ObjectiveTo 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.

Tracking the within-patient evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is key to understanding how this pandemic virus shapes its genome toward immune evasion and survival. In the present study, by monitoring a long-term COVID-19 immunocompromised patient, we observed the concurrent emergence of mutations potentially associated with immune evasion and/or enhanced transmission, mostly targeting the SARS-CoV-2 key host-interacting protein and antigen.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world, and the vaccine has emerged as a source of hope for return to normal life. Still, various countries have reported high vaccine hesitancy rates. It is important to know the vaccine hesitancy profile in Brazil to help design adequate communication strategies. Methods A voluntary, anonymous online survey was conducted from January 22 to 29, 2021, including resident Brazilian adults to assess factors related to vaccine hesitancy. Sociodemographic and epidemiological data were analyzed. A bivariate analysis was conducted with the independent variables, with vaccine hesitancy as the outcome variable, and a multivariate logistic model was used to calculated adjusted odds ratios. Results The sample included 173,178 respondents, and vaccine hesitancy was found in 10.5%. The principal factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were the following: assigning importance to the vaccinés efficacy (AOR=16.39), fear of adverse reactions (AOR = 11.23), and assigning importance to the vaccinés country of origin (AOR=3.72). Other risk factors were the following: male gender (AOR=1.62), having children (AOR=1.29), 9 years of schooling or less (AOR=1.31), living in the Central-West region (AOR=1.19), age ≥ 40 years (AOR=1.17), and monthly income < U$788.68 (AOR=1.13). The two vaccines available in Brazil, Covishield and CoronaVac, showed similar confidence, 80.13% and 76.36%, respectively, despite the higher rejection of the latter vaccinés Chinese origin. Interpretation: This online survey confirms the low vaccine hesitancy rate among Brazilians and allowed the identification of a profile that can assist the elaboration of communication strategies to increase vaccine adherence. Funding: National Institute of Womeńs, Childreńs and Adolescentś Health Fernandes Figueira, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Considering the potential COVID-19 impact on pwMS health and the importance of vaccination for this population, we decided to assess: (a) pwMS’ beliefs and knowledge on COVID-19 pandemic; (b) their acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination and (c) pwMS’ opinions on general vaccination. METHODS Observational study, based on a cross-sectional (10-20 th September 2020) online survey, conducted in a cohort of pwMS’ followed at two Portuguese hospitals. The survey included measures to characterize the sample and a questionnaire designed to assess the topics defined for this study. RESULTS 270 respondents completed the full survey (response rate 58.2%). pwMS greatest concern during the pandemic was an aggravation of MS, especially by patients older than 50 years old. Almost 40% of the patients older than 50 felt that the pandemic negatively affected their MS related medical assistance. Most patients believed they would recover from COVID-19 infection. More than half of the responders feared a MS aggravation if they got COVID-19; this was more pronounced in patients with progressive MS. About 12% of the participants did not want to be vaccinated and almost 40% was unsure. Regarding vaccines in general, almost a third of the participants feared their side effects or MS related complications. CONCLUSION Having knowledge of pwMS’ opinions on COVID-19 pandemic impact and vaccination is useful to better address these issues. Fears and expectations towards vaccination must be discussed with pwMS.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led the French government, like others throughout the world, to introduce measures such as lockdowns, bans on public events,

Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) can rarely present with acute ipsilateral cochlear and/or vestibular loss, to date always in the absence of a clear local otogenic process evidenced by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This association has been putatively attributed to inner ear anoxia due to blockage of inner ear venous drainage. We present a nonreported case of thrombosis of the left transverse and sigmoid sinuses presenting with acute unilateral vestibulopathy in which MRI disclosed concurrent ipsilateral labyrinthine haemorrhage. A 69‐year‐old female presented with acute vertigo without hearing loss or other accompanying neurological symptoms. Bedside examination revealed spontaneous right‐beating nystagmus and an impaired left head impulse response, with an otherwise normal neurological examination. Audiometry and head and ear computed tomography were unremarkable, whereas MRI showed a nonenhancing hyperintensity of the left inner ear consistent with labyrinthine haemorrhage, and additional venography disclosed thrombosis of the left transverse and sigmoid sinuses. Oral anticoagulation was started, and the patient experienced gradual improvement of symptoms. The current case provides support for the existence of inner ear anoxia in CVT cases presenting with acute ipsilateral vestibular loss, which can ultimately be complicated by secondary bleeding, as seen in our patient. Importantly, presentation in our case closely mimicked that of peripheral vestibular neuritis, and only MRI venography enabled us to make a prompt diagnosis. This raises an important question as to when a diagnosis of vestibular neuritis can be made securely in the absence of MRI assessment with or without venography to completely discard labyrinthine haemorrhage with or without CVT.

Background: The control of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a great challenge. Understanding the thoughts and beliefs underlying vaccine hesitancy can help in the formulation of public policies. The present study aimed to analyze the social representations of hesitant Brazilians about vaccination against COVID-19. Methods: Qualitative research guided by the Theory of Social Representations, carried out through an online survey among Brazilian adults living in Brazil. The data were analyzed using the IRaMuTeQ software. Results: Of the 173,178 respondents, 10,928 were hesitant and declared reasons for vaccination hesitation. The analysis generated three classes: mistrust of the vaccine and underestimation of the severity of the pandemic; (dis)information and distrust of political involvement; and fear of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: Social knowledge, presented by the representations apprehended in this study, demonstrates difficulty in discerning the reliability of information and a social imagination full of doubts and uncertainties. Understanding the internal dynamics of these groups, with their representations of the world, is important to propose policies and actions that echo and cause changes in the understanding of the role of immunization. It is essential to shed light on the sociological imagination so that gaps filled with false information can be dismantled and confronted with scientific knowledge accessible to the population.