Risk factors for Group B Streptococcus colonisation and disease in Gambian women and their infants.

OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors for GBS colonisation in Gambian mothers and in their infants from birth to day 60-89 of age. METHODS: Swabs and breastmilk from mothers/infant pairs were collected and cultured on selective agar. Negative samples were analysed for GBS DNA via real-time PCR. Positive isolates were serotyped using multiplex PCR and gel-agarose electrophoresis. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty women/infant pairs were recruited. 253 women (33.7%) were GBS-colonised at delivery. The predominant serotypes were: V (55%), II (16%), III (10%), Ia (8%) and Ib (8%). 186 infants were colonised (24.8%) at birth, 181 (24.1%) at 6 days and 96 at day 60-89 (14%). Infants born before 34 weeks of gestation and to women with rectovaginal and breastmilk colonisation at delivery had increased odds of GBS colonisation at birth. Season of birth was associated with increased odds of persistent infant GBS colonisation (dry season vs. wet season AOR 2.9; 95% CI 1.6-5.2). CONCLUSION: GBS colonisation is common in Gambian women at delivery and in their infants to day 60-89 and is dominated by serotype V. In addition to maternal colonisation, breastmilk and season of birth are important risk factors for infant GBS colonisation

Impact of antimicrobial drug restrictions on doctors' behaviors

Background/aim: Broad-spectrum antibiotics have become available for use only with the approval of infectious disease specialists (IDSs) since 2003 in Turkey. This study aimed to analyze the tendencies of doctors who are not disease specialists (non-IDSs) towards the restriction of antibiotics.Materials and methods: A questionnaire form was prepared, which included a total of 22 questions about the impact of antibiotic restriction (AR) policy, the role of IDSs in the restriction, and the perception of this change in antibiotic consumption. The questionnaire was completed by each participating physician.Results: A total of 1906 specialists from 20 cities in Turkey participated in the study. Of those who participated, 1271 (67.5%) had 5 years of occupational experience in their branch expressed that they followed the antibiotic guidelines more strictly than the JSs (P < 0.05) and 755 of physicians (88%) and 720 of surgeons (84.6%) thought that the AR policy was necessary and useful (P < 0.05).Conclusion: This study indicated that the AR policy was supported by most of the specialists. Physicians supported this restriction policy more so than surgeons did

Which method is best for the induction of labour?: A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. Methods: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012–13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 μg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 μg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed ‘best’. Few studies collected information on women’s views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention

[No title available]

PubMed ID: 27511346Background/aim: Broad-spectrum antibiotics have become available for use only with the approval of infectious disease specialists (IDSs) since 2003 in Turkey. This study aimed to analyze the tendencies of doctors who are not disease specialists (non-IDSs) towards the restriction of antibiotics. Materials and methods: A questionnaire form was prepared, which included a total of 22 questions about the impact of antibiotic restriction (AR) policy, the role of IDSs in the restriction, and the perception of this change in antibiotic consumption. The questionnaire was completed by each participating physician. Results: A total of 1906 specialists from 20 cities in Turkey participated in the study. Of those who participated, 1271 (67.5%) had ?5 years of occupational experience (junior specialists = JSs) and 942 (49.4%) of them were physicians. Specialists having >5 years of occupational experience in their branch expressed that they followed the antibiotic guidelines more strictly than the JSs (P < 0.05) and 755 of physicians (88%) and 720 of surgeons (84.6%) thought that the AR policy was necessary and useful (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This study indicated that the AR policy was supported by most of the specialists. Physicians supported this restriction policy more so than surgeons did. © TÜBITAK

Predictors for limb loss among patient with diabetic foot infections: an observational retrospective multicentric study in Turkey

We aimed to investigate the predictors for limb loss among patients with diabetes who have complicated skin/soft-tissue infections. In this observational study, consecutive patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI) from 17 centres in Turkey, between May 2011 and May 2013 were included. The Turkish DFI Working Group performed the study. Predictors of limb loss were investigated by multivariate analysis. In total, 455 patients with DFI were included. Median age was 61 years, 68% were male, 65% of the patients were hospitalized, 52% of the patients had used antibiotics within the last month, and 121(27%) had osteomyelitis. Of the 208 microorganisms isolated, 92 (44.2%) were Gram-positive cocci and 114 (54.8%) were Gram-negative rods (GNR). The most common GNR was Pseudomonas; the second was Escherichia coli, with extended spectrum beta-lactamase positivity of 33%. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species were found in 14% (29/208). Amputations were performed in 126/455 (28%) patients, 44/126 (34%) of these were major amputations. In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for limb loss were, male gender (OR 1.75, 95% Cl 1.04-2.96, p 0.034), duration of diabetes >20 years (OR 1.9, 95% Cl 1.18-3.11, p 0.008), infected ulcer versus cellulitis (OR 1.9, 95% Cl 1.11-3.18, p 0.019), history of peripheral vascular disease (OR 2, 95% Cl 1.26-3.27, p 0.004), retinopathy (OR 2.25, 95% Cl 1.19-4.25, p 0.012), erythrocyte sedimentation rate >70 mm/hr (OR 1.6, 95% Cl 1.01-2.68, p 0.05), and infection with GNR (OR 1.8, 95% Cl 1.08-3.02, p 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that, besides the known risk factors such as male gender, duration of diabetes >20 years, infected ulcers, history of peripheral vascular disease and retinopathy, detection of GNR was a significant predictor of limb loss. Clinical Microbiology and Infection (C) 2015 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved