110 research outputs found

    Imipenem resistance of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pneumonia, and particularly nosocomial (NP) and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP), results in high morbidity and costs. NPs in particular are likely to be caused by <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa </it>(PA), ~20% of which in observational studies are resistant to imipenem. We sought to identify the burden of PA imipenem resistance in pneumonia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of imipenem treatment for pneumonia published in English between 1993 and 2008. We extracted study, population and treatment characteristics, and proportions caused by PA. Endpoints of interest were: PA resistance to initial antimicrobial treatment, clinical success, microbiologic eradication and on-treatment emergence of resistance of PA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 46 studies identified, 20 (N = 4,310) included patients with pneumonia (imipenem 1,667, PA 251; comparator 1,661, PA 270). Seven were double blind, and 7 included US data. Comparator arms included a β-lactam (17, [penicillin 6, carbapenem 4, cephalosporin 7, monobactam 1]), aminoglycoside 2, vancomycin 1, and a fluoroquinolone 5; 5 employed double coverage. Thirteen focused exclusively on pneumonia and 7 included pneumonia and other diagnoses. Initial resistance was present in 14.6% (range 4.2-24.0%) of PA isolates in imipenem and 2.5% (range 0.0-7.4%) in comparator groups. Pooled clinical success rates for PA were 45.2% (range 0.0-72.0%) for imipenem and 74.9% (range 0.0-100.0%) for comparator regimens. Microbiologic eradication was achieved in 47.6% (range 0.0%-100.0%) of isolates in the imipenem and 52.8% (range 0.0%-100.0%) in the comparator groups. Resistance emerged in 38.7% (range 5.6-77.8%) PA isolates in imipenem and 21.9% (range 4.8-56.5%) in comparator groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In the 15 years of RCTs of imipenem for pneumonia, PA imipenem resistance rates are high, and PA clinical success and microbiologic eradication rates are directionally lower for imipenem than for comparators. Conversely, initial and treatment-emergent resistance is more likely with the imipenem than the comparator regimens.</p

    The expansion field: The value of H_0

    Full text link
    Any calibration of the present value of the Hubble constant requires recession velocities and distances of galaxies. While the conversion of observed velocities into true recession velocities has only a small effect on the result, the derivation of unbiased distances which rest on a solid zero point and cover a useful range of about 4-30 Mpc is crucial. A list of 279 such galaxy distances within v<2000 km/s is given which are derived from the tip of the red-giant branch (TRGB), from Cepheids, and from supernovae of type Ia (SNe Ia). Their random errors are not more than 0.15 mag as shown by intercomparison. They trace a linear expansion field within narrow margins from v=250 to at least 2000 km/s. Additional 62 distant SNe Ia confirm the linearity to at least 20,000 km/s. The dispersion about the Hubble line is dominated by random peculiar velocities, amounting locally to <100 km/s but increasing outwards. Due to the linearity of the expansion field the Hubble constant H_0 can be found at any distance >4.5 Mpc. RR Lyr star-calibrated TRGB distances of 78 galaxies above this limit give H_0=63.0+/-1.6 at an effective distance of 6 Mpc. They compensate the effect of peculiar motions by their large number. Support for this result comes from 28 independently calibrated Cepheids that give H_0=63.4+/-1.7 at 15 Mpc. This agrees also with the large-scale value of H_0=61.2+/-0.5 from the distant, Cepheid-calibrated SNe Ia. A mean value of H_0=62.3+/-1.3 is adopted. Because the value depends on two independent zero points of the distance scale its systematic error is estimated to be 6%. Typical errors of H_0 come from the use of a universal, yet unjustified P-L relation of Cepheids, the neglect of selection bias in magnitude-limited samples, or they are inherent to the adopted models.Comment: 44 pages, 4 figures, 6 tables, accepted for publication in the Astronony and Astrophysics Review 15

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

    Get PDF
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

    Primary neuroendocrine neoplasm of the esophagus – Report of 14 cases from a single institute and review of the literature

    Full text link

    Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

    Get PDF
    Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified
    corecore