Levofloxacin to prevent bacterial infection in patients with cancer and neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic use of fluoroquinolones in patients with cancer and neutropenia is controversial and is not a recommended intervention. METHODS: We randomly assigned 760 consecutive adult patients with cancer in whom chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (<1000 neutrophils per cubic millimeter) was expected to occur for more than seven days to receive either oral levofloxacin (500 mg daily) or placebo from the start of chemotherapy until the resolution of neutropenia. Patients were stratified according to their underlying disease (acute leukemia vs. solid tumor or lymphoma). RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis showed that fever was present for the duration of neutropenia in 65 percent of patients who received levofloxacin prophylaxis, as compared with 85 percent of those receiving placebo (243 of 375 vs. 308 of 363; relative risk, 0.76; absolute difference in risk, -20 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -26 to -14 percent; P=0.001). The levofloxacin group had a lower rate of microbiologically documented infections (absolute difference in risk, -17 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -24 to -10 percent; P<0.001), bacteremias (difference in risk, -16 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -22 to -9 percent; P<0.001), and single-agent gram-negative bacteremias (difference in risk, -7 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -10 to -2 percent; P<0.01) than did the placebo group. Mortality and tolerability were similar in the two groups. The effects of prophylaxis were also similar between patients with acute leukemia and those with solid tumors or lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic treatment with levofloxacin is an effective and well-tolerated way of preventing febrile episodes and other relevant infection-related outcomes in patients with cancer and profound and protracted neutropenia. The long-term effect of this intervention on microbial resistance in the community is not known

Gli uomini e le donne che hanno fatto l’Italia. Esperienze a scuola

The goal we wish to reach in this paper is to identify methods and strategies to let students learn about the main events of Risorgimento. Our fundamental strategy is to emotionally and personally involve students, letting them truly wear the shoes of the protagonists and playing their roles in the storytelling of the Italian national unification, highlighting also the women who actively participated in the process, leading the way in female emancipation. The project “Gli uomini e le donne che hanno fatto l’Italia” addresses especially middle school students (aged 11 to 13). We reserve a particular attention to the local history, to highlight how it embeds in the national historic context of Risorgimento, contributing to the formation of a civic consciousness and to the promotion of the values that are the basis of our republican constitution.L'obiettivo che desideriamo raggiungere in questo lavoro è identificare metodi e strategie per far conoscere agli studenti le principali vicende del Risorgimento. La nostra strategia fondamentale è coinvolgere emotivamente e personalmente gli studenti, facendo loro indossare i panni dei protagonisti e interpretando i loro ruoli nello storytelling dell'Unità Nazionale italiana, mettendo in luce anche le donne che hanno partecipato attivamente al processo, aprendo la strada all'emancipazione femminile. Il progetto “Gli uomini e le donne che hanno fatto l'Italia” si rivolge in particolare agli studenti delle scuole medie (dagli 11 ai 13 anni). Riserviamo una particolare attenzione alla storia locale, per evidenziare come essa si inserisce nel contesto storico nazionale del Risorgimento, contribuendo alla formazione di una coscienza civica e alla promozione dei valori che sono alla base della nostra costituzione repubblicana

High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

Background: The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO2 clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods: We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25-7.35, PaCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO2 from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO2 at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results: Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO2 reduction from baseline to 2 h were - 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and - 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO2 reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO2 reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO2 after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available