Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of science and engineering that focuses on the computational understanding of intelligent behavior. Many human professions, including clinical diagnosis and prognosis, are greatly useful from AI. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the most critical challenges facing Pakistan and the rest of the world. The rising incidence of AMR has become a significant issue, and authorities must take measures to combat the overuse and incorrect use of antibiotics in order to combat rising resistance rates. The widespread use of antibiotics in clinical practice has not only resulted in drug resistance but has also increased the threat of super-resistant bacteria emergence. As AMR rises, clinicians find it more difficult to treat many bacterial infections in a timely manner, and therapy becomes prohibitively costly for patients. To combat the rise in AMR rates, it is critical to implement an institutional antibiotic stewardship program that monitors correct antibiotic use, controls antibiotics, and generates antibiograms. Furthermore, these types of tools may aid in the treatment of patients in the event of a medical emergency in which a physician is unable to wait for bacterial culture results. AI’s applications in healthcare might be unlimited, reducing the time it takes to discover new antimicrobial drugs, improving diagnostic and treatment accuracy, and lowering expenses at the same time. The majority of suggested AI solutions for AMR are meant to supplement rather than replace a doctor’s prescription or opinion, but rather to serve as a valuable tool for making their work easier. When it comes to infectious diseases, AI has the potential to be a game-changer in the battle against antibiotic resistance. Finally, when selecting antibiotic therapy for infections, data from local antibiotic stewardship programs are critical to ensuring that these bacteria are treated quickly and effectively. Furthermore, organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have underlined the necessity of selecting the appropriate antibiotic and treating for the shortest time feasible to minimize the spread of resistant and invasive resistant bacterial strains.

Introduction: Favipiravir is a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus 2019 . Due to a lack of available real-world data, we assessed its effectiveness and safety in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in two public/specialty hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included patients !18 years) admitted April-August 2020 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab. Patients received either favipiravir (1800 mg or 1600 mg twice daily loading dose, followed by 800 mg or 600 mg twice daily) or supportive-care treatment. Patients were excluded if they were outside the study period, classified as having a mild form of the disease per WHO criteria, or had an incomplete patient file. Kaplan-Meier (KM) models were used to estimate median time to discharge. Discharge ratios, progression to mechanical ventilation, and mortality outcomes were estimated across the severity spectrum using Cox proportional-hazards models. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. Results: Overall, median time to discharge was 10 days (95%CI ¼ 9-10) in the favipiravir arm versus 15 days (95%CI ¼ 14-16) in the supportive-care arm. The accelerated discharge benefit was seen across the COVID-19 spectrum of severity. The adjusted discharge ratio was 1.96 (95%CI ¼ 1.56-2.46). Progression to mechanical ventilation was slower with favipiravir (HR adj ¼ 0.10, 95%CI ¼ 0.04-0.29). There was no significant effect on mortality (HR adj ¼ 1.56, 95%CI ¼ 0.73-3.36). There was a statistically non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the critical category (HR adj ¼ 2.80, 95%CI ¼ 0.99-7.89). Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. PSM analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusion: Favipiravir was associated with clinical benefits, including accelerated discharge rate and less progression to mechanical ventilation; however, no overall mortality benefits were seen across the severity spectrum.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no proven effective therapy nor vaccine for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Evidence regarding the potential benefit of early administration of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in symptomatic patients with Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) is not clear. METHODS: This observational prospective cohort study took place in 238 ambulatory fever clinics in Saudi Arabia, which followed the Ministry of Health (MOH) COVID-19 treatment guideline. This guideline included multiple treatment options for COVID-19 based on the best available evidence at the time, among which was Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Patients with confirmed COVD-19 (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test) who presented to these clinics with mild to moderate symptoms during the period from 5-26 June 2020 were included in this study. Our study looked at those who received HCQ-based therapy along with supportive care (SC) and compared them to patients who received SC alone. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 28-days of presentation. The secondary outcome was a composite of intensive care admission (ICU) and/or mortality during the follow-up period. Outcome data were assessed through a follow-up telephonic questionnaire at day 28 and were further verified with national hospitalisation and mortality registries. Multiple logistic regression model was used to control for prespecified confounders. RESULTS: Of the 7,892 symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who visited the ambulatory fever clinics during the study period, 5,541 had verified clinical outcomes at day 28 (1,817 patients in the HCQ group vs 3,724 in the SC group). At baseline, patients who received HCQ therapy were more likely to be males who did not have hypertension or chronic lung disease compared to the SC group. No major differences were noted regarding other comorbid conditions. All patients were presenting with active complaints; however, the HCQ groups had higher rates of symptoms compared to the SC group (fever: 84% vs 66.3, headache: 49.8 vs 37.4, cough: 44.5 vs 35.6, respectively). Early HCQ-based therapy was associated with a lower hospital admission within 28-days compared to SC alone (9.4% compared to 16.6%, RRR 43%, p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality at 28-days was also lower in the HCQ group compared to the SC (1.2% compared to 2.6%, RRR 54%, p-value 0.001). Adjusting for age, gender, and major comorbid conditions, a multivariate logistic regression model showed a decrease in the odds of hospitalisation in patients who received HCQ compared to SC alone (adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.47-0.69], p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality was also lower for the HCQ group compared to the SC group controlling for potential confounders (adjusted OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.34-0.91], p-value 0.019). CONCLUSION: Early intervention with HCQ-based therapy in patients with mild to moderate symptoms at presentation is associated with lower adverse clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients, including hospital admissions, ICU admission, and/or death.

Community-acquired meningitis can be classified into acute and subacute presentations by the duration of illness of ≤ or >5 days, respectively. There are currently no studies comparing the clinical features, management decisions, etiologies, and outcomes between acute and subacute presentations.It is a retrospective study of adults with community-acquired meningitis hospitalized in Houston, TX between January 2005 and January 2010. An adverse clinical outcome was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale score of ≤4.A total of 611 patients were identified, of which 458 (75%) were acute and 153 subacute (25%). The most common etiologies were unknown in 418 (68.4%), viral in 94 (15.4%), bacterial in 47 (7.7%), fungal in 42 patients (6.9%), and other noninfectious etiologies in 6 (1%). Patients with subacute meningitis were more likely to be immunosuppressed or have comorbidities, had fungal etiologies, and had higher rates of hypoglycorrachia and abnormal neurological findings (P <.05). Patients with an acute presentation were more likely to be treated empirically with intravenous antibiotics and had higher cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis and serum white blood cell counts (P <.05). On logistic regression, age >65 years and abnormal neurological findings were predictive of an adverse clinical outcome in both acute and subacute meningitis, whereas fever was also a significant prognostic factor in acute meningitis. (P <.05).Acute and subacute meningitis differ in regards to clinical presentations, etiologies, laboratory findings, and management decisions, but did not differ in rates of adverse clinical outcomes. Future studies including thoroughly investigated patients with new diagnostic molecular methods may show different results and outcomes.