Clinical characteristics and predictors of mortality in 67 patients with primary pyomyositis: A study from North India

Primary pyomyositis is infection of the skeletal muscles in the absence of adjacent skin, soft tissue, and bone infection. This study was undertaken to look at the spectrum of clinical presentations, therapeutic interventions, and their outcomes and also to evaluate the association of various risk factors with mortality. This was a retrospective study in which the patients admitted with the diagnosis of primary pyomyositis from January 2000 to June 2007 were included. Their demographic details, clinical and laboratory data, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at presentation, treatment instituted, complications encountered, and hospital outcome were recorded. Sixty-seven patients (42 males and 25 females) with a diagnosis of primary pyomyositis were included. Median age at the time of presentation was 37 years (interquartile range = 25-50 years). Common presenting symptoms were myalgias [50 (74.62%)] and fever [49 (73.13%)]. Twenty-six patients had underlying predisposing medical conditions. The commonest muscle group involved was iliopsoas muscles in 31 (46.26%) patients. Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the commonest organism isolated from the pus. Twenty-eight patients developed sepsis and seven died. On univariate analysis, there was a statistically significant association between higher SOFA score, lower Glasgow coma scale, higher pulse rate, lower blood pressure, raised blood urea, raised serum creatinine, higher serum glutamic pyruvate transaminase, raised total bilirubin at presentation, and development of sepsis during hospital stay with mortality. In our study, the patients were seen almost a decade later than those seen in other studies from the region. Evidence of organ dysfunction at presentation and sepsis was associated with increased mortality

Immediate versus deferred treatment for advanced prostatic cancer: Initial results of the Medical Research Council trial

Objective To compare the effect on the course of advanced prostate cancer of hormone treatment commenced on diagnosis with that deferred until clinically significant progression occurs. Patients and methods Nine hundred and thirty-eight patients with locally advanced or asymptomatic metastatic prostate cancer were randomized either to immediate treatment (orchidectomy or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue) or to the same treatment deferred until an indication occurred, Follow-up and management were otherwise according to the participating clinician's normal practice. Information was collected annually on survival, local and distant progression, and major complications (pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, ureteric obstruction and extra-skeletal metastases). Results Follow-up data were returned on 934 patients; 51 deferred patients died from causes other than prostate cancer before treatment was started (but only five of these presented at age <70 years) and 29 died from prostate cancer before treatment could be started, Treatment was commenced for local progression almost as frequently as for metastatic disease, Progression from M0 to M1 disease (P<0.001, two-tailed) and development of metastatic pain occurred more rapidly in deferred patients; 141 deferred patients needed transurethral resection for local progression compared with 65 treated immediately (P<0.001, two-tailed). Pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, ureteric obstruction and development of extra-skeletal metastases were twice as common in deferred patients. Of the patients who died, 67% did so from prostate cancer; 361 patients died in the deferred arm compared with 328 in the immediate arm (P=0.02, two-tailed), where 257 and 203 were deaths from prostate cancer, respectively (P=0.001 two-tailed). This difference was seen largely in M0 patients, with 119 and 81 deaths from prostate cancer, respectively (P<0.001 two-tailed). Conclusions The results consistently favour immediate treatment, although some of the data, especially on M0 patients, are immature. The implications for management of advanced prostate cancer are discussed