Background Globally, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) restricted the armamentarium of the health care providers against infectious diseases, mainly due to the emergence of multidrug resistant. This review is aimed at providing contemporary bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance pattern among pregnant women with significant bacteriuria. Methods Electronic biomedical databases and indexing services such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched. Original records of research articles, available online from 2008 to 2021, addressing the prevalence of significant bacteriuria and AMR pattern among pregnant women and written in English were identified and screened. The relevant data were extracted from included studies using a format prepared in Microsoft Excel and exported to STATA 14.0 software for the outcome measure analyses and subgrouping. Results The data of 5894 urine samples from 20 included studies conducted in 8 regions of the country were pooled. The overall pooled estimate of bacteriuria was 15% (95% CI 13–17%, I2 = 77.94%, p < 0.001) with substantial heterogeneity. The pooled estimate of Escherichia coli recovered from isolates of 896 urine samples was 41% (95% CI 38–45%) followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococci, 22% (95% CI 18–26%), Staphylococcus aureus, 15% (95% CI 12–18%), Staphylococcus saprophytic, 12% (95% CI 6–18%) Proteus mirabilis, 7% (95% CI 4–10%), Enterococcus species, 6% (0–12%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 4% (2–6%), Citrobacter species, 4% (95% CI 2–4%), Group B streptococcus, 3% (1–5%), and Enterobacter species, 2% (1–4%). Multidrug resistance proportions of E. coli, Klebsiella species, Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase negative staphylococci, 83% (95% CI 76–91%), 78% (95% CI 66–90%), 89% (95% CI 83–96%), and 78% (95% CI 67–88%), respectively. Conclusion The result of current review revealed the occurrence of substantial bacteriuria among pregnant women in Ethiopia. Resistance among common bacteria (E. coli, Klebsiella species, Staphylococci species) causing UTIs in pregnant women is widespread to commonly used antibiotics. The high rate of drug resistance in turn warrants the need for regular epidemiological surveillance of antibiotic resistance and implementation of an efficient infection control and stewardship program.

Background. The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) resulted in an unprecedented public health challenge worldwide. Despite urgent and extensive global efforts, the existing evidence is inconclusive regarding the medications used for the treatment of COVID-19. Purpose. To generate an up-to-date evidence for the clinical safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) among patients treated for COVID-19. Data Source. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, LITCOVID, Web of Science, SCOPUS, BioRxiv, Embase, MedRxiv, and Wiley online library were searched from 2019/12/30 to 2020/05/23. Study Selection. Three investigators assessed the quality of the studies. Data Extraction. Data about study characteristics, effect estimates, and the quality of the studies were extracted by two independent reviewers and cross-checked by the third reviewer. Data Synthesis. The data of 6,782 (HCQ group, 3623; HCQ + AZ group, 1,020; control group, 2139) participants were included. HCQ was compared with standard care for virologic efficacy, disease progression, mortality, and adverse effects. HCQ was also compared with HCQ + AZ for QTc prolongation, admission to the intensive care unit, and mortality. The study found HCQ did not alter the rate of virologic cure (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.39–1.56) and the risk of mortality (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.66–2.39). The pooled prevalence for mortality was 5.8% (95% CI: 0.9%–10.8%). Moreover, HCQ did not impact disease progression (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.36–2.29) but resulted in a higher risk of adverse effects (OR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.15–4.8). HCQ was also compared against HCQ + AZ, and no difference was observed in QTc prolongation above 500 ms (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.54–2.28), admission to the intensive care unit (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.52–1.63), and mortality (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.55–1.43). However, in the analysis of single-arm studies, about 11.2% (95% CI: 7.0%–15.5%) of patients have developed an absolute increase of QTc greater than 500 ms, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.1%–7.1%) of patients discontinued their medication. Conclusion. This meta-analysis and systematic review, which included a limited number of poorly designed studies of patients with COVID-19, revealed HCQ is intolerable, unsafe, and not efficacious. Similarly, HCQ + AZ combination was not different from HCQ alone in curbing mortality and ICU admission.

Background: Adequate foot care and regular foot examinations along with optimal glycemic control are effective strategies to prevent foot ulceration. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the patterns of foot self-care practice among diabetic patients attending an ambulatory clinic. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the ambulatory clinic of Jimma Medical Center. A consecutive sampling technique was used. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 20 and descriptive statistics were used to describe the findings. Results: A total of 370 diabetic patients (55.9% male and 68.4% type 2) were interviewed. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 46.47±13.63 years. Over one-third (35.7%) of the patients had a previous history of foot ulcer. The majority of the patients self-inspect (92.5%) and wash (82.7%) their foot at least daily, respectively. In this study, 12.2% of the patients never inspected the inside of their footwear before putting them on and 42.4% of the patients never dry between their toes after washing. Most (63.5%) of patients never used moisturizing creams to lubricate the dry skin. In this study, 23.0% and 27.6% of the patients walk in sandals/slippers and in shoes without socks most of the time, respectively. Only 27.3% of the patients changed their socks daily. Majority (78.4% and 86.5%) of the patients never walk barefoot around and outside their house, respectively, and 75.1% of the patients never put their feet near the fire. Conclusion: Diabetic patients were not adequately self-inspect and wash their foot at least daily, dry after wash and moisturize the dry skin. They walk barefoot, in sandals/slippers, and in shoes without socks. Therefore, clinicians should counsel every diabetic patient about the importance of foot self-inspection, foot hygiene, and the risk of walking barefoot, wearing sandals/slippers, and shoes without socks at every follow-up visit.

Purpose: To assess traditional medicine practice claims by the community for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A community-based cross-sectional study design was conducted among 422 households of Jimma Zone, and the data were collected by interviewing individuals from the selected households. The medicinal plants were recorded on Microsoft excel 2010 with their parts used, dosage form, route of administration and source of plants and tabulated in the table. Descriptive statistics were used to describe and organize the data. The Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) was calculated for each traditional medicine to identify the top 10 medicinal products. Results: Around 46% of participants used traditional medicines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. The study recorded 32 herbal and non-herbal medicinal products. Garlic (RFC: 0.166), ginger (RFC: 0.133), lemon (RFC: 0.133), garden cress (RFC: 0.069) and "Damakase" (RFC: 0.031) were the frequently used herbal medicines. Seeds (47.22%) and leaves (30.56%) were the most used parts of medicinal plants. Most preparation of medicinal plants (90.63%) was administered through the oral route. The majority of medicinal plants were from home gardens. Conclusions and Recommendations: Around half of the participants practiced traditional medicines for COVID-19. Garlic, ginger, lemon, garden cress and "Damakase" were the frequently used herbal products. Seeds and leaves were regularly used parts. The oral route is the most used route of administration. The majority of medicinal plants were from home gardens. This quantity of traditional medicine practice is probably challenging to control the pandemic. However, it might open possibilities for pharmaceutical industries and researchers to look into the effectiveness and safety of claimed medicinal products. Therefore, all responsible bodies are advocated to behave accordingly.

No abstract