Voriconazole Compared with Liposomal Amphotericin B for Empirical Antifungal Therapy in Patients with Neutropenia and Persistent Fever

Background Patients with neutropenia and persistent fever are often treated empirically with amphotericin B or liposomal amphotericin B to prevent invasive fungal infections. Antifungal triazoles offer a potentially safer and effective alternative. Methods In a randomized, international, multicenter trial, we compared voriconazole, a new second-generation triazole, with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy. Results A total of 837 patients (415 assigned to voriconazole and 422 to liposomal amphotericin B) were evaluated for success of treatment. The overall success rates were 26.0 percent with voriconazole and 30.6 percent with liposomal amphotericin B (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, –10.6 to 1.6 percentage points); these rates were independent of the administration of antifungal prophylaxis or the use of colony-stimulating factors. There were fewer documented breakthrough fungal infections in patients treated with voriconazole than in those treated with liposomal amphotericin B (8 [1.9 percent] vs. 21 [5.0 percent], P=0.02). The voriconazole group had fewer cases of severe infusion-related reactions (P\u3c0.01) and of nephrotoxicity (P\u3c0.001). The incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar in the two groups. Patients receiving voriconazole had more episodes of transient visual changes than those receiving liposomal amphotericin B (22 percent vs. 1 percent, P\u3c0.001) and more hallucinations (4.3 percent vs. 0.5 percent, P\u3c0.001). Parenteral voriconazole was changed to the oral formulation in 22 percent of the voriconazole group, with a reduction in the mean duration of hospitalization by one day in all patients (P=0.17) but by two days in patients at high risk (P=0.03). Conclusions Voriconazole is a suitable alternative to amphotericin B preparations for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. (N Engl J Med 2002;346:225-34.

Is gynaecological surgical training a cause for concern? A questionnaire survey of trainees and trainers

<p>Astract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Concerns have been raised as to whether the current postgraduate training programme for gynaecological surgery is being detrimentally affected by changes in working practices, in particular the European Working Time Directive (EWTD). The purpose of this study was to investigate the surgical activity of obstetrics and gynaecology trainees and to explore trainees' and trainers' opinions on the current barriers and potential solutions to surgical training.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two questionnaire surveys were conducted, one to obstetrics and gynaecology trainees working within the West Midlands Deanery and a second to consultant gynaecologists in the West Midlands region.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and four trainees (64.3%) and 66 consultant gynaecologists (55.0%) responded. Sixty-six trainees (66.7%) reported attending up to one operating list per week. However, 28.1% reported attending up to one list every two weeks or less and 5 trainees stated that they had not attended a list at all over the preceding 8 weeks. Trainees working in a unit with less than 3999 deliveries attended significantly more theatre sessions compared to trainees in units with over 4000 deliveries (p = 0.007), as did senior trainees (p = 0.032) and trainees attached to consultants performing major gynaecological surgery (p = 0.022). In the previous 8 weeks, only 6 trainees reported performing a total abdominal hysterectomy independently, all were senior trainees (ST6 and above). In the trainers' survey, only two respondents (3.0%) agreed that the current program produces doctors competent in general gynaecological surgery by the end of training, compared to 48 (73.8%) respondents who disagreed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Trainees' concerns over a lack of surgical training appear to be justified. The main barriers to training are perceived to be a lack of team structure and a lack of theatre time.</p

Pancreatic cancer and predictors of survival: comparing the CA 19-9/bilirubin ratio with the McGill Brisbane Symptom Score

AbstractIntroductionFew tools predict survival from pancreatic cancer (PAC). The McGill Brisbane Symptom Score (MBSS) based on symptoms at presentation (weight loss, pain, jaundice and smoking) was recently validated. The present study compares the ability of four strategies to predict 9-month survival: MBSS, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) alone, CA19-9-to-bilirubin ratio and a combination of MBSS and the CA19-9-to-bilirubin ratio.MethodologyA retrospective review of 133 patients diagnosed with PAC between 2005 and 2011 was performed. Survival was determined from the Quebec civil registry. Blood CA 19-9 and bilirubin values were collected (n = 52) at the time of diagnosis. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a cutoff for optimal test characteristics of CA 19-9 and CA19-9-to-total bilirubin ratio in predicting survival at 9 months. Predictive characteristics were then calculated for the four strategies.ResultsOf the four strategies, the one with the greatest negative predictive value was the MBSS: negative predictive value (NPV) was 90.2% (76.9–97.3%) and the positive likelihood ratio (LR) was the greatest. The ability of CA 19-9 levels alone, at baseline, to predict survival was low. For the CA19-9-to-bilirubin ratio, the test characteristics improved but remained non-significant. The best performing strategy according to likelihood ratios was the combined MBSS and CA19-9 to the bilirubin ratio.ConclusionCA19-9 levels and the CA19-9-to-bilirubin ratio are poor predictors of survival for PAC, whereas the MBSS is a far better predictor, confirming its clinical value. By adding the CA19-9-to-bilirubin ratio to the MBSS the predictive characteristics improved

Prophylactic corticosteroid use in patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel for large B-cell lymphoma

ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) examined the safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous CD19-directed chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. To reduce treatment-related toxicity, several exploratory safety management cohorts were added to ZUMA-1. Specifically, cohort 6 investigated management of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) with prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and tocilizumab intervention. CRS and NE incidence and severity were primary end-points. Following leukapheresis, patients could receive optional bridging therapy per investigator discretion. All patients received conditioning chemotherapy (days -5 through -3), 2 × 106 CAR-T cells/kg (day 0) and once-daily oral dexamethasone [10 mg, day 0 (before axi-cel) through day 2]. Forty patients received axi-cel. CRS occurred in 80% of patients (all grade ≤2). Any grade and grade 3 or higher NEs occurred in 58% and 13% of patients respectively. Sixty-eight per cent of patients did not experience CRS or NEs within 72 h of axi-cel. With a median follow-up of 8·9 months, objective and complete response rates were 95% and 80% respectively. Overall, prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention resulted in no grade 3 or higher CRS, a low rate of grade 3 or higher NEs and high response rates in this study population

Coasts

Costas es una materia que suministra temas actualizados para estudiantes de AS/A nivel de geografía. Los temas del libro son: las costas como sistemas de energía, los ambientes rocosos costeros, accidentes geográficos, entornos playeros, las fuentes de sedimentos costeros, los ecosistemas en las zonas costeras, las mareas, las marismas y los manglares, las dunas marinas, el cambio del nivel del mar, actividades humanas y el medio ambiente en la zona costera, el crecimiento de la población, el uso de los recursos, turismo, la gestión de la zona costera.scBiblioteca de Educación del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Calle San Agustín, 5 - 3 planta; 28014 Madrid; Tel. +34917748000; [email protected]