Epidemiology of American tegumentary leishmaniasis in the State of Acre, Brazilian Amazon

Efetuou-se estudo estatístico descritivo em 8.516 casos de leishmaniose tegumentar americana no Estado do Acre, Brasil, no período de 2001 a 2006 (segundo período), comparando-se com os resultados de publicação anterior com dados no mesmo estado entre 1992 e 1997 (primeiro período). A prevalência no estado mais que dobrou entre os dois momentos (55,7/10 mil habitantes de 1992 a 1997 e 128,5/10 mil habitantes entre 2001 e 2006. O sexo masculino foi o mais acometido (68,8%, n = 5.860) no segundo período. A média das idades foi de 26,3 anos, valor discretamente menor do que o do primeiro período. Pacientes com baixa escolaridade foram os mais acometidos pela doença. As demais variáveis avaliadas foram zona de residência, ocupação, critério de diagnóstico, forma clínica, tratamento, recidiva, tempo para procurar tratamento e evolução da doença. Conclui-se que houve piora nos indicadores epidemiológicos da leishmaniose tegumentar americana avaliados no estado entre os períodos estudados.This was a descriptive statistical study of 8,516 cases of American tegumentary leishmaniasis in the State of Acre, Brazil, from 2001 to 2006 (second period), comparing the results to a previous publication with data from the same State for 1992 to 1997 (first period). Prevalence in the State more than doubled (55.7/10,000 inhabitants from 1992 to 1997 and 128.5/10,000 inhabitants from 2001 to 2006). Males predominated (68.8%, n = 5,860) in the second period. Mean age in the second period was 26.3 years, slightly lower than in the first. Individuals with low schooling were more affected by the disease. The other variables were area of residence, occupation, diagnostic criterion, clinical form, treatment, relapse, time before seeking treatment, and evolution. In conclusion, American tegumentary leishmaniasis epidemiological indicators worsened in the State between the two periods

Identification of temporal clusters and risk factors of bacteremia by nosocomial vancomycin-resistant enterococci

Background: This study aimed to evaluate a different methodology for addressing the evolution of nosocomial bacteremia by vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in a hospital setting.Methods: in this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from the date of first registration up to December 2008 from the electronic medical records of patients with VRE bacteremia in a school hospital.Results: Thirty cases of VRE bacteremia and 274 cases of vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE) bacteremia were identified. the average age of the patients was 56 years. the rates of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis in the hospital's intensive care unit (ICU) and wards showed no statistically significant differences. the risk of acquiring VRE bacteremia was at least 3-fold higher in the ICU than in the wards. the risk of death was 2.73-fold higher in patients with VRE bacteremia compared with those with VSE bacteremia. Only one temporal cluster statistically significant of VRE bacteremia was found in the study period.Conclusions: the identification of temporal clusters can be an important tool to optimize health actions and thereby reduce the burden of operating costs. Copyright (C) 2014 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Med Coll Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Postgrad Dept, São Paulo, BrazilUnion Coll Great Lakes, Coll Med, Dept Med Sci, São Paulo, BrazilHosp Base, Dept Infect & Parasit Dis, São Paulo, BrazilMed Coll Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Virol Lab, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Infect Dis, Hosp Epidemiol Comm, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Infect Dis, Hosp Epidemiol Comm, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Guidance on mucositis assessment from the MASCC Mucositis Study Group and ISOO: an international Delphi studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment. Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022–July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022–May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023–May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents. Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus). Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Funding: No funding was received

Effect of lung recruitment and titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, −1.1; 95% CI, −2.1 to −0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022