A large proportion of hospital pharmacists in Qatar self-assessed themselves as having deficiencies in several domains of research process or competencies, although they recognized the value of research in advancing pharmacy practice. These findings have important implications for developing informal research training programs and promoting the pursuit of formal postgraduate programs to bridge the knowledge gaps found among hospital-practicing pharmacists.

Background The role of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is unclear. Methods We retrospectively compared outcomes in a cohort of critical COVID‐19 patients who received standard care (SC Group) and those who, in addition, received convalescent plasma (CP Group). Results In total, 40 patients were included in each group. The median patient age was 53.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 42–60.5), and the majority of patients required invasive ventilation (69, 86.2%). Plasma was harvested from donors after a median of 37 days (IQR 31–46) from the first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result and 26 days (IQR 21–32) after documented viral clearance; it was administered after a median of 10 days (IQR 9–10) from the onset of symptoms and 2.5 days (IQR 2–4) from admission to intensive care unit. The primary endpoint of improvement in respiratory support status within 28 days was achieved in 26 patients (65%) in the SC Group and 31 patients (77.5%) in the CP Group ( p = .32). The 28‐day all‐cause mortality (12.5% vs. 2.5%; p = .22) and viral clearance (65% vs. 55%; p = .49) were not significantly different between the two groups. Convalescent plasma was not significantly associated with the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.49; p = .62). Adverse events were balanced between the two study groups. Conclusion In severe COVID‐19, convalescent plasma therapy was not associated with clinical benefits. Randomized trials are required to confirm our findings.

Background We investigated the clinical characteristics and risk factors for the isolation of multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) from critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods We retrospectively matched (1:2) critical COVID-19 patients with one or more MDR GNB from any clinical specimen (cases), with those with no MDR GNB isolates (controls). Results Seventy-eight cases were identified (4.5 per 1,000 ICU days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6–5.7). Out of 98 MDR GNB isolates, the most frequent species were Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (24, 24.5%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (23, 23.5%). Two (8.7%) K. pneumoniae, and six (85.7%) Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were carbapenem resistant. A total of 24 (24.5%) isolates were not considered to be associated with active infection. Those with active infection received appropriate antimicrobial agent within a median of one day. The case group had significantly longer median central venous line days, mechanical ventilation days, and hospital length of stay (P<0.001 for each). All-cause mortality at 28 days was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.19). Mechanical ventilation days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.062, 95% CI 1.012 to 1.114; P 0.015), but not receipt of corticosteroids or tocilizumab, was independently associated with the isolation of MDR GNB. There was no association between MDR GNB and 28-day all-cause mortality (aOR 2.426, 95% CI 0.833 to 7.069; P = 0.104). Conclusion In critically ill COVID-19 patients, prevention of MDR GNB colonization and infections requires minimising the use of invasive devices, and to remove them as soon as their presence is no longer necessary.

Purpose: To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.Methods: Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020.Results: 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors.