Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Oral cancer treatments and adherence: medication event monitoring system assessment for capecitabine

Background: Oncological treatments are traditionally administered via intravenous injection by qualified personnel. Oral formulas which are developing rapidly are preferred by patients and facilitate administration however they may increase non-adherence. In this study 4 common oral chemotherapeutics are given to 50 patients, who are still in the process of inclusion, divided into 4 groups. The aim is to evaluate adherence and offer these patients interdisciplinary support with the joint help of doctors and pharmacists. We present here the results for capecitabine. Materials and Methods: The final goal is to evaluate adhesion in 50 patients split into 4 groups according to oral treatments (letrozole/exemestane, imatinib/sunitinib, capecitabine and temozolomide) using persistence and quality of execution as parameters. These parameters are evaluated using a medication event monitoring system (MEMS®) in addition to routine oncological visits and semi-structured interviews. Patients were monitored for the entire duration of treatment up to a maximum of 1 year. Patient satisfaction was assessed at the end of the monitoring period using a standardized questionary. Results: Capecitabine group included 2 women and 8 men with a median age of 55 years (range: 36−77 years) monitored for an average duration of 100 days (range: 5-210 days). Persistence was 98% and quality of execution 95%. 5 patients underwent cyclic treatment (2 out of 3 weeks) and 5 patients continuous treatment. Toxicities higher than grade 1 were grade 2−3 hand-foot syndrome in 1 patient and grade 3 acute coronary syndrome in 1 patient both without impact on adherence. Patients were satisfied with the interviews undergone during the study (57% useful, 28% very useful, 15% useless) and successfully integrated the MEMS® in their daily lives (57% very easily, 43% easily) according to the results obtained by questionary at the end of the monitoring period. Conclusion: Persistence and quality of execution observed in our Capecitabine group of patients were excellent and better than expected compared to previously published studies. The interdisciplinary approach allowed us to better identify and help patients with toxicities to maintain adherence. Overall patients were satisfied with the global interdisciplinary follow-up. With longer follow up better evaluation of our method and its impact will be possible. Interpretation of the results of patients in the other groups of this ongoing trial will provide us information for a more detailed analysis.

Study of a Swiss dopa-responsive dystonia family with a deletion in GCH1: redefining DYT14 as DYT5.

OBJECTIVE: To report the study of a multigenerational Swiss family with dopa-responsive dystonia (DRD). METHODS: Clinical investigation was made of available family members, including historical and chart reviews. Subject examinations were video recorded. Genetic analysis included a genome-wide linkage study with microsatellite markers (STR), GTP cyclohydrolase I (GCH1) gene sequencing, and dosage analysis. RESULTS: We evaluated 32 individuals, of whom 6 were clinically diagnosed with DRD, with childhood-onset progressive foot dystonia, later generalizing, followed by parkinsonism in the two older patients. The response to levodopa was very good. Two additional patients had late onset dopa-responsive parkinsonism. Three other subjects had DRD symptoms on historical grounds. We found suggestive linkage to the previously reported DYT14 locus, which excluded GCH1. However, further study with more stringent criteria for disease status attribution showed linkage to a larger region, which included GCH1. No mutation was found in GCH1 by gene sequencing but dosage methods identified a novel heterozygous deletion of exons 3 to 6 of GCH1. The mutation was found in seven subjects. One of the patients with dystonia represented a phenocopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study rules out the previously reported DYT14 locus as a cause of disease, as a novel multiexonic deletion was identified in GCH1. This work highlights the necessity of an accurate clinical diagnosis in linkage studies as well as the need for appropriate allele frequencies, penetrance, and phenocopy estimates. Comprehensive sequencing and dosage analysis of known genes is recommended prior to genome-wide linkage analysis.