Social Competence Treatment after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Interactive Group Treatment versus Non-Interactive Treatment

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a replicable group treatment program for improving social competence after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing two methods of conducting a social competency skills program, an interactive group format versus a classroom lecture. Setting Community and Veteran rehabilitation centers. Participants 179 civilian, military, and veteran adults with TBI and social competence difficulties, at least 6 months post-injury. Experimental Intervention Thirteen weekly group interactive sessions (1.5 hours) with structured and facilitated group interactions to improve social competence. Alternative (Control) Intervention Thirteen traditional classroom sessions using the same curriculum with brief supplemental individual sessions but without structured group interaction. Primary Outcome Measure Profile of Pragmatic Impairment in Communication (PPIC), an objective behavioral rating of social communication impairments following TBI. Secondary Outcomes LaTrobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ), Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist – (PCL-C), Brief Symptom Inventory 18 (BSI-18), Scale of Perceived Social Self Efficacy (PSSE). Results Social competence goals (GAS) were achieved and maintained for most participants regardless of treatment method. Significant improvements in the primary outcome (PPIC) and two of the secondary outcomes (LCQ and BSI) were seen immediately post-treatment and at 3 months post-treatment in the AT arm only, however these improvements were not significantly different between the GIST and AT arms. Similar trends were observed for PSSE and PCL-C. Conclusions Social competence skills improved for persons with TBI in both treatment conditions. The group interactive format was not found to be a superior method of treatment delivery in this study

A pharmacodynamic analysis of resistance trends in pathogens from patients with infection in intensive care units in the United States between 1993 and 2004

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Increasing nosocomial pathogen resistance to available antimicrobial agents is of growing concern. While higher MICs can diminish antimicrobial effectiveness, dose adjustments often mitigate this effect. This study's objective was to ascertain whether MICs among major pathogens in the ICU to several commonly used agents have increased enough to significantly impact their ability to achieve bactericidal effect.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cefepime, ceftriaxone, imipenem and piperacillin-tazobactam MICs were determined with 74,394 Gram-negative bacilli obtained from ICU patients with various infections in the US between 1993 and 2004. Results were grouped into four 3-year periods. The predicted cumulative fraction of response (CFR) was estimated based on patient-derived pharmacokinetic values and Monte Carlo simulation. Trends in CFR over the four study periods were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. The primary analysis included all organisms combined; <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa </it>and <it>Acinetobacter </it>species were also evaluated individually.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the primary analysis, imipenem 500 mg q6h showed CFRs from 87% to 90% across all four study periods, with a trend toward slightly improved bactericidal target attainment (p < 0.01). CFRs for cefepime 2 g q12h and piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g q6h both declined by 2% (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively), reflecting upward shifts in the underlying MIC distributions. Ceftriaxone had <52% CFR for all regimens in all periods, with no significant trend. Against <it>P. aeruginosa</it>, significant declines in CFR were seen for (range, p-value): imipenem 1 g q8h (82%–79%, p < 0.01), cefepime 1 g q12h (70%–67%, p < 0.01), cefepime 2 g q12h (84%–82%, p < 0.05), piperacillin-tazobactam 3.375 g q6h (76%–73%, p < 0.01), piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g q8h (71%–68%, p < 0.01), and piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g q6h (80%–77%, p < .01). Against <it>Acinetobacter </it>spp., all regimens of imipenem, cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam showed significant declines in CFR over time (p < 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our observations suggest that as a result of increasing antimicrobial resistance among ICU pathogens in the US, drug effectiveness, assessed as a function of individual agents' ability to attain pharmacodynamic targets, has declined, especially with <it>P. aeruginosa </it>and <it>Acinetobacter </it>spp. Cefepime 2 g q8h and imipenem were the most potent agents against these species, respectively. More aggressive dosing of all of the agents characterized could preserve their clinical utility, but this must be balanced with safety and tolerability issues by the physician.</p

Risk Factors, Molecular Epidemiology and Outcomes of Ertapenem-Resistant, Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacteriaceae: A Case-Case-Control Study

Background: Increasing prevalence of ertapenem-resistant, carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae (ERE) in Singapore presents a major therapeutic problem. Our objective was to determine risk factors associated with the acquisition of ERE in hospitalized patients; to assess associated patient outcomes; and to describe the molecular characteristics of ERE. Methods: A retrospective case-case-control study was conducted in 2009 at a tertiary care hospital. Hospitalized patients with ERE and those with ertapenem-sensitive Enterobacteriaceae (ESE) were compared with a common control group consisting of patients with no prior gram-negative infections. Risk factors analyzed included demographics; co-morbidities; instrumentation and antibiotic exposures. Two parallel multivariate logistic regression models were performed to identify independent variables associated with ERE and ESE acquisition respectively. Clinical outcomes were compared between ERE and ESE patients. Results: Twenty-nine ERE cases, 29 ESE cases and 87 controls were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression showed that previous hospitalization (Odds ratio [OR], 10.40; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.19–49.20) and duration of fluoroquinolones exposure (OR, 1.18 per day increase; 95 % CI, 1.05–1.34) were unique independent predictors for acquiring ERE. Duration of 4 th-generation cephalosporin exposure was found to predict for ESE acquisition (OR, 1.63 per day increase; 95 % CI, 1.05– 2.54). In-hospital mortality rates and clinical response rates were significantly different between ERE and ESE groups

Early clinical assessment of response to treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections:How can it help clinicians? Perspectives from Europe

AbstractSkin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are a common indication for antibiotic use in Europe and are associated with considerable morbidity. Treatment of SSTIs, occasionally complicated by infection with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, can be resource intensive and lead to high healthcare costs. For patients treated in an inpatient setting, once the acute infection has been controlled, a patient may be discharged on suitable oral antibiotic therapy or outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. The recently confirmed efficacy of single-dose (e.g. oritavancin) and two-dose (e.g. dalbavancin) infusion therapies as well as tedizolid phosphate, a short-duration therapy available both for intravenous (i.v.) and oral use, for treating SSTIs has highlighted the need for clinicians to re-evaluate their current treatment paradigms. In addition, recent clinical trial data reporting a novel endpoint of early clinical response, defined as change in lesion size at 48–72 h, may be of value in determining which patients are most suitable for early de-escalation of therapy, including switch from i.v. to oral antibiotics, and subsequent early hospital discharge. The aim of this paper is to review the potential impact of assessing clinical response on clinical decision-making in the management of SSTIs in Europe, with a focus on emerging therapies