Search

Background: Early motor development is fundamental in driving cognitive skill acquisition. Motor delays in children with cerebral palsy (CP) often limit exploratory behaviors, decreasing opportunities or the quality of cognitive development, emphasizing the importance of early intervention. This study aimed to assess immediate and 5-month motor and cognitive changes in infants and toddlers at risk of or with CP after participation in a community-based program. Methods: Twenty-two children (mean age: 22 ± 7 months) classified using the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) and mini-Manual Ability Classification System (mini-MACS) participated in a 6-day community-based activity program, with outcomes assessed using the Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC-2). Results: Participants who met their motor goals post-participation had significantly higher cognitive scores (p = 0.006) 5 months after the program. Participants with higher functional motor abilities (GMFCS levels I–II, p = 0.052; mini-MACS levels I–II, p = 0.004) demonstrated better cognitive scores at 5 months, adjusted for baseline scores, than those with lower functional motor abilities. Conclusions: This study highlights the impact of motor improvements following an evidence-based community program on later cognitive development. Prospective studies investigating the mechanisms and mediation of cognitive progress in children with CP should investigate the effects of early motor interventions on long-term developmental trajectories.

Four specimens of Mallodon spinibarbis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) was collected in a tamarind tree (Tamarindus indica L.), in Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil, and one of them carried under its elytra four Lustrochernes sp. (Pseudoscorpiones: Chernetidae). Among 26 species of this pseudoscorpions' genus in the world, seven are reported in Brazil, and their occurrence is mentioned only in a few states. Phoresia involving species of Lustrochernes Beier, 1932 in Brazil was mentioned only in Amazonas and Roraima's states, involving this cerambicide and species from other families. This paper reports Lustrochernes sp. as a phoront of M. spinibarbis for the first time in São Paulo’s state and thus contributes to increase the occurrence of this association.

Abstract Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the impact of a multicenter, try automated dashboard on ASP activities and its acceptance among ASP leaders. Design: Frontline stewards were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews before and after implementation of a web-based ASP information dashboard providing risk-adjusted benchmarking, longitudinal trends, and analysis of antimicrobial usage patterns at each facility. Setting: The study was performed at Iowa City VA Health Care System. Participants: ASP team members from nine medical centers in the VA Midwest Health Care Network (VISN 23). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post-implementation, with interview guides informed by clinical experiences and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants evaluated the dashboard’s ease of use, applicability to ongoing ASP activities, perceived validity and reliability, and relative advantage over other ASP monitoring systems. Results: Compared to established stewardship data collection and reporting methods, participants found the dashboard more intuitive and accessible, allowing them to reduce dependence on other systems and staff to obtain and share data. Standardized and risk-adjusted rankings were largely accepted as a valuable benchmarking method; however, participants felt their facility’s characteristics significantly influenced the rankings’ validity. Participants recognized staffing, training, and uncertainty with using the dashboard as an intervention tool as barriers to consistent and comprehensive dashboard implementation. Conclusions: Participants generally accepted the dashboard’s risk-adjusted metrics and appreciated its usability. While creating automated tools to rigorously benchmark antimicrobial use across hospitals can be helpful, the displayed metrics require further validation, and the longitudinal utility of the dashboard warrants additional study.

Abstract Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) among fully vaccinated individuals. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present four or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% confidence interval) for post-COVID conditions between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). Results: Thirty-two studies with 775,931 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which, twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.523–0.885) with an estimated VE of 32.0% (11.5%–47.7%). Vaccine effectiveness was 36.9% (23.1%–48.2%) among those who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% (64.7%–72.2%) among those who received three doses before COVID-19 infection. The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered.

Clostridioides difficile infection is an increasing presence worldwide. Prevention is multipronged, reflecting a complex and evolving epidemiology. Multiple guidelines exist regarding the prevention of C. difficile infection in healthcare settings; however, existing guidelines do not address C. difficile in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Nevertheless, the prevalence of C. difficile in LMIC likely parallels, if not exceeds, that of high-income countries, and LMIC may experience additional challenges in C. difficile diagnosis and control. A panel of experts was convened by the International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID) to review the current state of C. difficile infections globally and make evidence-based recommendations for infection prevention that are broadly applicable.

Abstract Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%–97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%–63.3%). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants.

We describe the association between job roles and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel. A wide range of hazard ratios were observed across job roles. Medical assistants had higher hazard ratios than nurses, while attending physicians, food service workers, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, residents and fellows, and temporary workers had lower hazard ratios.

Abstract Background: Most hand hygiene (HH) intervention studies use a quasi-experimental design, are primarily uncontrolled before-and-after studies, or are controlled before-and-after studies with a nonequivalent control group. Well-funded studies with improved designs and HH interventions are needed. Objectives: To evaluate healthcare worker (HCW) HH compliance with alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) through direct observation (human observer), 2 electronic technologies, a radio frequency identification (RFID) badge system, and an invasive device sensor. Methods: In our controlled experimental study, 2,269 observations were made over a 6-month period from July 1 to December 30, 2020, in a 4-bed intensive care unit. We compared HH compliance between a basic feedback loop system with RFID badges and an enhanced feedback loop system that utilized sensors on invasive devices. Results: Real-time feedback by wireless technology connected to a patient’s invasive device (enhanced feedback loop) resulted in a significant increase in HH compliance (69.5% in the enhanced group vs 59.1% in the basic group; P = .0001). Conclusion: An enhanced feedback loop system connected to invasive devices, providing real-time alerts to HCWs, is effective in improving HH compliance.

Abstract Objective: We sought to determine whether an electronic hand hygiene (HH) system could monitor HH compliance at similar rates to direct human observation. Methods: This 4-year proof-of-concept study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) of a private tertiary-care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, where electronic HH systems were installed in 2 rooms. HH compliance was reported respectively using direct observation and electronic counter devices with an infrared system for detecting HH opportunities. Results: In phase 1, HH compliance by human observers was 56.3% (564 of 1,001 opportunities), while HH compliance detected by the electronic observer was 51.0% (515 of 1,010 opportunities). In phase 2, human observers registered 484 HH opportunities with a HH compliance rate of 64.7% (313 of 484) versus 70.6% (346 of 490) simultaneously detected by the electronic system. In addition, an enhanced HH electronic system monitored activity 24 hours per day and HH compliance without the presence of a human observer was 40.3% (10,642 of 26,421 opportunities), providing evidence for the Hawthorne effect. Conclusions: The electronic HH monitoring system had good correlation with human HH observation, but compliance was remarkably lower when human observers were not present due to the Hawthorne effect (25%–30% absolute difference). Electronic monitoring systems can replace direct observation and can markedly reduce the Hawthorne effect.

We analyzed blood-culture practices to characterize the utilization of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommendations related to catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) blood cultures. Most patients with a central line had only peripheral blood cultures. Increasing the utilization of CRBSI guidelines may improve clinical care, but may also affect other quality metrics.

Abstract Background: Although multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19–related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post–COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post–COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID). Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post–COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post–COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). Results: In total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post–COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692–0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%–30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%–38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%–29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post–COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.

One fundamental strategy to address the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is improved awareness among the public, prescribers, and policy makers with the aim of engaging these groups to act. World Antimicrobial Awareness Week is an opportunity for concerted and consistent communication regarding practical strategies to prevent and mitigate AMR. We highlight 10 ways for antimicrobial stewards to make the most of World Antimicrobial Awareness Week.

Abstract Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine. Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028–0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%–97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%–94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%–97.6%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the frequency of antibiotic prescribing for common infections via telemedicine compared to face-to-face visits. Design: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase (Elsevier platform) and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify studies comparing frequency of antibiotic prescribing via telemedicine and face-to-face visits without restrictions by publish dates or language used. We conducted meta-analyses of 5 infections: sinusitis, pharyngitis, otitis media, upper respiratory infection (URI) and urinary tract infection (UTI). Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I 2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic test. Results: Among 3,106 studies screened, 23 studies (1 randomized control study, 22 observational studies) were included in the systematic literature review. Most of the studies (21 of 23) were conducted in the United States. Studies were substantially heterogenous, but stratified analyses revealed that providers prescribed antibiotics more frequently via telemedicine for otitis media (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.52; I 2 = 31%) and pharyngitis (pooled OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01–1.33; I 2 = 0%). We detected no significant difference in the frequencies of antibiotic prescribing for sinusitis (pooled OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70–1.06; I 2 = 91%), URI (pooled OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.59–2.39; I 2 = 100%), or UTI (pooled OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 0.88–7.46; I 2 = 91%). Conclusions: Telemedicine visits for otitis media and pharyngitis were associated with higher rates of antibiotic prescribing. The interpretation of these findings requires caution due to substantial heterogeneity among available studies. Large-scale, well-designed studies with comprehensive assessment of antibiotic prescribing for common outpatient infections comparing telemedicine and face-to-face visits are needed to validate our findings.

Abstract Objectives: To identify drugs that were administered off label to hospitalized patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug–drug interactions associated with these therapies. Methods: This case–control study was conducted in a Brazilian hospital from March to April 2020 among patients with suspected COVID-19, comparing those with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and those with negative results. Results: The most commonly used medications in both groups were azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher prevalence of reactions among patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 (48.5% vs 28.8%; P = .008) in the propensity score–matched cohort, and the most commonly reported ADRs among these patients were diarrhea (43.8%), elevated liver enzymes (31.3%), and nausea and vomiting (29.7%). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that ADRs and drug–drug interactions are common with off-label treatments for COVID-19.

Abstract Background Influenza A H1N1 infections carry a significant mortality risk. This study describes inpatients with suspected and confirmed Influenza A H1N1 infection who were prescribed oseltamivir, the risk factors associated with infection, the association between infection and mortality, and the factors associated with in-hospital mortality in infected patients. Methods This study was a matched case-control study of hospitalized patients who underwent real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for Influenza A H1N1 and were treated with oseltamivir from 2009 to 2015 in a tertiary care hospital. Cases (patients with positive Influenza A H1N1 testing) were matched 1:1 to controls (patients with negative test results). Results A total of 1405 inpatients who underwent PCR testing and received treatment with oseltamivir were identified in our study and 157 patients confirmed Influenza A H1N1. Almost one third of patients with Influenza A H1N1 were diagnosed in the pandemic period. There was no difference in mortality between cases and controls. Immunocompromised status, requirement of vasoactive drugs, mechanical ventilation, acute hemodialysis, albumin administration, surgical procedures and thoracic procedures and length of stay were associated with increased risk of death in Influenza A H1N1 infected patients. Conclusions We found no increased risk of mortality for patients with proven Influenza A H1N1 when compared to similar patients without confirmed Influenza.

Abstract Background Candida bloodstream infections carry a significant mortality risk, justifying the importance of adequate antifungal therapy. This study describes trends in antifungal consumption using the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and Days of Therapy (DOT) metrics, identifies the microbiological profile, the time to initiation of empirical therapy, the adjustment after positive blood culture results for Candida, and the impact on in-hospital mortality rate in patients with candidemia. Methods An analysis of antifungal consumption from 2008 to 2016, and of candidemia cases from 2012 to 2016 was carried out in a private tertiary hospital. Results A total of 11,273 admissions were identified with a prescription for at least one type of antifungal therapy. Fluconazole was the most prescribed antifungal drug in terms of general consumption. Through the DDD and DOT metrics, we observed that over time, there was an increase in the consumption of liposomal amphotericin B, micafungin and voriconazole. Candida albicans was the most isolated species in blood cultures. Regarding candidemia, we analyzed samples from 115 patients. Empirical therapy was started within 24 h of blood culture in 44.3% of the cases, and in 81.7% of the cases, the antifungal was deemed to be adequate based in antifungal susceptibility testing, both of which were not associated with the in-hospital mortality rate. Conclusions Our study reinforces the importance of monitoring the consumption of antifungal agents, which helps in proposing actions that lead to their rational use and, consequently, reduces the appearance of resistant strains.

Abstract Background Although there are systems for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR), these safety events remain under reported. The low-cost, low-tech trigger tool method is based on the detection of events through clues, and it seems to increase the detection of adverse events compared to traditional methodologies. This study seeks to estimate the prevalence of adverse reactions to drugs in patients seeking care in the emergency department. Methods Retrospective study from January to December, 2014, applying the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) trigger tool methodology for patients treated at the emergency room of a tertiary care hospital. Results The estimated prevalence of adverse reactions in patients presenting to the emergency department was 2.3% [CI95 1.3% to 3.3%]; 28.6% of cases required hospitalization at an average cost of US$ 5698.44. The most common triggers were hydrocortisone (57% of the cases), diphenhydramine (14%) and fexofenadine (14%). Anti-infectives (19%), cardiovascular agents (14%), and musculoskeletal drugs (14%) were the most common causes of adverse reactions. According to the Naranjo Scale, 71% were classified as possible and 29% as probable. There was no association between adverse reactions and age and sex in the present study. Conclusions The use of the trigger tool to identify adverse reactions in the emergency department was possible to identify a prevalence of 2.3%. It showed to be a viable method that can provide a better understanding of adverse drug reactions in this patient population.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare methods for assessing compliance with hand hygiene in an intensive care unit (ICU), a step-down unit (SDU), and a hematology–oncology unit. Methods: Over a 20-week period, we compared hand hygiene compliance measurements by three different methods: direct observation, electronic handwash counter for alcohol gel, and measuring the volume of product used (alcohol gel) in an ICU, an SDU, and a hematology–oncology unit of a tertiary care, private hospital. Results: By direct observation we evaluated 1078 opportunities in the ICU, 1075 in the SDU, and 517 in the hematology–oncology unit, with compliance rates of 70.7%, 75.4%, and 73.3%, respectively. A total of 342 299, 235 914, and 248 698 hand hygiene episodes were recorded by the electronic devices in the ICU, SDU, and hematology–oncology unit, respectively. There were also 127.2 ml, 85.3 ml, and 67.6 ml of alcohol gel used per patient-day in these units. We could find no correlation between the three methods. Conclusions: Hand hygiene compliance was reasonably high in these units, as measured by direct observation. However, a lack of correlation with results obtained by other methodologies brings into question the validity of direct observation results, and suggests that periodic audits using other methods may be needed.