| 1. |
- Li, G, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards understanding global patterns of antimicrobial use and resistance in neonatal sepsis: insights from the NeoAMR network
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Archives of disease in childhood. - : BMJ. - 1468-2044 .- 0003-9888. ; 105:1, s. 26-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To gain an understanding of the variation in available resources and clinical practices between neonatal units (NNUs) in the low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) setting to inform the design of an observational study on the burden of unit-level antimicrobial resistance (AMR).DesignA web-based survey using a REDCap database was circulated to NNUs participating in the Neonatal AMR research network. The survey included questions about NNU funding structure, size, admission rates, access to supportive therapies, empirical antimicrobial guidelines and period prevalence of neonatal blood culture isolates and their resistance patterns.Setting39 NNUs from 12 countries.PatientsAny neonate admitted to one of the participating NNUs.InterventionsThis was an observational cohort study.ResultsThe number of live births per unit ranged from 513 to 27 700 over the 12-month study period, with the number of neonatal cots ranging from 12 to 110. The proportion of preterm admissions <32 weeks ranged from 0% to 19%, and the majority of units (26/39, 66%) use Essential Medicines List ‘Access’ antimicrobials as their first-line treatment in neonatal sepsis. Cephalosporin resistance rates in Gram-negative isolates ranged from 26% to 84%, and carbapenem resistance rates ranged from 0% to 81%. Glycopeptide resistance rates among Gram-positive isolates ranged from 0% to 45%.ConclusionAMR is already a significant issue in NNUs worldwide. The apparent burden of AMR in a given NNU in the LMIC setting can be influenced by a range of factors which will vary substantially between NNUs. These variations must be considered when designing interventions to improve neonatal mortality globally.
|
|
| 2. |
- Elimian, K, et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 mortality rate and its associated factors during the first and second waves in Nigeria
- 2022
-
Ingår i: PLOS global public health. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 2767-3375. ; 2:6, s. e0000169-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- COVID-19 mortality rate has not been formally assessed in Nigeria. Thus, we aimed to address this gap and identify associated mortality risk factors during the first and second waves in Nigeria. This was a retrospective analysis of national surveillance data from all 37 States in Nigeria between February 27, 2020, and April 3, 2021. The outcome variable was mortality amongst persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction. Incidence rates of COVID-19 mortality was calculated by dividing the number of deaths by total person-time (in days) contributed by the entire study population and presented per 100,000 person-days with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI). Adjusted negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality. Findings are presented as adjusted Incidence Rate Ratios (aIRR) with 95% CI. The first wave included 65,790 COVID-19 patients, of whom 994 (1∙51%) died; the second wave included 91,089 patients, of whom 513 (0∙56%) died. The incidence rate of COVID-19 mortality was higher in the first wave [54∙25 (95% CI: 50∙98–57∙73)] than in the second wave [19∙19 (17∙60–20∙93)]. Factors independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves were: age ≥45 years, male gender [first wave aIRR 1∙65 (1∙35–2∙02) and second wave 1∙52 (1∙11–2∙06)], being symptomatic [aIRR 3∙17 (2∙59–3∙89) and 3∙04 (2∙20–4∙21)], and being hospitalised [aIRR 4∙19 (3∙26–5∙39) and 7∙84 (4∙90–12∙54)]. Relative to South-West, residency in the South-South and North-West was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves. In conclusion, the rate of COVID-19 mortality in Nigeria was higher in the first wave than in the second wave, suggesting an improvement in public health response and clinical care in the second wave. However, this needs to be interpreted with caution given the inherent limitations of the country’s surveillance system during the study.
|
|
