Coffee and tea intake and risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have explored the relation between coffee and tea intake and head and neck cancers, with inconsistent results. METHODS: We pooled individual-level data from nine case-control studies of head and neck cancers, including 5,139 cases and 9,028 controls. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Caffeinated coffee intake was inversely related with the risk of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx: the ORs were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98) for an increment of 1 cup per day and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.47-0.80) in drinkers of >4 cups per day versus nondrinkers. This latter estimate was consistent for different anatomic sites (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71 for oral cavity; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82 for oropharynx/hypopharynx; and OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-1.01 for oral cavity/pharynx not otherwise specified) and across strata of selected covariates. No association of caffeinated coffee drinking was found with laryngeal cancer (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64-1.45 in drinkers of >4 cups per day versus nondrinkers). Data on decaffeinated coffee were too sparse for detailed analysis, but indicated no increased risk. Tea intake was not associated with head and neck cancer risk (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11 for drinkers versus nondrinkers). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of case-control studies supports the hypothesis of an inverse association between caffeinated coffee drinking and risk of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx. IMPACT: Given widespread use of coffee and the relatively high incidence and low survival of head and neck cancers, the observed inverse association may have appreciable public health relevance.

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.

Parent-child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: direct interview versus family history method.

Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother-child, father-child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother-offspring, 189 father-offspring and 128 mother-father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History - Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother-child and father-child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring.