Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis

AIMS Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis. METHODS Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants. RESULTS Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.

The expanding role of immunopharmacology: IUPHAR Review 16

Drugs targeting the immune system such as corticosteroids, antihistamines and immunosuppressants have been widely exploited in the treatment of inflammatory, allergic and autoimmune disorders during the second half of the 20th century. The recent advances in immunopharmacological research have made available new classes of clinically relevant drugs. These comprise protein kinase inhibitors and biologics, such as monoclonal antibodies, that selectively modulate the immune response not only in cancer and autoimmunity but also in a number of other human pathologies. Likewise, more effective vaccines utilizing novel antigens and adjuvants are valuable tools for the prevention of transmissible infectious diseases and for allergen-specific immunotherapy. Consequently, immunopharmacology is presently considered as one of the expanding fields of pharmacology. Immunopharmacology addresses the selective regulation of immune responses and aims to uncover and exploit beneficial therapeutic options for typical and non-typical immune system-driven unmet clinical needs. While in the near future a number of new agents will be introduced, improving the effectiveness and safety of those currently in use is imperative for all researchers and clinicians working in the fields of immunology, pharmacology and drug discovery. The newly formed ImmuPhar (http://iuphar.us/index.php/sections-subcoms/immunopharmacology) is the Immunopharmacology Section of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (IUPHAR, http://iuphar.us/). ImmuPhar provides a unique international expert-lead platform that aims to dissect and promote the growing understanding of immune (patho)physiology. Moreover, it challenges the identification and validation of drug targets and lead candidates for the treatment of many forms of debilitating disorders, including, among others, cancer, allergies, autoimmune and metabolic diseases.

The timing of extraction of non-restorable first permanent molars: a systematic review.

AIM To identify the ideal timing of first permanent molar extraction to reduce the future need for orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS A computerised database and subsequent manual search was performed using Medline database, Embase and Ovid, covering the period from January 1946 to February 2013. Two reviewers (JE and ME) extracted the data independently and evaluated if the studies matched the inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were specification of the follow-up with clinical examination or analysis of models, specification of the chronological age or dental developmental stage at the time of extraction, no treatment in between, classification of the treatment result into perfect, good, average and poor. The search was limited to human studies and no language limitations were set. RESULTS The search strategy resulted in 18 full-text articles, of which 6 met the inclusion criteria. By pooling the data from maxillary sites, good to perfect clinical outcome was estimated in 72% (95% confidence interval 63%-82%). Extractions at the age of 8-10.5 years tended to show better spontaneous clinical outcomes compared to the other age groups. By pooling the data from mandibular sites, extractions performed at the age of 8-10.5 and 10.5-11.5 years showed significantly superior spontaneous clinical outcome with a probability of 50% and 59% likelihood, respectively, to achieve good to perfect clinical result (p<0.05) compared to the other age groups (<8 years of age: 34%, >11.5 years of age: 44%). CONCLUSION Prevention of complications after first permanent molars extractions is an important issue. The overall success rate of spontaneous clinical outcome for maxillary extraction of first permanent molars was superior to mandibular extraction. Extractions of mandibular first permanent molars should be performed between 8 and 11.5 years of age in order to achieve a good spontaneous clinical outcome. For the extraction in the maxilla, no firm conclusions concerning the ideal extraction timing could be drawn.

Experiences with a voluntary surveillance system for early detection of equine diseases in Switzerland

Clinical observations made by practitioners and reported using web- and mobile-based technologies may benefit disease surveillance by improving the timeliness of outbreak detection. Equinella is a voluntary electronic reporting and information system established for the early detection of infectious equine diseases in Switzerland. Sentinel veterinary practitioners have been able to report cases of non-notifiable diseases and clinical symptoms to an internet-based platform since November 2013. Telephone interviews were carried out during the first year to understand the motivating and constraining factors affecting voluntary reporting and the use of mobile devices in a sentinel network. We found that non-monetary incentives attract sentinel practitioners; however, insufficient understanding of the reporting system and of its relevance, as well as concerns over the electronic dissemination of health data were identified as potential challenges to sustainable reporting. Many practitioners are not yet aware of the advantages of mobile-based surveillance and may require some time to become accustomed to novel reporting methods. Finally, our study highlights the need for continued information feedback loops within voluntary sentinel networks.

Successful prevention of transmission of integrase resistance in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

Prevalence of integrase inhibitor (INSTI) transmitted drug resistance (TDR) may increase with the increasing use of INSTIs. We analysed the prevalence of INSTI TDR in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (2008-2014). In 1 of 1,316 (0.1%) drug-naïve samples a major INSTI TDR mutation was detected. Prevalence was stable although INSTIs were increasingly used. We showed that this is in contrast to the introduction of previous drug classes where more treatment failures with resistant strains occurred and TDR was observed more rapidly. We demonstrated on a population-level that it is possible to avoid TDR affecting a new drug class for years.