Introduction: As antibiotic sensitivity pattern to common pathogen has been changing day by day, so it has been necessary to study about bacteriological analysis and antibiotic sensitivity pattern. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze on data on bacteremia in children, the pathogen involved and sensitivity pattern. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the bacteriological profile and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of blood culture isolates from Kanti Children Hospital. Method: All blood culture reports (n=9856) during one year period (April 2007 to March 2008 included in the study were analyzed and the sensitivity pattern were recorded. In this retrospective study, we reviewed records of patients from Kanti Children Hospital from April 2007 to March 2008. Results: The positivity of blood culture was 4.2% (414/9856). Out of them, 269 (65%) were positive for Staphylococcus aures, 121(29.3%) E coli, 13(3.1%) Klebsiella pneumonia, 6(1.4%) Streptococcus pneumonia and 5(1.2%) Streptococcus viridence. Staphylococcus aureus was found most sensitive to Chloramphenicol (88.8%) followed by Amikacin (87.5%), Ofloxacin (76.5%), Ciprofloxacin (72%) and least sensitive to Ampicillin, Cloxacillin and Penicillin. E.coli was found most sensitive to Amikacin (74.7%) followed by Ofloxacin (69.9%), Ciprofloxacin (56.4%) and least sensitive to Cephalexin, Gentamycin and Ampicillin. Klebsiella pneumoniae was found most sensitive to Amikacin (91.7%) followed by Ofloxacin (87.5%), Chloramphenical (81.8%) and least sensitive to Cotrimoxazole and Gentamycin. It is 100% resistance to Ampicillin and Erythromycin. Streptococcus pneumoniae was most sensitive to Penicillin, Chloramphenical (100%) followed by Ampicillin and Erythromycin (83.3%) and least sensitive to Cotrimoxazole. Streptococcus viridence was most sensitive to Chloramphenical (100%) followed by Erythromycin (80%), Penicillin (75%) and least sensitive to Cotrimoxazole. Conclusion: This highlights the variable nature of antibiotic susceptibility patterns both in time and location around different geographical locations and within the same country as well. Therefore, it is advisable to continuously evaluate the sensitivity-resistance pattern of isolates so as to make a rational use of antibiotics.

Background Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) and remdesivir (REM) have been approved for investigational use to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nepal. Methods In this prospective, multicentered study, we evaluated the safety and outcomes of treatment with CPT and/or REM in 1315 hospitalized COVID-19 patients over 18 years in 31 hospitals across Nepal. REM was administered to patients with moderate, severe, or life-threatening infection. CPT was administered to patients with severe to life-threatening infections who were at high risk for progression or clinical worsening despite REM. Clinical findings and outcomes were recorded until discharge or death. Results Patients were classified as having moderate (24.2%), severe (64%), or life-threatening (11.7%) COVID-19 infection. The majority of CPT and CPT + REM recipients had severe to life-threatening infections (CPT 98.3%; CPT + REM 92.1%) and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; CPT 91.8%; CPT + REM 94.6%) compared with those who received REM alone (73.3% and 57.5%, respectively). Of 1083 patients with reported outcomes, 78.4% were discharged and 21.6% died. The discharge rate was 84% for REM (n = 910), 39% for CPT (n = 59), and 54.4% for CPT + REM (n = 114) recipients. In a logistic model comparing death vs discharge and adjusted for age, gender, steroid use, and severity, the predicted margin for discharge was higher for recipients of remdesivir alone (0.82; 95% CI, 0.79–0.84) compared with CPT (0.58; 95% CI, 0.47–0.70) and CPT + REM (0.67; 95% CI, 0.60–0.74) recipients. Adverse events of remdesivir and CPT were reported in <5% of patients. Conclusions This study demonstrates a safe rollout of CPT and REM in a resource-limited setting. Remdesivir recipients had less severe infection and better outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT04570982.

No abstract

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (covid-19) is a highly contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). People who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 or are vaccinated with covid-19 vaccines are supposed to develop immunoglobulins and these immune responses in human body will determine the efficacy of the vaccines as well as help to discover new therapeutic options. Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted between April to June, 2021, assessing serum antibody titer from participants who had taken the first dose of covishieldTM vaccine (naïve as well as prior covid-19 infected individuals). Antibody testing was carried out with Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S electrochemiluminescence immunoassay on Roche Cobas e 601 module. Twenty-eight of these participants had follow up repeat antibody test after second dose of vaccine. Results: A total of 122 participants with the first dose of CovishieldTM vaccine were all tested seropositive, antibody titer ranging from minimum of 2.95 U/mL to maximum 2500 U/mL. Average antibody titer was 308.9 U/mL for naive cohort and 1604 U/mL for prior covid-19 infection. In twenty-eight participants who had antibody titer measured after 1 month of second dose, average titer was 1459.7 U/mL for naïve cohort and 1803.4 U/mL for prior covid-19 infected individuals, which was statistically significant compared to antibody response after the first dose. Conclusions: Antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 following immunization was 100%, with significant development after second dose in naïve population while robust immune response was present after first dose in prior SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.