IntrOductIOnSepsis is the tenth leading cause of death worldwide [1], with a case fatality rate of 20% to 30% even in the developed nations of the world [2]. The data from the developing countries is scarce [3,4]; in one multicentric study in ICU setting from India, the incidence and in-hospital mortality rate of severe sepsis were 16.45% and 65% [5].Conventionally, sepsis has been managed in the Intensive Care Units (ICU) [1,6,7]. However several studies show that an increasing number of sepsis patients are also being managed in non-ICU settings in medical wards [8][9][10][11][12]. A recent study from Europe has shown that almost 50% of cases of sepsis are managed in general MW [13]. Patients with sepsis who are admitted to the ICUs usually suffer from multiple organ dysfunction and/or perfusion abnormalities and therefore are more acutely ill than those treated in MW [7]. Therefore, the clinical spectrum of sepsis in ICU and non-ICU settings differs in various aspects. Further, factors like reduction in mortality in response to early resuscitation in patients with sepsis have only been described in the ICU settings and not from general MW [14]. Literature about the epidemiology of sepsis in non-ICU settings is limited even from the developed nations [15], not to speak of developing countries. In the developing countries because of resource constraints a very large proportion of patients Keywords: Antibiotic resistance, Co-morbidities, Hospital stay, Mortality, Organ dysfunction, Sepsis syndromes

No abstract

BACKGROUND HIV/AIDS is a global pandemic with a national adult (15-49 yrs) prevalence of 0.22 % (NACO 2019) and females constituted around 44 % of the total estimated people living with HIV (PLHIV). HIV infection in women occurs mostly in their reproductive years which leads to transmission to the child thereby comprising the most common mode of acquiring HIV infection in children < 15 yrs. Women account for more than 70 % of the caregivers of seropositive spouses or other family members. This study was conducted to explore the reasons behind increasing HIV prevalence among adult women in the region including their demographic profile, transmission dynamics and clinical profile of HIV/AIDS. METHODS This is a hospital-based observational study among 100 selected adult female patients with HIV/AIDS (as per NACO guidelines) who attended the Gauhati Medical College Hospital from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2017. A detailed clinical history of the selected cases was obtained in the register of the institutional ICTC centre and was recorded in standard proforma. RESULTS Out of the 100 cases included in the study, 95 were married of which 74 had seropositive husbands while 21 were discordant couples. The mean age of the study population was 31.27 ± 9.7 yrs., with the majority of women being in the age group of 21 – 30 yrs. Among the study group, 13 were illiterates while 6 were graduates. Fever was the most common presenting feature with 59 % followed by weight loss (36 %) and diarrhoea (15 %) respectively. Bacterial respiratory tract infection and oral candidiasis were present in 12 % and 11 % of patients respectively as opportunistic infections. CONCLUSIONS The majority of cases in our study were housewives and the biggest risk was through heterosexual sex with their husbands or primary partners. Only a few attended colleges in the study group while the rest were either illiterates or school dropouts and the majority of them didn’t have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS. The large gender inequality in education and unemployment may be responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in women. KEY WORDS Clinical, HIV/AIDS, Women

The study was done to validate the DECAF score for the prediction of prognosis in AECOPD patients.Methodology: 92 AECOPD patients were given scores as per the DECAF system. Patients were monitored during their whole hospital stay. The final results were classified as death and recovery. DECAF score's importance for the prediction of clinical outcomes was analyzed. Result:Out of 92 patients evaluated, 27 had a DECAF score range between 0-1 (low risks), 5-9 had a DECAF score range between 2-4 (intermediate risks), and 6 had a DECAF score range between 5-6 (high risks). The high-risk group experienced a 100% fatality rate. On the other hand, there was no mortality seen in patients with DECAF scores 0-4 & all the patients recovered successfully. Conclusion:DECAF score uses routine parameters to classify AECOPD Patients into clinically relevant risk groups. Doctors are benefitted from this regarding management purposes.