True heterotopic bone in the paralyzed patient

In past years the clinical and radiologic presentation of true heterotopic bone in the paralyzed patient has been confused with osteomyelitis, neoplasm, trauma, and thrombophlebitis. We reviewed 376 paralyzed patients' roentgenographic files and found 78 patients with soft tissue ossification unassociated with infection, neoplasm, or underlying fractures, which we called true heterotopic bone. From this population the usual spectrum of radiologic findings is described, so that the radiologist may separate roentgenographically a group of patients from other types of ectopic ossification.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46816/1/256_2004_Article_BF00347167.pd

Discontinuation of prophylaxis for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in HIV-1-infected patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy

Background Prophylactic drugs for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) are strongly recommended for HIV-1-infected patients with CD4 cell counts of less than 200 cells/mu L. Because of the highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) currently available, we speculated that prophylaxis can be discontinued in patients with CD4 cell counts of more than 200 cells/mu L. Methods In this prospective observational study, PCP prophylaxis (primary or secondary) was discontinued in HIV-1-infected patients whose CD4 cell count had increased above 200 cells/mu L (documented twice with an interval of at least 1 month) as a result of HAART. Patients and their CD4 cell counts were monitored every 3 months. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence or reoccurrence of PCP. Findings 78 patients were enrolled: 62 patients were receiving prophylaxis for primary prevention of PCP and 16 patients for secondary prevention of PCP. At the time of discontinuation of prophylaxis, the mean CD4 cell count was 347 cells/mu L, and HIV-1-RNA was not detectable in 61 patients. The lowest mean CD4 cell count during prophylaxis was 79 cells/mu L. Patients stopped prophylaxis 9.8 (SD 6.4) months after they started HAART, The mean follow-up after discontinuation of prophylaxis was 12.7 (SD 7.6) months, and none of the patients developed PCP (97.5% one-sided CI 0-4.4%). Interpretation The preliminary results of this study indicate that PCP prophylaxis can be stopped safely in HIV-1-infected patients whose CD4 cell counts have increased above 200 cells/mu L after treatment with HAART

Severe community-acquired pneumonia: what's in a name?

Purpose of review Formerly, patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to an intensive care unit were considered as having the severe form of the disease. Recently, guidelines have distinguished severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia based on clinical definitions. In this review, we describe the different definitions of severe community-acquired pneumonia, and whether a differentiation based on these definitions reflects variation in etiology, risk factors, diagnostic approaches and treatment. Recent findings New definitions do not seem to accurately identify patients with high risks of mortality; patients not admitted to an intensive care unit could also be diagnosed as having severe community-acquired pneumonia. Host-factors, such as genetic factors and underlying diseases, can influence severity of presentation of community-acquired pneumonia. Distribution of pathogens in severe and non-severe disease forms is comparable. Initial antibiotic therapy in patients with severe disease should provide coverage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, as delay is associated with worse outcomes. However, recent studies also suggested an additional benefit of atypical coverage in non-severe disease. As a result, initial therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or an anti-pneumococcal fluoroquinolone is recommended for all patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Furthermore, the value of vaccination against pneumococci to prevent episodes of severe disease is yet unknown. Summary As current guidelines do not adequately identify patients with high risk of mortality and intensive care unit admittance, clinical judgment remains important. Based on distribution of pathogens, investigational procedures and therapy recommended in recent guidelines, differentiation between severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia does not seem useful. Whether atypical coverage indeed has additional value in non-severe or pneumococcal CAP, however, remains to be determined. In addition, the preventive benefit of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination for development of SCAP awaits further evidence