CASE REPORT: A case of unusual severe HDFN due to anti-D alloimmunisation in undiagnosed RhD negative primigravida Malay woman is reported here. This case illustrates the possibility of an anamnestic response from previous unknown sensitisation event or the development of anti-D in mid trimester. The newborn expired due to hydrops fetalis and severe anaemia. Antenatally, the mother was identified as RhD positive and thus there was no antenatal antibody screening, antepartum anti-D prophylaxis or close fetal monitoring for HDFN.
DISCUSSION: The thorough antenatal ABO and RhD blood grouping with antibody screening is mandatory as part of prevention and early detection of HDFN especially due to anti-D alloimmunisation. Improper management of RhD negative women might lead to severe HDFN including in primigravida.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to hospital laboratories in Malaysia (n=140). Questions regarding methods for measuring creatinine, equations for calculating eGFR, eGFR reporting, the terminology used in reporting urine albumin, types of samples and the cut-off values used for normal albuminuria.
RESULTS: A total of 42/140 (30%) laboratories answered the questionnaire. The prevalent method used for serum creatinine measurement was the Jaffé method (88.1%) traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. eGFR was reported along with serum creatinine by 61.9% of laboratories while 33.3% of laboratories report eGFR on request. The formula used for eGFR reporting was mainly MDRD (64.3%) and results were reported as exact numbers even when the eGFR was <60 ml/min/1.73m2. The term microalbumin is still used by 83.3% of laboratories. There is a large heterogeneity among the labs regarding the type of sample recommended for measuring urine albumin, reference interval and reporting units.
CONCLUSION: It is evident that the laboratory assessment of chronic kidney disease in Malaysia is not standardised. It is essential to provide a national framework for standardised reporting of eGFR and urine albumin. Recommendations developed by the MACB CKD Task Force, if adopted by all laboratories, will lead to a reduction in this variability.
METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were systematically searched for the relevant studies by following the PRISMA 2009 checklist. A past decade literature search was conducted from 2010 until November 2020 to secure the relevance of the phantom study. Databases were recruited using keywords such as phantom, quantification, standardisation, harmonisation, image quality, standardised uptake value and multicentre study. However, all keywords were related to PET/CT. All abstracts and eligible full-text articles were screened independently, and finally, the quality assessments of this review were performed.
RESULTS: From the 200 retrieved articles, 80 were rejected after the screening of the abstracts and 35 after reading the full-text. The 20 accepted articles addressed the distribution of phantom types used in selected articles studies which were NEMA (67%), ACR (8%) and others (25%). The articles showed the various experimental studies, either phantom studies (35%) or phantom plus clinical studies (65%). For clinical studies (n = 829), the distribution of prospective studies was (n = 674) and retrospective studies was (n =155). The distribution of phantom pathway application showed the studies focused on 40% of reconstruction protocol studies, 30% of the multicentre and standardisation of accreditation program studies, and 30% of the quantification of uptake values studies.
CONCLUSIONS: According to this review, the phantom study have a pivotal role in hybrid nuclear imaging of PET/CT either in technical aspects of the scanners (such as data acquisition and reconstruction protocol) or clinical characteristics of patients. In addition to this, the necessity to identify the suitable system phantoms to use within PET/CT scans by considering the continuous development of new phantom studies are needed. Researchers are encouraged to adopt efforts on phantom quantitative validation, including verification with clinical data of patients.
Methods: An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
Results: We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional prospective study done in 18 public hospitals in Malaysia from 7/4/2019 to 2/7/2019. Data was collected prospectively with universal sampling. All adult Muslim patients with previous diagnosis of diabetes, who were admitted for hypoglycemia, DKA or HHS were included if they had fasted and had intentions to fast.
RESULTS: 295 admissions for diabetes emergencies were analyzed. The pre-Ramadan period recorded the highest number of admissions (119) followed by during (106) and post-Ramadan (70). Admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies accounted for 2/3 of total admissions. 37% of admissions for hypoglycemia occurred during pre-Ramadan period compared to 32.1% during Ramadan. Contributing factors included use of sulphonylurea (59.6%), presence of nephropathy (54.5%) and past history of hypoglycemia (45.5%). Admissions for DKA were more common than HHS (119 versus 77) and highest during Ramadan period (36.1%). Most of the admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies were among those with Type 2 diabetes (75.9% for DKA and 97.4% for HHS). Only 31.5% of patients admitted for diabetes emergencies recalled having received Ramadan advice in the past.
DISCUSSION: Admissions for diabetes emergencies were highest during pre-Ramadan period followed by Ramadan and post-Ramadan period. This suggests that fasting during Ramadan does not increase admissions for diabetes emergencies.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Preinterventional study was conducted in one-month period of January 2019, followed by intervention period from February to March 2019. Postintervention study was conducted from April to July 2019. The CLABSI rates were compared between pre and postintervention periods. A multifaceted intervention bundle was implemented, which comprised (1) educational program for healthcare workers, (2) weekly audit and feedback and (3) implementation of central line bundle of care.
FINDINGS: There was a significant overall reduction of CLABSI rate between preintervention and postintervention period [incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.06 (95 percent CI, 0.01-0.33; P = 0.001)].
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CLABSI rates were reduced by a multifaceted intervention bundle, even in non-ICU and resource-limited setting. This includes a preinterventional study to identify the risk factors followed by a local adaption of the recommended care bundles. This study recommends resources-limited hospitals to design a strategy that is suitable for their own local setting to reduce CLABSI.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a multifaceted intervention bundle that was locally adapted with an evidence-based approach to reduce CLABSI rate in non-ICU and resource-limited setting.
METHODS: We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomised controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.
RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising of 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons; ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1-hour under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.09, P 0.74), or metoclopramide (SMD 0.02, P 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache [ketorolac vs phenothiazines (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, P 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity [ketorolac vs metoclopramide (RR 0.64, P 0.13)], need for rescue medication [ketorolac vs phenothiazines (RR 1.72, P 0.27), ketorolac vs metoclopramide (RR 2.20, P 0.18)], and frequency of adverse effects [ketorolac vs metoclopramide (RR 1.07, P 0.82)]. Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1-hour compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone, had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines, and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1-hour, need for rescue medication and sustained headache freedom within 24-hour.
CONCLUSIONS: Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.