METHODS: A total of 28 critically ill patients were included in this study. All data were collected from medical, microbiology and pharmacokinetic records. The clinical response was evaluated on the basis of clinical and microbiological parameters. The 24-h area under the curve (AUC0-24) was estimated from a single trough level using established equations.

RESULTS: Out of the 28 patients, 46% were classified as responders to vancomycin treatment. The trough vancomycin concentration did not differ between the responders and non-responders (15.02 ± 6.16 and 14.83 ± 4.80 μg mL-1; P = 0.929). High vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was observed among the non-responders (P = 0.007). The ratio between vancomycin trough concentration and vancomycin MIC was significantly lower in the non-responder group (8.76 ± 3.43 vs. 12.29 ± 4.85 μg mL-1; P = 0.034). The mean ratio of estimated AUC0-24 and vancomycin MIC was 313.78 ± 117.17 μg h mL-1 in the non-responder group and 464.44 ± 139.06 μg h mL-1 in the responder group (P = 0.004). AUC0-24/MIC of ≥ 400 μg h mL-1 was documented for 77% of the responders and 27% of the non-responders (c2 = 7.03; P = 0.008).

METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study conducted from 2016-2019, enrolled patients were divided into 2 treatment groups. Group 1 patients were started on Antiviral drug (oseltamivir) alone therapy. Group 2 patients were initiated on Antiviral drug (oseltamivir) in combination with Antibiotic therapy. Using acute respiratory illness scoring, symptom severity score was assessed daily for 8 symptoms namely, fever, fatigue, headache, cough, sore throat, wheezing, muscle ache and nasal congestion. For each symptom the severity was scored from scale 0-3. Results: Overall mean ARI severity score was statistically significantly lower (p less than 0.05) on day 2 (14.65-vs-13.68), day 3 (12.95-vs-11.67) and day 4 (10.31-vs-9.12 ) for influenza-A (non-H1N1) while day 3 (12.52-vs-11.87) and day 4 (11.21-vs-10.18) for influenza-B patients for patients who were initiated on oseltamivir-antibiotic combination therapy. Fever, cough and nasal congestion showed statistically significant improvement within 4 days of initiation of combination treatment. Fatigue, sore throat and muscle ache improvement pattern was same for both treatment protocols.

OBJECTIVE: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection is a common cause of catheter loss and the main reason for PD drop-out. Exit-site infection (ESI) is a pathway to developing tunnel infection and peritonitis, hence rigorous exit-site care has always been emphasized in PD therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exit-site dressing vs non-dressing on the rate of PD-related infection. ♦

METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in prevalent PD patients at the Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, from April 2011 until April 2013. All patients were required to perform daily washing of the exit site with antibacterial soap during a shower. In the dressing group (n = 54), patients were required to clean their exit site using povidone-iodine after drying, followed by topical mupirocin antibiotic application to the exit site. The exit site was then covered with a sterile gauze dressing and the catheter immobilized with tape. In the non-dressing group (n = 54), patients were not required to do any further dressing after drying. They were only required to apply mupirocin cream to the exit site and then left the exit site uncovered. The catheter was immobilized with tape. The primary outcome was ESI. The secondary outcomes were evidence of tunnel infection or peritonitis. ♦

RESULTS: A total of 97 patients completed the study. There were a total of 12 ESI episodes: 4 episodes in 4 patients in the dressing group vs 8 episodes in 4 patients in the non-dressing group. This corresponds to 1 episode per 241.3 patient-months vs 1 episode per 111.1 patient-months in the dressing and non-dressing groups respectively. Median time to first ESI episode was shorter in the non-dressing than in the dressing group, but not significant (p = 0.25). The incidence of gram-positive ESI in both groups was similar. There were no gram-negative ESI in the non-dressing group compared with 2 in the dressing group. The peritonitis rate was 1 per 37.1 patient-month in the dressing group and 1 per 44.4 patient-months in the non-dressing group. Median time to first peritonitis episode was significantly shorter in the dressing group compared to non-dressing (p = 0.03). There was no impact of dressing disruptions in the occurrence of major PD catheter-related infection. ♦

METHODOLOGY: One hundred and ninety-one episodes of fever and neutropenia in 128 patients from October 1997 to December 1998 were included in a prospective, open-label, single-centre study. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group and evaluated as successes or failures according to defined criteria. Daily assessments were made on all patients and all adverse events recorded. Univariate and multivariate analysis of outcomes and a cost analysis were carried out.

RESULTS: There were 176 evaluable patient-episodes with 51.1% in the single-daily ceftriaxone-amikacin group and 48.9% in the ceftazidime-amikacin group. There were 50 positive blood cultures: 12 Gram-positive bacteria, 33 Gram-negative bacteria and five fungi. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) accounted for 14% of total isolates. The overall success rate was 55.5% in the ceftriaxone group compared to 51.2% in the ceftazidime group (P = 0.56). Mean time to defervescence was 4.2 days in the single-daily group and 4.3 days in the thrice-daily group. There were nine infection-related deaths; five in the single-daily ceftriaxone group. The daily cost of the once-daily regime was 42 Malaysian Ringgit less than the thrice-daily regime. There was a low incidence of adverse effects in both groups, although ototoxicity was not evaluable.