Mechanisms of action of brief alcohol interventions remain largely unknown - a narrative review.

A growing body of evidence has shown the efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary health care settings. Evidence for efficacy in other settings and effectiveness when implemented at larger scale are disappointing. Indeed, BI comprises varying content; exploring BI content and mechanisms of action may be a promising way to enhance efficacy and effectiveness. Medline and PsychInfo, as well as references of retrieved publications were searched for original research or review on active ingredients (components or mechanisms) of face-to-face BIs [and its subtypes, including brief advice and brief motivational interviewing (BMI)] for alcohol. Overall, BI active ingredients have been scarcely investigated, almost only within BMI, and mostly among patients in the emergency room, young adults, and US college students. This body of research has shown that personalized feedback may be an effective component; specific MI techniques showed mixed findings; decisional balance findings tended to suggest a potential detrimental effect; while change plan exercises, advice to reduce or stop drinking, presenting alternative change options, and moderation strategies are promising but need further study. Client change talk is a potential mediator of BMI effects; change in norm perceptions and enhanced discrepancy between current behavior and broader life goals and values have received preliminary support; readiness to change was only partially supported as a mediator; while enhanced awareness of drinking, perceived risks/benefits of alcohol use, alcohol treatment seeking, and self-efficacy were seldom studied and have as yet found no significant support as such. Research is obviously limited and has provided no clear and consistent evidence on the mechanisms of alcohol BI. How BI achieves the effects seen in randomized trials remains mostly unknown and should be investigated to inform the development of more effective interventions.

Preventive and therapeutic strategies in critically ill patients with highly resistant bacteria.

The antibiotic pipeline continues to diminish and the majority of the public remains unaware of this critical situation. The cause of the decline of antibiotic development is multifactorial and currently most ICUs are confronted with the challenge of multidrug-resistant organisms. Antimicrobial multidrug resistance is expanding all over the world, with extreme and pandrug resistance being increasingly encountered, especially in healthcare-associated infections in large highly specialized hospitals. Antibiotic stewardship for critically ill patients translated into the implementation of specific guidelines, largely promoted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, targeted at education to optimize choice, dosage, and duration of antibiotics in order to improve outcomes and reduce the development of resistance. Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, meaning the selection of an antibiotic to which the causative pathogen is resistant, is a consistent predictor of poor outcomes in septic patients. Therefore, pharmacokinetically/pharmacodynamically optimized dosing regimens should be given to all patients empirically and, once the pathogen and susceptibility are known, local stewardship practices may be employed on the basis of clinical response to redefine an appropriate regimen for the patient. This review will focus on the most severely ill patients, for whom substantial progress in organ support along with diagnostic and therapeutic strategies markedly increased the risk of nosocomial infections.