Publication Delay of Randomized Trials on 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccination

Background: Randomized evidence for vaccine immunogenicity and safety is urgently needed in the setting of pandemics with new emerging infectious agents. We carried out an observational survey to evaluate how many randomized controlled trials testing 2009 H1N1 vaccines were published among those registered, and what was the time lag from their start to publication and from their completion to publication. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and 9 clinical trial registries were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. The units of the analysis were single randomized trials on any individual receiving influenza vaccines in any setting. Results: 73 eligible trials were identified that had been registered in 2009–2010. By June 30, 2011 only 21 (29%) of these trials had been published, representing 38 % of the randomized sample size (19905 of 52765). Trials starting later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.42 per month; 95 % Confidence Interval: 0.27 to 0.64; p,0.001). Similarly, trials completed later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.43 per month; 95 % CI: 0.27 to 0.67; p,0.001). Randomized controlled trials were completed promptly (median, 5 months from start to completion), but only a minority were subsequently published. Conclusions: Most registered randomized trials on vaccines for the H1N1 pandemic are not published in the peer-reviewe

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit ? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock ? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock ? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock ? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock ? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Miscellaneous Rheumatic Diseases [73-83]: 73. Is There a Delay in Specialist Referral of Hot Swollen Joint?

Background: Patients with acute, hot, swollen joints commonly present to general practitioners, emergency departments and/or acute admitting teams rather than directly to rheumatology. It is imperative to consider septic arthritis in the differential diagnosis of these patients. The British Society of Rheumatology (BSR) has produced guidelines for the management of this condition, which include recommendations for early specialist referral and joint aspiration of all patients with suspected septic arthritis. We examined whether the initial management of patients with acute hot swollen joint(s) at University College London Hospital (UCLH) follows BSR guidelines. Methods: For the period Feb to Nov 2009, appropriate patients were identified by searching the UCLH database using the diagnostic terms, "pyogenic arthritis”, "septic arthritis” and "gout”; and from all joint aspirate requests sent to microbiology. Medical notes were obtained and any patients who had elective arthroscopies or chronic (> 6 weeks) symptoms were excluded. Data were collected on the time taken from the onset of symptoms to specialist (orthopaedic/rheumatology) referral and joint aspiration, collection of blood cultures and antibiotic treatment with or without microbiology advice. Results: Twenty patients were identified with hot swollen (18 monoarticular, 3 prosthetic) joint(s) of < 2 weeks duration. Of whom, 3/20 (15%) were admitted directly to rheumatology, 7/20 (35%) to the acute admissions unit, 3/20 (15%) to orthopaedic, 4/20 (20%) to a medical team and 1/20 (5%) to general surgery. In 19 (95%) cases, specialist (rheumatology/orthopaedic) advice was sought. Of 14 cases not seen directly by specialists 9 (64%) were referred at 24-48 h and 5 (36%) at 48-192 h. All 20 patients had joint aspiration. In 9/20 (45%) of cases, joint aspiration was performed in less than 6 h, 3/20 (15%) cases at 6-24h and 6/20 (30%) cases at 24-192 h and was not recorded in two patients. Of these, crystals were identified in two and one was culture positive. Blood cultures were received for only 6/20 (30%) of cases and only clearly documented to have been taken prior to antibiotic therapy and none were positive. Of 14/20 (70%) started on antibiotic treatment empirically, only 6 (42%) were preceded by joint aspiration. In the 6 patients not treated with antibiotics due to low index of suspicion of septic arthritis, synovial fluid and blood cultures were negative. Microbiology advice was sought in 10/20 (50%) of cases by the admitting teams but the timing of this advice is unclear. Conclusions: Despite the provision of 24 h rheumatology and orthopaedic cover at UCLH, we found a significant delay in acute medical firms seeking specialist advice on the management of patients with acute, hot swollen joints with subsequent deviation from BSR guidelines. Consequently, we plan to increase awareness of these guidelines amongst medical firms at UCLH. Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes