Common Resistance Patterns in the Burn Unit of a Tertiary Care Center: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Background Nosocomial bacterial infections have been one of the major concerns in the healthcare system. Burn patients, specifically severe cases, are at a high risk of developing bacterial infections compared to others. The most frequent cultures among burn patients are Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa,and Acinetobacter baumannii. There is a scarcity of local data showing the most common infections in burn patients. This research aimed to determine the most common organisms that cause infections in burn unit patients and the antibiotic sensitivity and resistance patterns in King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Jeddah. Methodology In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from patients' files into a data collection sheet. All patients in the burn unit with a positive culture were included in the study using a convenient sampling technique from Best-Care, KAMC electronic medical records. Burn patients with negative culture results and patients who were admitted to the plastic surgery ward for reasons other than burns were excluded. For sample size calculation, convenience sampling of 109 patient medical charts, over the study period from June 2016 to November 2021, was selected for data extraction, analysis, and reporting. Results Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the leading cause of infection in burn patients comprising 33.9% of the cases. Enterobacter cloacae was the second most frequent cause of infection among burn patients (27.5%). Klebsiella pneumoniae was the third most frequent cause of infection (26.6%) while Acinetobacter baumannii was the fourth most frequent cause of infection in burn patients (22.9%). Conclusions Understanding the local epidemiology of bacterial infections will be crucial for the development of treatment guidelines designed to standardize initial antibiotic use, reduce hospital-acquired infections, and reduce drug resistance. More attention should be paid to gram-negative bacteria, specifically Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter Cloacae.

Septic Abortion Secondary to Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus Complicated by Bacteremia: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

Peptoniphilus species are gram-positive anaerobic coccus (GPAC) that are found in the human flora, such as the skin, gastrointestinal tract, and genitourinary tract, and can be pathogenic. Septic abortion caused by Peptoniphilus species has been reported only three times in the literature. Here, we present a case of Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus (P. asaccharolyticus) bacteremia as a complication of septic abortion.

Efficacy and Safety of Bictegravir-Based Regimen in Pregnant Women Living with HIV: A Case Report.

Bictegravir (BIC) is included in international guidelines as the first line of therapy for patients living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), either as initial therapy or as a replacement for patients with prior antiretroviral therapy (ART). Due to limited efficacy and safety data, BIC is currently not recommended during pregnancy. Data on the safety and efficacy of BIC during pregnancy were unavailable at the time of drug approval. In our case, BIC/TAF/FTC was effective in suppressing viral load (VL) in pregnancy, and there were no reported safety issues for the mother or the baby.

Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine Combination Therapy in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 (FACCT Trial): An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Antiviral drugs have shown limited effectiveness in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to assess the effects of a favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine combination on treating moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial at nine hospitals. Eligible patients were adults with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 defined as oxygen saturation (SaO2) of ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air or significant clinical symptoms with chest x-ray changes requiring hospital admission. Randomization was in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care (control group) or standard care plus favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement of two points (from the status at randomization) on a seven-category ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital within 14 days. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: From May 2020 to Jan 2021, 254 patients were enrolled; 129 were assigned to standard of care and 125 to the treatment. The mean age was 52 (± 13) years, and 103 (41%) were women. At randomization, six patients were on invasive mechanical ventilation, 229 (90.15%) were requiring supplemental oxygen only (with or without non-invasive ventilation), and 19 (7.48%) were receiving neither. The time to clinical improvement was not significantly different between the groups: median of 9 days in the treatment group and 7 days in the control group (HR: 0.845; 95% CI 0.617-1.157; p-value = 0.29). The 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the groups (7.63% treatment) vs. (10.32% control); p-value = 0.45. The most prevalent adverse events were headache, elevation in ALT, and the prolonged QTc interval in the treatment group. CONCLUSION: The combination of favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine did not result in a statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392973).