthcare workers (HCWs) by reducing the use of protective equipment. AIMS: To evaluate or assess whether the samples taken by the patient for COVID-19 testing during this pandemic period can be used in real-life experience. METHODS: Three different samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) from 132 patients were evaluated for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the samples in the diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared with real-life experience. RESULTS: Paired analyzes were performed by comparing each sample taken by the healthcare worker with the sample taken by the patient. The sensitivity of the three samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) in the diagnosis of the COVID-19 was (100%, 98.7%, and 96.1%, respectively) accepted to be accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The sample taken by the paramedic was compatible compared to the real-life experience for the samples taken by the patient in the COVID-19 pandemic period. During the pandemic that is unknown when it will end, this study demonstrated that taking the sample of the patient alone for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test is a beneficial approach to the protection of the healthcare worker, reducing the need for protective equipment, increasing the patient's comfort and rapid sampling.