Imipenem-Cilastatin-Induced Seizures: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Imipenem-cilastatin, a carbapenem antibiotic, is commonly used for severe bacterial infections. While generally well-tolerated, it can rarely cause central nervous system toxicity, including seizures. We have, herein, reported a case of imipenem-cilastatin-induced seizure in a 20-year-old patient. CASE PRESENTATION: A 20-year-old male was admitted to the intensive care unit for febrile status epilepticus and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Initial evaluations ruled out underlying causes and anti-epileptic treatment has been initiated. Despite having an effective anti-epileptic treatment for three months of hospitalization, seizure recurrence occurred, leading to antibiotic regimen adjustment as the imputability of imipenem-cilastatin was suspected. After discontinuation of the involved drug, the patient remained neurologically stable. Previous literature has reported cases of imipenem-cilastatin-induced seizures, particularly in elderly patients or at higher dosages. The causality assessment was conducted using the updated French method, which rated the chronological criterion as C2 and the semiological criterion as S2. The intrinsic imputability score was I3, indicating plausible causality, and the extrinsic bibliographic score was B3. CONCLUSION: Our case has highlighted the importance of promptly recognizing imipenem-cilastatin- induced epileptic seizures in order to treat them more effectively and thus optimize the patient's care. Therefore, we emphasize that clinicians be vigilant about the side effects of its use, particularly in patients with neurological susceptibilities. We also advocate a personalized choice of antibiotics, taking into account both antimicrobial efficacy and potential adverse effects, for better outcomes with fewer risks.

COVID-19 prophylaxis with doxycycline and zinc in health care workers: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the efficacy of a combination treatment of doxycycline and zinc in the primary prevention of COVID-19 infection in Tunisian health care workers compared with two control groups. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial over 5 months to determine the efficacy of a preventive combination treatment dose of doxycycline (100 mg/day) and zinc (15 mg/day), compared with a single-dose treatment with doxycycline versus placebo. The effectiveness of preventive treatment was measured by the significant decline in the number of cases of COVID-19 infection and/or a decrease in the viral load as determined by SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold value using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. RESULTS: We detected a significant decrease of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the group that received both doxycycline and zinc compared with other participants. We also demonstrated that COVID-19 infection was neither associated with diabetes (P = 0.51) nor associated with hypertension (P = 0.99), asthma (P = 0.52), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that preventive therapy reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2. These results suggest that the combination of doxycycline and zinc has a protective effect in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Corticosteroids Versus Cyclosporine for Subepithelial Infiltrates Secondary to Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study.

PURPOSE: To compare efficiency and tolerance between topical 0.5% cyclosporine A (CSA) and fluorometholone (FML) for subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) complicating epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. METHODS: We conducted a prospective double-blind randomized study involving 72 eyes with SEI. Thirty-eight eyes were treated with topical FML (FML group) and 34 eyes with CSA 0.5% eye drops (CSA group). Treatment was considered successful in case of SEI reduction and visual acuity improvement. Tolerance was evaluated by Schirmer test value, burning on eye drops instillation, and conjunctival injection. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar (P > 0.05). After 3 months of the regimen, resolution of SEI was 3 times more observed in the FML group than that in the CSA group (P = 0.026). After 6 months, resolution of SEI was observed in 70% of the FML group and in 47% of the CSA group (P = 0.068). The recurrence of SEI was almost twice higher in the FML group than that in the CSA group (16% vs. 9%). FML was better tolerated during the first 3 months: a higher Schirmer test value (P = 0.0003), less burning on instillation (P = 0.242), and less conjunctival injection (P = 0.003). For the rest of the follow-up period, the 2 groups were comparable in tolerance. No ocular hypertension was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis can evolve favorably under both FML and CSA. The effect of FML is faster and CSA is more durable with fewer recurrences. Both are safe therapeutic options for long-term control of SEI.

[Risk analysis and validation of the process for producing the substitution fluid for online hemodiafiltration]. / Analyse des risques et validation du procédé de production du liquide de substitution de la technique d'hémodiafiltration en ligne.

INTRODUCTION: Online hemodiafiltration is a technique of dialysis with many advantages, but its use is limited because of the lack of control of microbiological risks. This work conducts a risk analysis of the process for producing substitution liquid for online hemodiafiltration and validates this process from a microbiological point of view. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The risk analysis was carried out following the approach of analysing failure modes, their effects and their criticalities. It identified the "worst case" of the production process being studied. For the validation of this process, we used the limulus amoebocytes lysate assay for bacterial endotoxins and the membrane filtration test for sterility control. RESULTS: We identified 17 failure modes, 13 of which were acceptable. Failure modes that exceeded the acceptability threshold were defined as "worst cases". Sterility monitoring and endotoxin testing, conducted in the "worst case", verified the microbiological quality of the liquid produced to the required standards and subsequently validated the process used. DISCUSSION: This approach has resulted in the identification of as many failure modes as possible. Validating in "worst case" is an extreme challenge to the process and its success provides a sufficient basis to conclude that the technique is safe and, therefore, to validate the process. CONCLUSION: This work has enabled us to validate our production process in extreme cases to promote safer use of the technique.