The Surgical Infection Society revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection

Background: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations. Methods: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council. Results: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included. Summary: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline

Phase II study of two dose schedules of C.E.R.A. (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) in anemic patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: C.E.R.A. (Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator) is an innovative agent with unique erythropoietin receptor activity and prolonged half-life. This study evaluated C.E.R.A. once weekly (QW) or once every 3 weeks (Q3W) in patients with anemia and advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this Phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter, dose-finding study, patients (n = 218) with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and hemoglobin (Hb) ≤ 11 g/dL were randomized to one of six treatment groups of C.E.R.A. administered subcutaneously for 12 weeks: 0.7, 1.4, or 2.1 μg/kg QW or 2.1, 4.2, or 6.3 μg/kg Q3W. Primary endpoint was average Hb level between baseline and end of initial treatment (defined as last Hb measurement before dose reduction or transfusion, or the value at week 13). Hematopoietic response (Hb increase ≥ 2 g/dL or achievement of Hb ≥ 12 g/dL with no blood transfusion in the previous 28 days determined in two consecutive measurements within a 10-day interval) was also measured. RESULTS: Dose-dependent Hb increases were observed, although the magnitude of increase was moderate. Hematopoietic response rate was also dose dependent, achieved by 51% and 62% of patients in the 4.2 and 6.3 μg/kg Q3W groups, and 63% of the 2.1 μg/kg QW group. In the Q3W group, the proportion of early responders (defined as ≥ 1 g/dL increase in Hb from baseline during the first 22 days) increased with increasing C.E.R.A. dose, reaching 41% with the highest dose. In the 6.3 μg/kg Q3W group, 15% of patients received blood transfusion. There was an inclination for higher mean Hb increases and lower transfusion use in the Q3W groups than in the QW groups. C.E.R.A. was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: C.E.R.A. administered QW or Q3W showed clinical activity and safety in patients with NSCLC. There were dose-dependent increases in Hb responses. C.E.R.A. appeared to be more effective when the same dose over time was given Q3W than QW, with a suggestion that C.E.R.A. 6.3 μg/kg Q3W provided best efficacy in this study. However, further dose-finding studies using higher doses are required to determine the optimal C.E.R.A. dose regimen in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Distinctive features of the microbiota associated with different forms of apical periodontitis

Microorganisms infecting the dental root canal system play an unequivocal role as causative agents of apical periodontitis. Although fungi, archaea, and viruses have been found in association with some forms of apical periodontitis, bacteria are the main microbial etiologic agents of this disease. Bacteria colonizing the root canal are usually organized in communities similar to biofilm structures. Culture and molecular biology technologies have demonstrated that the endodontic bacterial communities vary in species richness and abundance depending on the different types of infection and different forms of apical periodontitis. This review paper highlights the distinctive features of the endodontic microbiota associated with diverse clinical conditions

EFFECT OF A CONTINUOUS ERYTHROPOIETIN RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR (C.E.R.A.) ON STABLE HAEMOGLOBIN IN PATIENTS WITH CKD ON DIALYSIS: ONCE MONTHLY ADMINISTRATION.

AIMS: This Phase II study aimed to determine the optimal dose and administration schedule of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) given subcutaneously (s.c.) in patients receiving dialysis converting directly from s.c. epoetin therapy 1-3 times/week. An extension phase examined long-term safety and efficacy. METHODS: Patients were assigned to one of three C.E.R.A. dose groups determined by multiplying the previous weekly dose of epoetin by one of three ratios (0.4/150, 0.8/150, 1.2/150 for groups A, B and C, respectively). Within each group, patients were randomized to once weekly (QW), once every 3 weeks (Q3W) and once monthly (Q4W) schedules. Dose adjustments were not permitted for the first 6 weeks. The core study period was 19 weeks (21 weeks in the Q4W cohorts). Patients could enter a 12-month extension period at the same schedule, aiming to maintain haemoglobin (Hb) at 11-12 g/dL. RESULTS: 137 patients entered the core period, and 62 continued into the extension period. A dose-dependent relationship was seen in the primary efficacy variable, change in Hb standardized to a 6 week period (p < 0.0001), but effect was independent of schedule. Hb levels were maintained throughout the study, with few dose changes. C.E.R.A. was generally well tolerated and the most frequent adverse event was hypotension. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that s.c. C.E.R.A. at up to once monthly intervals provides stable maintenance of Hb levels in dialysis patients converting directly from epoetin 1-3 times/week. Achieving tight Hb control with few dose adjustments at extended administration intervals may offer health benefits and improvements in resource management