A prospective, multi centre, randomized clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin - Sulbactam 3 days in the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infection. (T.E.A. Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-sulbactam)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The recommendations outlined in the latest guidelines published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) regarding the proper duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with intra-abdominal infections are limited and non-specific. This ambiguity is due mainly to the lack of clinical trials on the topic of optimal duration of therapy. It is well known that the overuse of antibiotics has several important consequences such as increased treatment costs, reduced clinical efficacy, and above all, the increased emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Ampicillin-Sulbactam is a commonly used "first line" antibiotic for intra-abdominal infections. Ertapenem and Ampicillin-sulbactam are recommended as primary treatment agents for localized peritonitis by both the SIS and IDSA guidelines.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a prospective multi-center randomized investigation. The study will be performed in the Departments of General, Emergency, and Transplant Surgery of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy, in the General Surgery Department of the Ospedali Riuniti of Bergamo, Italy, and in the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Department of Maggiore Hospital in Bologna, Italy, and will be conducted by all surgeons willing to participate in the study. The inclusion period of the study will take approximately two years before the planned number of 142 enrolled patients is reached.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Ertapenem and Ampicillin-sulbactam are recommended both as primary treatment agents for localized peritonitis by both the SIS and IDSA guidelines. As one of the discussed topic is the optimal duration of the antibiotic therapy and this ambiguity is due mainly to the lack of clinical trials on the topic, the present study aims for obtain precise data.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00630513">NCT00630513</a></p

Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ertapenem, a new carbapenem with a favorable pharmacokinetic profile, has been approved for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal Infections (cIAIs), acute pelvic infections (APIs) and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSSIs). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam, which has been reported to possess good efficacy for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, Cochrane library and Embase that compared the efficacy and safety of ertapenem with piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated infections including cIAIs, APIs, cSSSIs. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical treatment success assessed at the test-of-cure visit. The primary safety outcome was drug related clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred during the treatment and the post-treatment period.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Six RCTs, involving 3161 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Ertapenem was associated similar clinical treatment success with piperacillin/tazobactam for complicated infections treatment (clinically evaluable population, 1937 patients, odds ratios: 1.15, 95% confidence intervals: 0.89-1.49; modified intention to treat population, 2855 patients, odds ratios: 1.03, 95% confidence intervals: 0.87-1.22). All of secondary efficacy outcomes analysis obtained similar findings with clinical treatment success. No difference was found about the incidence of drug related adverse events between ertapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis provides evidence that ertapenem 1 g once a day can be used as effectively and safely as recommended dose of piperacillin/tazobactam, for the treatment of complicated infections, particularly of mild to moderate severity. It is an appealing option for the treatment of these complicated infections.</p

The Surgical Infection Society revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection

Background: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations. Methods: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council. Results: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included. Summary: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality

Output from VIP cells of the mammalian central clock regulates daily physiological rhythms

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) circadian clock is critical for optimising daily cycles in mammalian physiology and behaviour. The roles of the various SCN cell types in communicating timing information to downstream physiological systems remain incompletely understood, however. In particular, while vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) signalling is essential for SCN function and whole animal circadian rhythmicity, the specific contributions of VIP cell output to physiological control remains uncertain. Here we reveal a key role for SCN VIP cells in central clock output. Using multielectrode recording and optogenetic manipulations, we show that VIP neurons provide coordinated daily waves of GABAergic input to target cells across the paraventricular hypothalamus and ventral thalamus, supressing their activity during the mid to late day. Using chemogenetic manipulation, we further demonstrate specific roles for this circuitry in the daily control of heart rate and corticosterone secretion, collectively establishing SCN VIP cells as influential regulators of physiological timing

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline monotherapy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in Chinese patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tigecycline, a first-in-class broad-spectrum glycylcycline antibiotic, has broad-spectrum in vitro activity against bacteria commonly encountered in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), including aerobic and facultative Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. In the current trial, tigecycline was evaluated for safety and efficacy vs. imipenem/cilastatin in hospitalized Chinese patients with cIAIs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomly assigned to receive IV tigecycline or imipenem/cilastatin for ≤2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (12-37 days after therapy) for the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat and microbiologically evaluable populations. Because the study was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority between tigecycline and imipenem/cilastatin, no formal statistical analysis was performed. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the response rates in each treatment group and for differences between treatment groups for descriptive purposes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred ninety-nine patients received ≥1 dose of study drug and comprised the modified intent-to-treat population. In the microbiologically evaluable population, 86.5% (45 of 52) of tigecycline- and 97.9% (47 of 48) of imipenem/cilastatin-treated patients were cured at the test-of-cure assessment (12-37 days after therapy); in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat population, cure rates were 81.7% (49 of 60) and 90.9% (50 of 55), respectively. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 80.4% for tigecycline vs. 53.9% after imipenem/cilastatin therapy (<it>P </it>< 0.001), primarily due to gastrointestinal-related events, especially nausea (21.6% vs. 3.9%; <it>P </it>< 0.001) and vomiting (12.4% vs. 2.0%; <it>P </it>= 0.005).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Clinical cure rates for tigecycline were consistent with those found in global cIAI studies. The overall safety profile was also consistent with that observed in global studies of tigecycline for treatment of cIAI, as well as that observed in analyses of Chinese patients in those studies; no novel trends were observed.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00136201</p

Management of intra-abdominal infections : recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.Peer reviewe

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient : WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.Peer reviewe