The impact of casirivimab-imdevimab antibody cocktail in patients amidst and post COVID 19 treatment: A retro-prospective comparative study in India.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies have gained attention in developing countries owing to its benefits portrayed by few clinical trials. However, no studies until now have been undergone in India. METHODS: A retro-prospective comparative observational study was conducted in symptomatic COVID19 patients to evaluate the impact of Casirivimab and Imdevimab antibody cocktail in the high-risk population. Through an extensive data retrieval for 6 months, 152 samples were documented and sorted into test (Casirivimab and Imdevimab treated patients, n = 79) and control (Non- Casirivimab and Imdevimab treated individuals, n = 73) subsets. The research had two phases; first, estimation of mechanical ventilation and high flow oxygen requirement and mortality in samples amidst the treatment, and second was the post COVID19 patients' feedback through validated (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.7) questionnaire that evaluated their health and vaccination status, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: We noticed lesser requisite for mechanical ventilation (6.3%; p < 0.001), high flow oxygen (5.1%; p < 0.001) and no death during Casirivimab and Imdevimab therapy. Meanwhile, non-vaccinated test groups were not on mechanical ventilation and those fully immunized seldom entailed high flow oxygen (test, 6.3%; control, 41.9%, p < 0.01). On evaluating the post COVID19 status of each patient in the study, 90.1% of the test samples were healthy and 97.2% were satisfied with the treatment than those in control group. CONCLUSIONS: Casirivimab and Imdevimab regimen was clinically beneficial for high risk COVID19 patients than those treated without the antibody cocktail.

Prevalence and antibiotic utilization pattern of uropathogens causing community-acquired urinary tract infection in Kerala, India.

BACKGROUND: A prospective observational study was carried out over a period of 6 months among the inpatients and outpatients in the departments of general medicine, urology, obstetrics, and gynecology of a tertiary level referral hospital in south Malabar region of Kerala to assess the prevalence of various bacterial isolates and their changing susceptibility to antimicrobial agents and to evaluate the pattern of antibiotic utilization in urinary tract infection (UTI). METHODS: A total of 680 samples were analyzed from December 2015 to May 2016; among them, only 74 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of the 74 patients, 53 were female and 21 were male. Female patients were found to be significantly higher in number in the age group of 61-70years. The maximum number of UTI cases was reported from the general medicine department. RESULTS: The disease was more significantly portrayed in suburbans (47%) and rural (38%) population compared with urbans (15%). Fever (60.81%) and dysuria (48.64%) were the most common symptoms. Diabetes (34%) was found to be the major predisposing factor followed by postmenopausal factors (24%), previous UTI (14%), renal disease (9%), benign prostatic hypertrophy (8%), smoking (7%), and oral contraceptives (4%). Escherichia coli was the major isolate (n=36) followed by Klebsiella (n=13), Citrobacter (n=8), Enterococcus (n=7), Enterobacter (n=4), Pseudomonas (n=3), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n=2), and Proteus (n=1). Majority of patients were prescribed with cefoperazone+sulbactum (n=28) followed by levofloxacin (n=25) and nitrofurantoin (n=10). Cumulative antibiogram was prepared as the final step of the study using the WHONET 5.6 software. Gram-negative organisms such as E. coli, Klebsiella, and Citrobacter showed higher susceptibility toward piperacillin-tazobactum, cefoperazone-sulbactam, imipenem, meropenem, amikacin, and netilmicin. Gram-positive organisms such as Enterococcus showed higher susceptibility toward piperacillin-tazobactum, cefoperazone-sulbactam, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, vancomycin, and linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, routine culture may be necessary as treatment failure with empirical therapy is likely to occur.

Identification and evaluation of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in hospitalized geriatric patients using Beers criteria.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify and evaluate potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in geriatric patients using Beers criteria and also to identify adverse drug events (ADEs) due to PIMs and various drug-drug interactions. METHODS: The medications in the prescriptions of patients above 60 years of age, their dosage regimen respective of their diagnosis were analyzed. Each medication was then checked with Beers list tables, and any medication if mentioned in the Beers list, was noted along with its strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Any adverse drug event (ADE) due to PIM was identified. Causality of the events was assessed by Naranjo's Scale. The number of drug-drug interactions per prescription and the severity of each interaction were also analyzed. The collected data from 200 subjects were subjected to statistical treatments using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 16.0 for WINDOWS. RESULTS: Based on the Beers criteria 2012, 106 out of 200 (53%) prescriptions had at least one PIM prescribed. A sum of 1690 medications was prescribed as a whole for the entire study subjects. Among which, 134 PIMs were identified. Most commonly prescribed PIMs were benzodiazepines (39, 19.5%), followed by sliding scale use of insulin (31, 15.5%), and prazosin at a rate of 11.5% (23). A total of 10 ADEs were identified during the study. The average number of drug interactions observed among total samples was found to be 3.0±6.0 with 0±5.0 serious interactions, 2±4.0 significant interactions requiring close monitoring, and 0±6.0 minor interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows high prevalence of prescribing PIMs in hospitalized elderly patients; PIM also caused incidence of ADEs; and serious drug-drug interactions were scarce among the patients.