Pregnancy outcomes after snakebite envenomations: A retrospective cohort in the Brazilian Amazonia

Snakebite-Associated Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Snakebites still constitute a significant public health problem in developing countries and are considered a neglected tropical condition by the WHO. Snake accidents are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and may produce secondary complications, such as severe infections. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of snakebite infections and characterize the bacteria isolated from these infections. A systematic literature review in five databases was carried out to assess the prevalence of snakebite infection. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% CIs. Cochran's Q test and the I2 statistic were used to assess between-study heterogeneity. The pooled prevalence of infection due to snakebite was 27.0% (95% CI: 22.0-32.0%), with high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 99.7%). The prevalence was higher in Asia (32%) than in the Americas (21%). Snakebite infections required surgical interventions in 68% (95% CI: 37.0-98.0%). The leading group of pathogens identified corresponded to Gram-negative bacteria (63%), particularly Morganella morganii (32%), but also, Gram-positive cocci (40%), especially Enterococcus spp. (23%) and Staphylococcus aureus (15%). However, multiple other pathogens, including anaerobes, were found. A high prevalence of snakebite-associated infection has been described, primarily due to M. morganii, with the corresponding implications for empirical therapy. Rational use of antimicrobials is recommended, and this should guide initial empirical treatment. Moreover, isolation and identification of the possible bacteria present in snakebite wounds is recommended in all cases to confirm or rule out associated infection.

Capacity of community health centers to treat snakebite envenoming in indigenous territories of the Brazilian Amazon

INTRODUCTION

The deaths from and morbidities associated with snakebites - amputations, loss of function in the limb, visible scarring or tissue damage - have a vast economic, social, and psychological impact on indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon, especially children, and represent a real and pressing health crisis in this population. Snakebite clinical and research experts have therefore proposed expanding antivenom access from only hospitals to include the community health centers (CHC) located near and within indigenous communities. However, there are no studies examining the capacity of CHCs to store, administer, and manage antivenom treatment. In response to this gap, the research team calling for antivenom decentralization developed and validated an expert-based checklist outlining the minimum requirements for a CHC to provide antivenom.

METHODS

The objective of this study was thus to survey a sample of CHCs in indigenous territories and evaluate their capacity to provide antivenom treatment according to this accredited checklist. The checklist was administered to nurses and doctors from 16 CHCs, two per indigenous district in Amazonas/Roraima states.

RESULTS

Our results can be conceptualized into three central findings: 1) most CHCs have the capacity to provide antivenom treatment, 2) challenges to capacity are human resources and specialized items, and 3) antivenom decentralization is feasible and appropriate in indigenous communities.

CONCLUSION

Decentralization would provide culturally and contextually appropriate care accessibility to a historically marginalized and underserved population of the Brazilian Amazon. Future studies should examine optimal resource allocation in indigenous territories and develop an implementation strategy in partnership with indigenous leaders. Beyond the indigenous population, the checklist utilized could be applied to community health centers treating the general population and/or adapted to other low-resource settings.

The Chinese guideline for management of snakebites

In 2009, the World Health Organization included snakebite on the list of neglected tropical diseases, acknowledging it as a common occupational hazard for farmers, plantation workers, and others, causing tens of thousands of deaths and chronic physical disabilities every year. This guideline aims to provide practical information to help clinical professionals evaluate and treat snakebite victims. These recommendations are based on clinical experience and clinical research evidence. This guideline focuses on the following topics: snake venom, clinical manifestations, auxiliary examination, diagnosis, treatments, and prevention.

Clinical Risk Factors Associated with Poor Outcomes in Snake Envenoming: A Narrative Review

Snakebite-related fatalities disproportionately affect populations in impoverished socio-economic regions, marked by limited access to adequate healthcare and constrained antivenom availability. Early medical intervention is pivotal in mitigating mortality and morbidity associated with snakebite envenoming (SBE). While clinical assessment remains fundamental in treating SBE, this review aims to spotlight objective parameters that could also affect outcomes. Selected studies that identify factors associated with poor outcomes are predominantly region-specific, single-site, and observational, yet collectively reveal similar findings. They consistently report factors such as treatment delays, susceptibility in vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women, as well as various biochemical and haematological abnormalities. Acute kidney injury (AKI), low platelets, leucocytosis, abnormal coagulation, and elevated creatine kinase (CK) all show an association with poor outcomes. Furthermore, recognising rare and unusual SBE presentations such as adrenal insufficiency, severe hypertension, intracranial haemorrhage, acute angle closure glaucoma, and bowel ischaemia also has a bearing on outcomes. Despite the integration of these parameters into clinical decision tools and guidelines, the validation of this evidence is limited. This review underscores the imperative for high-quality, multi-centre studies aligned with consensus-driven Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) to validate and strengthen the current evidence.