Background: Bloodstream infections due to bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among pediatric patients. Emergence of drug resistance in high classes of antibiotics among the bacterial pathogens is another issue of the public health concern. Therefore this study aimed to determine Multi-drug resistant, extended spectrum β-lactamase and carbapenemase producing bacterial isolates among septicemia suspected under five Children in Tikur Anbesa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Methods: Across-sectional study was conducted from September 2017 to June 2018 among pediatric patients with febrile illness aged under five in Tikur Anbesa Specialized Hospital. Three hundred forty blood samples were collected and processed following standard microbiological techniques and culture was performed using BacT/Alert machine in combination with conventional method. AST of the isolates was performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method and MIC technique Result: A total of 137(40.2%) bacterial pathogens were isolated from 340 pediatric patients suspected of BSI with febrile illness. Of these isolates 54% were Gram negative bacteria. Of the isolates 43 (31.4%) Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinitiobactor species were the most frequently isolated pathogens. Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were 95.6% MDR, 23.7% ESBL, and 27.1% CRE in children. Conclusion: In this study, Klebsiella pneumoniae and S. aureus are common pathogens associated with BSI in pediatrics with high antimicrobial resistance. The prevalence of MDR 51.1%, CRE 30.5% and ESBL 25.4% were alarmingly high in bacterial isolates. ESBL producing organisms were common in Klebsiella species and Escherichia coli isolates. Since most of isolates exhibit multidrug resistant, invitro- susceptibility of antimicrobials is mandatory. Strengthen antimicrobial surveillance system and antimicrobial stewardship are necessary for better management of antibiotics in addition to infection prevention practice in TASH settings. Key words: Blood stream infection, BacT/Alert, multi-drug resistance, Extended spectrum beta-lactamase, Carbapenem resistance entrobacteriaciae.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been rapidly spreading across the globe since the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the disease outbreak as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. Hand hygiene, via either regular handwashing with soap and water or using hand sanitizers, is among the various measures that need to be followed to control the outbreak of the disease. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) are the “gold standard” for hand disinfection because of their broad antimicrobial spectrum of activity, easy availability, better safety profile, and general acceptability to users. This study aimed at evaluating the physicochemical quality and antimicrobial efficacy of the locally manufactured ABHS marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was used to collect ABHS from Addis Ababa marketplaces. A total of 25 sample products were randomly selected from different categories of hand sanitizer manufacturers. The physicochemical evaluation of the products was carried out as per the United States Pharmacopoeia and WHO standards. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp clinical isolates were used for the antimicrobial efficacy test. Results The Fourier Transform Infrared result confirmed that all the test products met the identification test for ethanol. The majority (68%) of ABHS complied with the test for ethanol content (75–85% v/v). However, only 3 products fulfilled the hydrogen peroxide content (0.112–0.137% v/v). LPC307 showed the maximum zone of inhibition of 12 mm against Escherichia coli whereas MPC204 exhibited only 3 mm. LPC101 was found to be more sensitive to Shigella and Klebsiella Spp with minimum inhibitory concentration values of 20% and 10%, respectively. The sample product LPC101 showed a minimum bactericidal concentration of 20% against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella spp. Conclusion One-third of the tested ABHS did not comply with the WHO ethanol content limit and the majority of the products failed to meet the label claim for hydrogen peroxide content. Besides, nearly all products proved that they have activity against all the tested pathogenic microorganisms at a minimum concentration from 10 to 80%; though, they did not show 99.9% bacteriostatic or bactericidal activities as claimed. The study findings suggested regular monitoring of the quality of marketed ABHS considering the current wide use of these products.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread worldwide. Hand hygiene, via either regular handwashing with soap and water or using hand sanitizers, is among the various measures that need to be followed to control the outbreak of the disease. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are the “gold standard” for hand disinfection because of their broad antimicrobial spectrum of activity, easy availability, better safety profile, and general acceptability to users. This study aimed at evaluating the physicochemical quality and antimicrobial efficacy of the locally manufactured Ethanol-Based Hand Sanitizers (EBHS) marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect EBHS from Addis Ababa marketplaces. A total of 25 sample products were randomly selected from the different categories. The physicochemical evaluation of the products was carried out as per the United States Pharmacopoeia and WHO standards. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp clinical isolates were used for the antimicrobial efficacy test. Results: The Fourier Transform Infrared result confirmed that all the test products met the identification test for ethanol. The majority (68%) of EBHS complied with the test for ethanol content (75 – 85% v/v). However, only 3 products fulfilled the hydrogen peroxide content (0.112 - 0.137% v/v). LPC307 showed the maximum zone of inhibition of 12 mm against Escherichia coli whereas MPC204 exhibited only 3 mm. LPC101 was found to be more sensitive to Shigella and Klebsiella Spp with minimum inhibitory concentration values of 20% and 10%, respectively. The sample product LPC101 showed a minimum bactericidal concentration of 20% against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella spp.Conclusion: One-third of the tested EBHS did not comply with the WHO ethanol content limit and the majority of the products failed to meet the label claim for hydrogen peroxide content. Besides, nearly all products proved that they have activity against all the tested pathogenic microorganisms; though, they did not show 99.9% bacteriostatic or bactericidal activities as claimed. The study findings suggested regular monitoring of the quality of marketed EBHS considering the current wide use of these products