Effect of Topical Silver Nanoparticle Formulation on Wound Bacteria Clearance and Healing in Patients With Infected Wounds Compared to Standard Topical Antibiotic Application: A Randomized Open-Label Parallel Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected wounds pose a special challenge for management, with an increased risk of wound chronicity, systemic infection, and the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Silver nanoparticles have multimodal effects on bacteria clearance and wound healing. This study aimed to document the efficacy of a topical silver nanoparticle-based cream on bacteria clearance and wound healing in infected wounds compared to Mupirocin. METHODS: This open-label parallel randomized clinical trial allocated 86 participants with infected wounds (culture-positive) into Kadermin, silver nanoparticle-based cream arm (n=43) and Mupirocin arm (n=43) and documented the swab culture on day 5 and wound healing at day 28, along with periodic wound status using the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool. Patients received oral/systemic antibiotics and other medications for underlying diseases. The intention-to-treat principle was adopted for data analysis using the chi-square and Student t tests to document the differences between groups according to variable characteristics. RESULTS: All participants completed the follow-up. On day 5, wound bacteria clearance was observed in 86% and 65.1% of the participants in the Kadermin and Mupirocin arms, respectively (p=0.023). At day 28, complete wound healing was observed in 81.4% and 37.2% of the participants in the Kadermin and Mupirocin arms, respectively (p≤0.001). No local or systemic adverse event or local reaction was observed in any of the participants. CONCLUSION: Kadermin, the silver nanoparticle-based cream, has better efficacy in achieving faster wound bacteria clearance and healing in infected wounds compared to Mupirocin. This may have relevance for its use as an antibiotic-sparing agent in wound management.

Colistin Resistance Among Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Isolates From Different Clinical Samples of ICU Patients: Prevalence and Clinical Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Colistin is considered to be the last resort for the management of infections caused by multi-drug resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacilli (GNB). However, in the recent past, there has been a rise in colistin resistance among MDR isolates in clinical settings with no profound data on the incidences and causes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of colistin-resistance (CLR) in MDR isolates collected from different intensive care units (ICUs) and to determine the clinical outcomes of the patients.  Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted in the ICU of a tertiary care hospital in Eastern Odisha, India from March 2019 to February 2020. MDR GNB isolates from different clinical samples of ICU patients, not intrinsically resistant to colistin, were included in this study. Samples collected for culture and sensitivity testing were processed as per standard guidelines in the microbiology laboratory. MDR organisms were examined for colistin susceptibility by the broth dilution method. Clinical data was collected from hospital electronic medical records and presented as percentage, number (N), and median (range). RESULTS:  The prevalence of colistin resistance MDR GNB was found to be 19.6% in the present study. Colistin resistance among the MDR isolates was found to be the highest (9.2% for Klebsiella pneumonia followed by 5% for Escherichia coli). CLR drug-resistant isolates were commonly (28.8%) isolated from samples of respiratory tract infections and the majority (54.1%) were from neurology ICU. In this study, co-morbidity was not found among 57.9% of the ICU patients and recovery was maximum i.e., 74.2%. CONCLUSION: This study found the prevalence of colistin resistance to be high (19.6%) among all MDR GNB isolates from samples of ICU patients, Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli commonly acquire colistin resistance. Patients in the neurology ICU were frequently infected with CLR MDR strains. Most of the patients who recovered were without any underlying comorbidities. Prolonged hospital stay and direct antibiotic pressure in the hospital can lead to the development of CLR variants.

Comparative Evaluation of Cartridge-Based Abbott ID NOW Test With Probe-Based Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) recommended by WHO is real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which has a turnaround time of five to six hours. Abbott ID NOW (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc., Scarborough, ME, USA), the cartridge-based loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, was approved by FDA for Emergency Use Authorization as rapid point of care testing. The present study was planned to evaluate the performance of the cartridge-based Abbott ID NOW test by comparing it to the currently used standard probe-based real-time RT-PCR method for detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in the eastern part of India after getting institutional ethics committee (IEC) approval. Two hundred fifty-nine cases of various age groups of both sexes who were advised for testing for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected according to protocol advisory by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India. Dry swabs were sent for Abbott ID NOW testing and swabs in viral transport medium were sent for probe-based RT-PCR assay using the CoviPath kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bangalore, India). The data were collected and statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for ID NOW were calculated taking RT-PCR as the gold standard.  Results: Out of 259 patients enrolled in the study, 49% were symptomatic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 was 20.84% among the study population. Sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values of ID NOW test in comparison to RT-PCR assay was found to be 87%, 98%, 92.1% and 96.8% respectively. ID NOW detected seven out of 54 (12.9%) cases as false negative who were found to be positive with RT-PCR, with mean Ct value of the target genes >34. CONCLUSIONS: In this study the overall sensitivity for ID NOW assay was found to be lower, but specificity, positive and negative predictive values were found to be higher. It had the highest correlation to RT-PCR among symptomatic patients and at higher viral loads. Due to the ease of use and shortest result time for detecting COVID-19, ID NOW test could be used as a point-of-care test. But for all tests, the results should be interpreted according to the clinical and epidemiological context.