Rema A. Aldugiem
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Rema A. Aldugiem has a total of 13 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Shuroug A. Alowais
Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Thamer A. Almangour
Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Yazed Saleh Alsowaida
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
2 shared publications - Alia Alshammari
Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 81442, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Bader Alshoumr
Department of Health Informatics, College of Public Health and Health Informatics, University of Ha’il, Ha’il 55476, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication - Haytham Wali
College of Clinical Pharmacy, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 December 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Antibiotics
- Vol. 14 (12) , 1206
Risk Factors and Outcomes for Invasive Infection Among Patients Colonized with Candidozyma auris: A Case–Control Study
Background: Candidozyma auris has emerged globally as a multidrug-resistant pathogen with high rates of colonization and potential for invasive infection. Understanding the progression from colonization to infection and associated outcomes is limited. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of C. auris-colonized patients and identify risk factors for progression to infection. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective case–control study of hospitalized patients with documented C. auris colonization at a tertiary care center (2018–2024). Cases were patients who progressed to a fungal infection (infection group), while controls remained colonized (colonized group). Demographics, comorbidities, device use, prior antimicrobial exposure, microbiologic characteristics, and outcomes were compared. Results: Among 334 C. auris-colonized patients, 44 (13.2%) progressed to infection. The median age was 66.4 years. Those in the infection group had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.9 ± 3.1 vs. 4.79 ± 2.7, p = 0.0112) and were more likely to have central line (90.9% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.0067), mechanical ventilation (77.3% vs. 60.34%, p = 0.0306), parenteral nutrition (6.82% vs. 1.72%, p = 0.0395), and abdominal surgery (13.64% vs. 4.83%, p = 0.0217). In multivariate analysis, abdominal surgery was the only independent predictor of infection (OR 4.08; 95% CI 1.1–15.1; p = 0.03). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the infection group (65.9% vs. 33.1%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Approximately one in eight colonized patients developed C. auris infection. Recent abdominal surgery independently predicted progression, while infection was associated with higher mortality and prolonged hospitalization, underscoring the need for targeted prevention in high-risk patients.
- 1 December 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Antibiotics
- Vol. 14 (12) , 1206
Open AccessRisk Factors and Outcomes for Invasive Infection Among Patients Colonized with Candidozyma auris: A Case–Control Study
Background: Candidozyma auris has emerged globally as a multidrug-resistant pathogen with high rates of colonization and potential for invasive infection. Understanding the progression from colonization to infection and associated outcomes is limited. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of C. auris-colonized patients and identify risk factors for progression to infection. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective case–control study of hospitalized patients with documented C. auris colonization at a tertiary care center (2018–2024). Cases were patients who progressed to a fungal infection (infection group), while controls remained colonized (colonized group). Demographics, comorbidities, device use, prior antimicrobial exposure, microbiologic characteristics, and outcomes were compared. Results: Among 334 C. auris-colonized patients, 44 (13.2%) progressed to infection. The median age was 66.4 years. Those in the infection group had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.9 ± 3.1 vs. 4.79 ± 2.7, p = 0.0112) and were more likely to have central line (90.9% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.0067), mechanical ventilation (77.3% vs. 60.34%, p = 0.0306), parenteral nutrition (6.82% vs. 1.72%, p = 0.0395), and abdominal surgery (13.64% vs. 4.83%, p = 0.0217). In multivariate analysis, abdominal surgery was the only independent predictor of infection (OR 4.08; 95% CI 1.1–15.1; p = 0.03). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the infection group (65.9% vs. 33.1%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Approximately one in eight colonized patients developed C. auris infection. Recent abdominal surgery independently predicted progression, while infection was associated with higher mortality and prolonged hospitalization, underscoring the need for targeted prevention in high-risk patients.
- Open Access
- 5 March 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Antibiotics
- Vol. 14 (3) , 265
Effectiveness and Safety of Dual Versus Triple Antibiotic Therapy for Treating Brucellosis Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Background: Brucellosis is a major zoonotic infection that warrants treatment with antibiotic therapy. Current treatment recommendations include using either dual or triple therapy with antibiotics active against brucella species. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dual and triple antibiotic therapy for treating brucellosis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study for patients with confirmed Brucellosis infection from 2015 to 2024. The primary outcome was the achievement of a favorable response. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure, 90-day mortality, relapse of brucella infection, hospital re-admission, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Baseline characteristics were reported as means with standard deviations. All the statistical tests are shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In total, 966 patients were screened and 287 met the inclusion criteria: 164 patients in the dual therapy group and 123 patients in the triple therapy group. Achievement of a favorable response was not statistically different between the dual therapy and triple therapy groups; 87.3% vs. 90.5%, OR 1.2 (0.48–3.02, p = 0.42). No patient died in either treatment group. Treatment failure, mean duration of hospitalization, brucella relapse, hospital re-admission, and the mean time to defervescence were not statistically different between dual and triple therapy groups. Adverse drug reactions were numerically higher in the triple therapy group. Conclusions: Dual therapy was equally effective for the treatment of patients with brucellosis compared to the triple therapy regimens. Although not statistically significant, there more ADRs in the triple therapy group compared to those receiving dual therapy. Thus, dual antibiotic therapy is efficacious, less costly, and associated with fewer ADRs compared to triple antibiotic therapy.
- 5 March 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Antibiotics
- Vol. 14 (3) , 265
Open AccessEffectiveness and Safety of Dual Versus Triple Antibiotic Therapy for Treating Brucellosis Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Background: Brucellosis is a major zoonotic infection that warrants treatment with antibiotic therapy. Current treatment recommendations include using either dual or triple therapy with antibiotics active against brucella species. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dual and triple antibiotic therapy for treating brucellosis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study for patients with confirmed Brucellosis infection from 2015 to 2024. The primary outcome was the achievement of a favorable response. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure, 90-day mortality, relapse of brucella infection, hospital re-admission, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Baseline characteristics were reported as means with standard deviations. All the statistical tests are shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In total, 966 patients were screened and 287 met the inclusion criteria: 164 patients in the dual therapy group and 123 patients in the triple therapy group. Achievement of a favorable response was not statistically different between the dual therapy and triple therapy groups; 87.3% vs. 90.5%, OR 1.2 (0.48–3.02, p = 0.42). No patient died in either treatment group. Treatment failure, mean duration of hospitalization, brucella relapse, hospital re-admission, and the mean time to defervescence were not statistically different between dual and triple therapy groups. Adverse drug reactions were numerically higher in the triple therapy group. Conclusions: Dual therapy was equally effective for the treatment of patients with brucellosis compared to the triple therapy regimens. Although not statistically significant, there more ADRs in the triple therapy group compared to those receiving dual therapy. Thus, dual antibiotic therapy is efficacious, less costly, and associated with fewer ADRs compared to triple antibiotic therapy.