Background Diarrhea is a common problem in tube-fed patients. The relevant guidelines suggest using a peptide-based enteral formula in patients with diarrhea; however, sufficient evidence to support this recommendation is currently lacking. Aim This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a high-protein peptide-based formula on gastrointestinal intolerance, mainly focusing on diarrhea symptoms in patients who were intolerant to polymeric formula feeding. Methods This prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study was conducted from March 2021 to March 2022 at two tertiary-care hospitals. Patients who presented with diarrhea during tube feeding with polymeric formula were assigned to receive a high-protein peptide-based formula for ≤7 days. Stool weight and frequency were monitored at baseline, on day 3, and on day 7 (or end of the study) as the primary outcomes. Results Twenty-eight tube-fed patients with diarrhea were recruited. After switching their feeding formula from polymeric to peptide based, significant improvements in stool frequency and stool weight were observed on day 3 and day 7 compared with the baseline (median [IQR] stool frequency: 5 (2), 2.5 (3.5), and 3 (3) times/day, respectively, p <0.001; median stool weight: 500 (370), 170 (285), and 275 (385) gram/day, respectively, p = 0.015). Stool consistency was assessed using the Bristol Stool Score and showed significant improvement with time. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion A high-protein peptide-based enteral formula was effective in reducing stool weight and frequency in patients who experienced diarrhea during tube feeding with a polymeric formula. Trial registration: TCTR20210302006

Background Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of treatment in critically ill patients. A differential time to positivity (DTP) of 120 min or more between blood cultures obtained through the catheter vs. peripheral vein is an indicator of CRBSI with high sensitivity and specificity. However, it is no clear whether pooled sampling would be as efficient as individual sampling in order to reduce costs, contamination, or anemia. Methods This was a prospective diagnostic study conducted at the medical ICU and semi-ICU of Khon Kaen University’s Srinagarind Hospital in Thailand from May 2020 to November 2021. Fifty patients with triple-lumen central venous catheters (CVCs) who were clinically suspected of CRBSI were enrolled. 15 mL of blood was drawn through each catheter lumen, 10 mL of which was inoculated into three blood culture bottles, and the remaining 5 mL was pooled into a single bottle. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and time to positivity of the pooled blood cultures were calculated using individual blood cultures as a reference. Results Of the 50 patients enrolled, 14 (28%) were diagnosed with CRBSI, 57.9% of whom were infected with gram-negative bacteria as the causative pathogen (57.9%). Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism. Sensitivity and specificity of the pooled blood sampling method were 69.23% (95% CI [0.44–0.94]) and 97.3% (95% CI [0.92–1.02]), respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.83 (95% CI [0.68–0.99]). A paired T-Test to compare time to positivity of the pooled blood bottle and the first positive culture from the individual bottles indicated statistical significance (14.9 and 12.4 h, respectively). The mean difference was 2.5 [0.9–4.1] h, with a 95% CI and a p-value of 0.006. Conclusion Pooled blood sampling results in a lower sensitivity and longer time to positivity for CRBSI diagnosis in patients with triple-lumen CVCs than individual lumen sampling. Trial registration Retrospectively registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry. The study was reviewed and approved on 08/03/2022. TCTR identification number is TCTR20220308002

Outpatient antibiotics are most frequently prescribed for upper respiratory tract infection (URI); however, most such prescriptions are inappropriate. We aimed to determine the effect of an electronic clinical pathway on the rates of overall and rational prescription of antibiotics in patients with URI. A pilot quasi-experimental study was conducted in a university hospital and two of its nearby primary care units (PCU) in northeast Thailand from June to September 2020. Clinical pathway pop-up windows were inserted into the hospital’s computer-based prescription system. Care providers were required to check the appropriate boxes before they were able to prescribe amoxicillin or co-amoxiclav. We examined a total of 675 visits to the outpatient department due to URI at three points in time: pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and 6 weeks post-intervention. Patients in the latter group tended to be younger and visits were more likely to be general practitioner-related and to the student PCU than in the other two groups. In addition, the rate of antibiotic prescription was significantly lower at 6 weeks after intervention than at either of the other time periods (32.0% vs 53.8% pre-intervention and 46.2% immediately post-intervention; p < 0.001), and the proportion of rational antibiotic prescriptions increased significantly after implementation. Antibiotic prescription rates were lower at the community primary care unit and higher when the physician was a resident or a family doctor. The deployment of an electronic clinical pathway reduced the rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. The effect was greater at 6 weeks post-implementation. However, discrepancy of patients’ baseline characteristics may have skewed the findings.

Background: Due to the pivotal role of inflammatory cytokines in sepsis, hemoperfusion with cytokine adsorbents may lead to better outcomes. Although previous studies showed inconclusive results, proper patient selection and timing of hemoperfusion may lead to improved survival. Objectives: To examine whether patients with septic shock requiring high-dose vasopressors undergoing add-on hemoperfusion with a cytokine adsorbent have better clinical outcomes than those treated with standard treatment alone. Methods: This is a multi-center, randomized controlled study in 2 tertiary care centers. 206 patients with septic shock receiving norepinephrine of 0.2 mcg/kg/min or higher are randomized to receive either standard treatment combined with 3-hour sessions of hemoperfusion with cytokine adsorbent for two consecutive days (HP group) or standard treatment alone (ST group). The primary outcome is 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and ICU mortality, shock reversal, vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), organ support-free days, interleukin-6 levels, as well as safety data. Conclusions: This study will provide information to guide the use of hemoperfusion with a cytokine adsorbent in patients with septic shock.