Risk Factors for Candidozyma auris Among Admitted Patients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (2020–2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatimah S Alshahrani,1– 3 Abba Amsami Elgujja,3 Sarah Alsubaie,1,4 Salah Ezreqat,3 Ahmed Albarrag,1,5 Mazin Barry,1,2,6 Khalifa Binkhamis,5 Lulwah Alabdan,2,3 Hind Salih Bugshan,3 Dianah Rose Ledesma,3 Layla Abdulmonim Khalifa,3 Jesammal Santiago,3 Haifaa Abdulrahman Abuhemid,7 Reema Alassaf7 1College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11362, Saudi Arabia; 2Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3IPAC Department, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, 11362, Saudi Arabia; 4Pediatric Department (Pediatric Infectious Diseases) King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 5Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia; 6Division of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada; 7College of Medicine, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Abba Amsami Elgujja, Infection Control Coordinator, Infection Prevention and Control Department, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966559470423, Email elgujja@yahoo.comIntroduction: Candidozyma auris (formerly known as Candida auris (C. auris)) can cause invasive infections with high mortality rates and the ability to colonize the skin, persist in healthcare environments, and cause healthcare-associated outbreaks. Certain patients are at a significant risk of C. auris infection. Our hospital is a 1000-bed tertiary teaching hospital that caters to, among other patients, critically ill and immunocompromised patients.Objective: To identify the risk factors for C. auris infection/colonized patients in hospitals located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Methodology: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study of the risk factors associated with 53 C. auris cases identified from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2022. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who tested positive for C. auris within the reporting period of their risk factors. Patients were triaged via a risk assessment tool at the time of admission to inpatient locations.Results: Of the 53 patients identified, 20 were females, and 33 were males, with ages ranging from 15 to 98 years. The identified risk factors included comorbidities (n = 44 (85%)), previous admission to other hospitals (n = 27 (50.9%)), and admission to the high-risk unit (n = 19 (35%)). The other variables included the presence of wounds (n = 18 (34%)), medical devices (n = 17 (32.1%)), and prior antimicrobial use (n = 12 (22%)).Conclusion: These findings are similar to those of other studies in that certain identified risk factors contribute to infection or colonization with C. auris.Plain Language Summary: This study followed an unprecedented reporting of a case of C. auris at our tertiary teaching hospital after a recent reporting of the first few cases in the Kingdom.Therefore, we are worried about the potential prevalence and possible risk factors associated with this disease.Keywords: Candida auris, C. auris, Candida, candidaemia, multidrug-resistant organisms, MDRO, emerging pathogens, resistant pathogens
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".