The Impact of Interventions to Prevent Neonatal Healthcare-associated Infections in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Clinically suspected and laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections are frequent causes of morbidity and mortality during neonatal care. The most effective infection prevention and control interventions for neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are unknown. AIM: To identify effective interventions in the prevention of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in LMIC neonatal units. METHODS: Medline, PUBMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and PsychInfo (January 2003 to October 2020) were searched to identify studies reporting single or bundled interventions for prevention of bloodstream infections in LMIC neonatal units. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 5206 articles; following application of filters, 27 publications met the inclusion and Integrated Quality Criteria for the Review of Multiple Study Designs assessment criteria and were summarized in the final analysis. No studies were carried out in low-income countries, only 1 in Sub-Saharan Africa and just 2 in multiple countries. Of the 18 single-intervention studies, most targeted skin (n = 4) and gastrointestinal mucosal integrity (n = 5). Whereas emollient therapy and lactoferrin achieved significant reductions in proven neonatal infection, glutamine and mixed probiotics showed no benefit. Chlorhexidine gluconate for cord care and kangaroo mother care reduced infection in individual single-center studies. Of the 9 studies evaluating bundles, most focused on prevention of device-associated infections and achieved significant reductions in catheter- and ventilator-associated infections. CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited evidence base for the effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions in LMIC neonatal units; bundled interventions targeting device-associated infections were most effective. More multisite studies with robust study designs are needed to inform infection prevention and control intervention strategies in low-resource neonatal units.

Keeping It Real: Infection Prevention and Control Problems and Solutions in Low- and Middle-income Countries.

Infection prevention challenges are ubiquitous in healthcare, but some are unique to or more prevalent in low-and middle-income country settings. Despite limited resources, innovative and committed paediatric healthcare providers and infection preventionists have found creative solutions to address the very real and pressing risks their patients face every day. We gathered examples of infection prevention and control challenges faced by clinicians in resource-limited healthcare facilities, and the real-world infection prevention and control solutions they implemented, with the goal of learning broader lessons applicable to low-and middle-income countrie.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates: This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? Context: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics. What is new?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19. About this guideline: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

Healthcare associated infections caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci in a neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate infections related to health care caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci in a neonatal intensive care unit by assessing antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and potentially effective antibiotic regimens. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study performed on a case series of healthcare-associated infections, and the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles were evaluated. Newborns from other hospitals who were admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit in Rio de Janeiro between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012, were studied. RESULTS: In total, 765 patients were admitted, totaling 3,051 patient-days, and the incidence density of general infection was 18.9 per 1,000 patient-days. The rate of central venous catheter use was 71.6%, and the positive culture rate for all sites and all infections related to health care were 68.4%. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci were identified in 11 (19.2%) of 57 health care-related infections, and infections with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Candida sp. constituted 5 cases each. Of the 11 cases of coagulase-negative Staphylococci, 10 (90.9%) were primary bloodstream infections. The sensitivity of the coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolates to vancomycin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, oxacillin and gentamycin was 100%, 81.8%, 72.7%, 27.2% and 22.2%, respectively. There were no deaths directly attributed to coagulase-negative Staphylococci infection. CONCLUSION: Coagulase-negative Staphylococci was the main agent identified in healthcare-associated infections, with low rates of infections related to central venous catheter. In hospitals with a high oxacillin resistance profile, similar to those included in this study, vancomycin may be used as an initial therapy, although clindamycin represents a viable alternative.

[Anti-parvovirus B19 IgG antibody prevalence in pregnant women during antenatal follow-up and cases of non-immune hydropsis fetalis due to parvovirus B19, in the City of Rio de Janeiro]. / Prevalência de anticorpos IgG antiparvovírus B19 em gestantes durante o atendimento pré-natal e casos de hidropisia fetal não imune atribuídos ao parvovírus B19, na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

With the aim of measuring the prevalence of anti-parvovirus B19 IgG antibodies during pregnancy up to 24 weeks of gestation and detecting cases of nonimmune hydrops fetalis, 249 sera from pregnant women attending a reference hospital in Rio de Janeiro city, from June 2003 to November 2004 were collected. They were followed-up until the end of pregnancy, with 17 cases of fetal hydrops detected. Four cases were caused by parvovirus B19 and two of them occurred in pregnant women living in the western zone of the city, during February 2005. Anti-parvovirus B19 IgG antibodies were found in 172 (71.6%) pregnant women (CI 95% 65.5%-77.7%); this antibody prevalence is similar to results found for others Brazilian cities. The only variable associated with previous acquisition of IgG antibodies to parvovirus B19 was number of pregnancies greater than one (p= 0.02, CI 95% 0.36-0.94).