Early versus delayed fixed dose combination abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine in patients with HIV and tuberculosis in Tanzania.

Fixed dose combination abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine (ABC/3TC/ZDV) among HIV-1 and tuberculosis (TB)-coinfected patients was evaluated and outcomes between early vs. delayed initiation were compared. In a randomized, pilot study conducted in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania, HIV-infected inpatients with smear-positive TB and total lymphocyte count <1200/mm(3) were randomized to initiate ABC/3TC/ZDV either 2 (early) or 8 (delayed) weeks after commencing antituberculosis therapy and were followed for 104 weeks. Of 94 patients screened, 70 enrolled (41% female, median CD4 count 103 cells/mm(3)), and 33 in each group completed 104 weeks. Two deaths and 12 serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed in the early arm vs. one death, one clinical failure, and seven SAEs in the delayed arm (p = 0.6012 for time to first grade 3/4 event, SAE, or death). CD4 cell increases were +331 and +328 cells/mm(3), respectively. TB-immune reconstitution inflammatory syndromes (TB-IRIS) were not observed in any subject. Using intent-to-treat (ITT), missing = failure analyses, 74% (26/35) vs. 89% (31/35) randomized to early vs. delayed therapy had HIV RNA levels <400 copies/ml at 104 weeks (p = 0.2182) and 66% (23/35) vs. 74% (26/35), respectively, had HIV RNA levels <50 copies/ml (p = 0.6026). In an analysis in which switches from ABC/3TC/ZDV = failure, those receiving early therapy were less likely to be suppressed to <400 copies/ml [60% (21/35) vs. 86% (30/35), p = 0.030]. TB-IRIS was not observed among the 70 coinfected subjects beginning antiretroviral treatment. ABC/3TC/ZDV was well tolerated and resulted in steady immunologic improvement. Rates of virologic suppression were similar between early and delayed treatment strategies with triple nucleoside regimens when substitutions were allowed.

Reduced length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal approach to perioperative care that combines a range of interventions to enable early mobilization and feeding after surgery. We investigated the feasibility, clinical effectiveness, and cost savings of an ERAS program at a major U. S. teaching hospital. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, before and after implementation of an ERAS protocol. Data collected included patient demographics, operative, and perioperative surgical and anesthesia data, need for analgesics, complications, inpatient medical costs, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: There were 99 patients in the traditional care group, and 142 in the ERAS group. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days in the ERAS group compared with 7 days in the traditional group (P < 0.001). The reduction in LOS was significant for both open procedures (median 6 vs 7 days, P = 0.01), and laparoscopic procedures (4 vs 6 days, P < 0.0001). ERAS patients had fewer urinary tract infections (13% vs 24%, P = 0.03). Readmission rates were lower in ERAS patients (9.8% vs 20.2%, P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery at a tertiary medical center was associated with a significantly reduced LOS and incidence of urinary tract infection. This is consistent with that of other studies in the literature and suggests that enhanced recovery programs could be implemented successfully and should be considered in U.S. hospitals.