RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus has been a world-known pandemic since February 2020. Multiple variances had been established; the most common variants in Israel were omicron and delta. AIM: To analyze and compare laboratory values in the "omicron" and "delta" variants of the coronavirus by conducting follow-up examinations and laboratory audits on COVID-19 patients admitted to our institution. METHODS: A retrospective study, two groups, 50 patients in each group. Patients examined positive for COVID-19 were divided into groups according to the common variant at the given time. We reviewed demographic data and laboratory results such as complete blood count and full chemistry, including electrolytes and coagulation parameters. RESULTS: The mean age was 52%, 66.53 ± 21.7 were female. No significance was found comparing laboratory results in the following disciplines: Blood count, hemoglobin, and lymphocytes (P = 0.41, P = 0.87, P = 0.97). Omicron and delta variants have higher neutrophil counts, though they are not significantly different (P = 0.38). Coagulation tests: Activated paritial thromoplastin test and international normalized ratio (P = 0.72, P = 0.68). We found no significance of abnormality for all electrolytes. CONCLUSION: The study compares laboratory results of blood tests between two variants of the COVID-19 virus - omicron and delta. We found no significance between the variants. Our results show the need for further research with larger data as well as the need to compare all COVID-19 variants.
RESUMO
UNLABELLED:  Background. The diabetic foot is a common site of infections that frequently result in significant patient morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic treatment is an important part of therapy with selection of the specific agent depending on the stage of ulceration. Recently, ertapenem has entered use as first line therapy for moderate to severe diabetic foot infections. The following prospective study recounts the experience of using ertapenem as tertiary salvage therapy following failure of first and second-line antibiotics. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with diabetic foot ulcers (IDSA classification moderate-severe), 28 with soft tissue infections alone, 12 with concomitant osteomyelitis, were included in the study. Patients were referred from the diabetic foot clinic at the authors' institution after failure of treatment with cephalexin and ciprofloxacin/clindamycin combination, and were treated with ertapenem 1-g daily intravenously (IV). Endpoints were significant clinical improvement (resolution of fever, leukocytosis, surrounding erythema, and purulent discharge). RESULTS: Clinical improvement was noted in all 28 individuals with soft tissue infections-all of these individuals had complete ulcer closure after a mean of 30 ± 8 treatment days. Of the 12 patients with concomitant osteomyelitis, only 25% required surgical intervention. Nine individuals were cured following a mean of 60 ± 15 treatment days of home IV antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSION: Ertapenem is an efficacious, easy to use, and cost saving antibiotic for the treatment of diabetic foot infections that have failed therapy with traditional antibiotics.
