519 resultados para Mupirocin Prophylaxis
Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE A controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of oral prophylaxis on halitosis-associated, immunological and microbiological parameters. METHODS Thirty subjects were included in this controlled clinical trial (patients with generalized chronic periodontitis and controls without clinical attachment loss; each n = 15). Before oral prophylaxis and 14 days after (including tongue cleaning) volatile sulphur compounds (VSC), organoleptic scores and a tongue coating index were evaluated. The levels of IL-1β, IL-8, IL-10 and MMP-8 were measured in GCF, and also major periodontal pathogens were detected. Data were statistically analysed using anova and paired t-test. RESULTS Supragingival plaque and calculus removal with combined tongue cleaning was able to reduce significantly (P < 0.05) the VSC values in both groups (no significant differences between both groups). Two weeks after periodontal debridement, the VSC values were observed in the periodontitis group, but not in the control group, similar to the baseline values. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Only a repeated prophylaxis session in the periodontitis group was able to reduce VSC values significantly in comparison with baseline (P < 0.05). Organoleptic scores (10 and 30 cm) were significantly different (P < 0.05) between both groups before and after the treatment. Periodontal pathogens and host-derived markers were not significantly affected by a single prophylaxis session. CONCLUSIONS Oral prophylaxis may result in a significant decrease in VSC values. However, in periodontal diseases, a more complex treatment seems to be necessary.
Resumo:
Both, underuse and overuse of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients is common. We aimed to explore clinical factors associated with the use of pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients at high (Geneva Risk Score ≥ 3 points) vs low (Geneva Risk Score < 3 points) risk of venous thromboembolism. Overall, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients from eight large Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01277536. Thromboprophylaxis increased stepwise with increasing Geneva Risk Score (p< 0.001). Among the 962 high-risk patients, 366 (38 %) received no thromboprophylaxis; cancer-associated thrombocytopenia (OR 4.78, 95 % CI 2.75-8.31, p< 0.001), active bleeding on admission (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.69-4.92, p< 0.001), and thrombocytopenia without cancer (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.31-4.95, p=0.006) were independently associated with the absence of prophylaxis. The use of thromboprophylaxis declined with increasing severity of thrombocytopenia (p=0.001). Among the 516 low-risk patients, 245 (48 %) received thromboprophylaxis; none of the investigated clinical factors predicted its use. In conclusion, in acutely ill medical patients, bleeding and thrombocytopenia were the most important factors for the absence of thromboprophylaxis among high-risk patients. The use of thromboprophylaxis among low-risk patients was inconsistent, without clearly identifiable predictors, and should be addressed in further research.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies. METHODS We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines. RESULTS We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups. CONCLUSION Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Cardiac and thoracic surgery are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing these types of surgery is uncertain. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of primary thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 4). The authors searched the reference lists of relevant studies, conference proceedings, and clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 RCTs and one quasi-RCT (6923 participants), six for cardiac surgery (3359 participants) and seven for thoracic surgery (3564 participants). No study evaluated fondaparinux, the new oral direct thrombin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, or caval filters. All studies had major study design flaws and most lacked a placebo or no treatment control group. We typically graded the quality of the overall body of evidence for the various outcomes and comparisons as low, due to imprecise estimates of effect and risk of bias. We could not pool data because of the different comparisons and the lack of data. In cardiac surgery, 71 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 3040 participants from four studies. In a study of 2551 participants, representing 85% of the review population in cardiac surgery, the combination of unfractionated heparin with pneumatic compression stockings was associated with a 61% reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to unfractionated heparin alone (1.5% versus 4.0%; risk ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.64). Major bleeding was only reported in one study, which found a higher incidence with vitamin K antagonists compared to platelet inhibitors (11.3% versus 1.6%, RR 7.06; 95% CI 1.64 to 30.40). In thoracic surgery, 15 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 2890 participants from six studies. In the largest study evaluating unfractionated heparin versus an inactive control the rates of symptomatic VTE were 0.7% versus 0%, respectively, giving a RR of 6.71 (95% CI 0.40 to 112.65). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in the risk of major bleeding from two studies evaluating fixed-dose versus weight-adjusted low molecular weight heparin (2.7% versus 8.1%, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.60) and unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (6% and 4%, RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cardiac and thoracic surgery is limited. Data for important outcomes such as pulmonary embolism or major bleeding were often lacking. Given the uncertainties around the benefit-to-risk balance, no conclusions can be drawn and a case-by-case risk evaluation of VTE and bleeding remains preferable.
Resumo:
Funder statement This article/paper/report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the UK Government’s Department of Health. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Dr Graeme MacLennan, Mr Simon Skene, Mr Julian Shah and Dr Nadine Dougall (past member) for their valuable contribution to the study as DMC members. We would like to thank Professor Chris Butler, Dr Emma Hall, Mr Roland Morley, Mr Dan Wood, Ms Jane Laws and Ms Sarah Bittlestone for their oversight of the AnTIC study as members of the TSC, and we would like to thank Ms Heather Armstrong for her contributions as a patient group representative. We thank all Principal Investigators and site staff for their commitment in recruitment for the AnTIC study. Finally, we would like to thank Hazel Wilde for secretarial support. The trial is funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project reference: 11-72-01) and will be published in full in the Health Technology Assessment journal series. The authors also acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network.
Resumo:
Acknowledgments We thank the members of the Trial Steering and Data Monitoring Committee and all the people who helped in the conduct of the study (including the OPPTIMUM collaborative group and other clinicians listed in the appendix). We are grateful to Paul Piette (Besins Healthcare Corporate, Brussels, Belgium) and Besins Healthcare for their kind donation of active and placebo drug for use in the study, and to staff of the pharmacy and research and development departments of the participating hospitals. We are also grateful to the many people who helped in this study but who we have been unable to name, and in particular all the women (and their babies) who participated in OPPTIMUM. OPPTIMUM was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) partnership, award number G0700452, revised to 09/800/27. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the MRC, National Health Service, NIHR, or the Department of Health. The funder had no involvement in data collection, analysis or interpretation, and no role in the writing of this manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.
Resumo:
Objective: To determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces respiratory tract infections and overall mortality in unselected critically ill adult patients.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Hepatitis-B virus (HBV) has a detrimental effect on HIV natural course, and HBV vaccination is less effective in the HIV infected. We examine the protective effect of dually active antiretroviral therapy (DAART) for HIV/HBV (Tenofovir/Lamivudine/Emtricitabine) in a large cohort encompassing heterosexuals, men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM), and intravenous drug users (IDU), who are HIV-infected yet susceptible to HBV, with comprehensive follow-up data about risky behavior and immunological profile. METHODS We defined an incident HBV infection as the presence of any of HBV serological markers (HBsAg/AntiHBc/HBV-DNA) following a negative baseline AntiHBc test. Patients with positive AntiHBs were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were utilized, with an incident case of HBV infection as the outcome variable. RESULTS We analyzed 1,716 eligible patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study with 177 incident HBV cases. DAART was negatively associated with incident HBV infection (hazard ratio 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.6). This protective association was robust to adjustment (0.3, 0.2-0.5) for condomless sex, √CD4 count, drug use, and patients' demographics. Condomless sex (1.9,1.4-2.6), belonging to MSM (2.7,1.7-4.2) or IDU (3.8,2.4-6.1) were all associated with higher HBV hazard. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that DAART, independently of CD4 count and risky behavior, has a potentially strong public health impact including pre-exposure prophylaxis of HBV co-infection.