Novel preventive bundle for multidrug-resistant organisms in intensive care setting; tertiary care experience.

Background: A widely-accepted standardized preventive bundle targeting multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is lacking. The objective was to describe the components, implementation, compliance, and impact of a novel MDROs bundle in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: Cohort study of surveillance activities on the components of MDROs bundle (July 2019 to June 2022) and the incidence of MDROs (April 2016 to June 2022). The implementation of MDROs bundle were preceded by ICPs-led education of the staff working in target ICUs about the importance and components of the MDROs bundle. These included the overall use of antimicrobials, appropriate environmental cleaning, appropriate contact precautions, and hand hygiene compliance. Results: During implementation, the overall use of antimicrobials was 57.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days (44,492/76,933). It was higher in adult compared with pediatric/neonatal ICUs (p < 0.001). Appropriate environmental cleaning was 74.8% (12,409/16,582), appropriate contact precautions was 83.8% (10,467/12,497), and hand hygiene compliance was 86.9% (27,023/31,096). The three components were significantly higher in pediatric/neonatal compared with adult ICUs (p = 0.027, p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively). The MDROs rates per 10,000 patient-days were 71.8 before (April 2016 to June 2019) and 62.0 during (July 2019 to June 2022) the bundle implementation (858/119,565 versus 891/143,649 p = 0.002). The reduction in MDROs rates were replicated in adult (p = 0.001) but not pediatric/neonatal ICUs (p = 0.530). Conclusions: The finding of this study indicate that the implementation of the current bundle was associated with a modest decrease in MDROs rates in adult ICUs. The provided detailed definitions and methodology will facilitate its use by other healthcare facilities.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Candidemia: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Center in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Candida bloodstream infections cause significant excess morbidity and mortality in the health-care setting. There is limited evidence regarding Candida species causing invasive infections in Saudi Arabia. Objective: To identify Candida species causing bloodstream infection and determine the clinical outcome and factors associated with mortality in a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included all cases of positive blood culture for Candida in patients admitted to King Abdulaziz Medical City, a tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2019. Results: A total of 532 patients with candidemia were identified (male: 55.4%; mean age: 54 ± 26.2 years). The most common Candida species isolated was Candida albicans (26.7%), followed by Candida glabrata (22.7%), Candida parapsilosis (22.2%), and Candida tropicalis (18.4%). Non-albicans candidemia was more common in patients with diabetes (76.7%; P = 0.0560), neutropenia (89.8%; P = 0.0062), recent exposure to fluconazole (85.7%; P = 0.0394), and active chemotherapy (83.1%; P = 0.0128). In non-albicans, susceptibility to fluconazole varied from 95.9% with C. tropicalis to 41.5% with C. parapsilosis; nonetheless, all species were highly susceptible to echinocandins. The overall 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 39.9% and 56.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was nonsignificantly higher with non-albicans species at 30 days (41.2% vs. 35.9%; P = 0.2634) and 90 days (58.2% vs. 51.4%; P = 0.1620). Conclusion: This study found a changing pattern in the Candida species causing bloodstream infections and an epidemiological shift toward more non-albicans Candida species in Saudi Arabia.

Efficacy of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether favipiravir reduces the time to viral clearance as documented by negative RT-PCR results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to placebo. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, and placebo-controlled trial, adults with PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19 were recruited in an outpatient setting at seven medical facilities across Saudi Arabia. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir 1800 mg by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 800 mg twice daily (n = 112) or a matching placebo (n = 119) for a total of 5 to 7 days. The primary outcome was the effect of favipiravir on reducing the time to viral clearance (by PCR test) within 15 days of starting the treatment compared to the placebo group. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: symptom resolution, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, adverse events, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients were randomized and began the study (median age, 37 years; interquartile range (IQR): 32-44 years; 155 [67%] male), and 112 (48.5%) were assigned to the treatment group and 119 (51.5%) into the placebo group. The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment because of futility at the interim analysis. The median time to viral clearance was 10 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the favipiravir group and 8 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 for the favipiravir group (95% CI 0.571-1.326; p = 0.51). The median time to clinical recovery was 7 days (IQR: 4-11 days) in the favipiravir group and 7 days (IQR: 5-10 days) in the placebo group. There was no difference between the two groups in the secondary outcome of hospital admission. There were no drug-related severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, favipiravir therapy in mild COVID-19 patients did not reduce the time to viral clearance within 15 days of starting the treatment.

Multicentre randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: A novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4-7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: National Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408).

Uptake of influenza vaccination, awareness and its associated barriers among medical students of a University Hospital in Central Saudi Arabia.

Outbreaks of influenza epidemics are common but influenza vaccination is sub-optimal among the healthcare staff including the medical students. The study aims to assess the rate of vaccine uptake among medical students, its associated barriers and levels of awareness. A cross sectional study was done at a University Hospital in Saudi Arabia on 421 medical students by self administered questionnaire from February to March 2015. The immunization rate of seasonal influenza vaccine was just 20.7% in 2015, while it was 57% for cumulative of previous three-year period. The intended uptake among those offered vaccination was 68%. The significant determinants of vaccine uptake were clinical years of medical study (p<0.05) and previous history of vaccination (p<0.0001). The major sources influencing vaccine uptake decision were health department guidelines, medical training, social and media influence. Barriers of vaccination constituted, assumption of not being at risk of influenza (37.9%), vaccine side effects (28.9%), questioned effectiveness of the vaccine (14.5%), and inability to allocate time (11%). Knowledge levels were unsatisfactory and males scored lower (5.4±1.7) than females (6.5±1.4) out of total score of 9. Both knowledge and uptake of annual influenza vaccination was inadequate. Policy makers can formulate strategies with a focus on larger coverage of medical students.