Search

[Introduction] There is no consensus regarding optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. We aimed to evaluate the impact of short antibiotic course., [Methods] We present a retrospective multicenter study including patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia during 2009–2015. We evaluated outcomes of patients treated with short (6–10 days) versus long (11–15 days) antibiotic courses. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality or bacteremia recurrence and/or persistence. Univariate and inverse probability treatment-weighted (IPTW) adjusted multivariate analysis for the primary outcome was performed. To avoid immortal time bias, the landmark method was used., [Results] We included 657 patients; 273 received a short antibiotic course and 384 a long course. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics of patients. The composite primary outcome occurred in 61/384 patients in the long-treatment group (16%) versus 32/273 in the short-treatment group (12%) (p = 0.131). Mortality accounted for 41/384 (11%) versus 25/273 (9%) of cases, respectively. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the short group [median 13 days, interquartile range (IQR) 9–21 days, versus median 15 days, IQR 11–26 days, p = 0.002]. Ten patients in the long group discontinued antibiotic therapy owing to adverse events, compared with none in the short group. On univariate and multivariate analyses, duration of therapy was not associated with the primary outcome., [Conclusions] In this retrospective study, 6–10 days of antibiotic course for P. aeruginosa bacteremia were as effective as longer courses in terms of survival and recurrence. Shorter therapy was associated with reduced length of stay and less drug discontinuation.

In the perspective of developing an audiological diagnostic supporting tool to be used in clinical audiology to support ENT specialists with statistical information from a large number of patient cases, the Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs) were recently introduced [ref:1].[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 23. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie

The Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs) were introduced for the purpose of combining audiological expert knowledge and providing it to the ENT community in a condensed, illustrative way (Buhl et al. 2018, in press). The CAFPAs are abstract parameters that were designed to describe the[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 22. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie

Objective: As a step towards objectifying audiological rehabilitation and providing comparability between different test batteries and clinics, the Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs) were introduced as a common and abstract representation of audiological knowledge obtained from diagnostic tests. Design: Relationships between CAFPAs as an intermediate representation between diagnostic tests and audiological findings, diagnoses and treatment recommendations (summarised as ""diagnostic cases"") were established by means of an expert survey. Expert knowledge was collected for 14 given categories covering different diagnostic cases. For each case, the experts were asked to indicate expected ranges of diagnostic test outcomes, as well as traffic light-encoded CAFPAs. Study sample: Eleven German experts in the field of audiological rehabilitation from Hanover and Oldenburg participated in the survey. Results: Audiological findings or treatment recommendations could be distinguished by a statistical model derived from the experts' answers for CAFPAs as well as audiological tests. Conclusions: The CAFPAs serve as an abstract, comprehensive representation of audiological knowledge. If more detailed information on certain functional aspects of the auditory system is required, the CAFPAs indicate which information is missing. The statistical graphical representations for CAFPAs and audiological tests are suitable for audiological teaching material; they are universally applicable for real clinical databases.

EUCIC StopNegative group, [Objective]: The main objective of the study was to investigate major differences among European countries in implementing infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and reasons for reduced compliance., [Design]: An online survey including experts in IPC and a gap analysis were conducted to identify major limitations in implementing IPC guidelines., [Setting]: Europe., [Main outcome measures]: Four areas were targeted: (1) healthcare structure, (2) finances, (3) culture and (4) education and awareness. Perceived compliance to IPC measures was classified as low (80%). Countries were classified in three regions: North-Western Europe (NWE), Eastern Europe (EE) and Southern Europe (SE)., [Results]: In total, 482 respondents from 34 out of 44 (77.3%) European countries participated. Respondents reported availability of national guidelines to control multidrug-resistant Gram-negatives (MDR-GN) in 20 countries (58.0%). According to participants, compliance with IPC measures ranged from 17.8% (screening at discharge) to 96.0% (contact precautions). Overall, three areas were identified as critical for the compliance rate: (1) number of infection control staff, (2) IPC dedicated educational programmes and (3) number of clinical staff. Analysis of reasons for low compliance showed high heterogeneity among countries: participants from NWE and SE deemed the lack of educational programmes as the most important, while those from EE considered structural reasons, such as insufficient single bed rooms or lacking materials for isolation, as main contributors to the low compliance., [Conclusions]: Although national guidelines to reduce the spread of MDR-GN are reported in the majority of the European countries, low compliance with IPC measures was commonly reported. Reasons for the low compliance are multifactorial and vary from region to region. Cross-country actions to reduce the spread of MDR-GN have to consider structural and cultural differences in countries. Locally calibrated interventions may be fruitful in the future., The study was partly funded (NTM) by a grant by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts (MWK; grant: “Surveillance von Mehrfach-Antibiotika-Resistenzen”). The study was furthermore non-financially supported by ESCMIDs European Committee on Infection Control. The open-access fee was covered by ESCMID.

HX575 was approved in the European Union in August 2007 as the first-ever biosimilar epoetin-α product. The present study extended the safety database on HX575 by monitoring adverse events (AEs) in clinical practice. Hemoglobin (Hb) levels and HX575 doses were recorded for the assessment of efficacy. This open, 6-month single-arm study was conducted in 10 European countries with a target enrollment of 1,500 patients with anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD). HX575 was intravenously (i.v.) administered aiming at an Hb target of 10 - 12 g/dl. Most patients (92.3%) had already received erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) treatment before enrolment into this study; the recorded treatments mainly comprised i.v. or subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of epoetin-α, epoetin-β or darbepoetin. The study period covered 770 patient years. The observed AE profile was in line with expectations for this patient population. Thrombotic vascular events (TVEs) were reported in 11.9% of patients (0.2612 per patient year). Tumor incidence was 1.4% (0.0299 per patient year). No subject developed anti-epoetin antibodies. Mean Hb levels were effectively maintained between 11.2 and 11.3 g/dl following the conversion from a broad spectrum of pre-study ESA treatments with stable overall mean i.v. HX575 doses. The proportion of patients within the Hb target range increased from 57.5% at baseline to 66.8% at study end.