Burden and risk factors for Pseudomonas aeruginosa community-acquired pneumonia:a Multinational Point Prevalence Study of Hospitalised Patients

Pseudornonas aeruginosa is a challenging bacterium to treat due to its intrinsic resistance to the antibiotics used most frequently in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Data about the global burden and risk factors associated with P. aeruginosa-CAP are limited. We assessed the multinational burden and specific risk factors associated with P. aeruginosa-CAP. We enrolled 3193 patients in 54 countries with confirmed diagnosis of CAP who underwent microbiological testing at admission. Prevalence was calculated according to the identification of P. aeruginosa. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for antibiotic-susceptible and antibiotic-resistant P. aeruginosa-CAP. The prevalence of P. aeruginosa and antibiotic-resistant P. aeruginosa-CAP was 4.2% and 2.0%, respectively. The rate of P. aeruginosa CAP in patients with prior infection/colonisation due to P. aeruginosa and at least one of the three independently associated chronic lung diseases (i.e. tracheostomy, bronchiectasis and/or very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) was 67%. In contrast, the rate of P. aeruginosa-CAP was 2% in patients without prior P. aeruginosa infection/colonisation and none of the selected chronic lung diseases. The multinational prevalence of P. aeruginosa-CAP is low. The risk factors identified in this study may guide healthcare professionals in deciding empirical antibiotic coverage for CAP patients

Enquête parlementaire sur les actes du gouvernement de la défense nationale. Dépositions des témoins ...

Running title: Enquête sur le 4 septembre.At head of title: No. 1416. Assemblée nationale. Année 1872. Annexe au procès-verbal de la séance du 13 novembre 1872.M. Saint-Marc-Girardin, president.I-IV. Dépositions des témoins.--[V] Dépositions des témoins. Réclamations, pièces diverses.--V, annexe. Dépositions et pièces justificatives. Note de la commission.Mode of access: Internet.Subject entries from the Provenance Evidence Thesaurus describe copies anlayzed by Book Traces @ UVA.Volume 4, Item X000888167 contains a loose insertion: advertisement for Bibliotheque Scientifique Internationale / Revue Scientifique, Paris, Imprimerie De E. Martinet, Rue Mignon, 2 and Revue Politique et Litteraire Revue des cours litteraires (2 serie) inserted at page 127.2 1

External validation of prognostic models predicting pre-eclampsia: individual participant data meta-analysis

Background Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. Methods IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model’s calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. Conclusions The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice