RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To explore contemporary antibiotic management of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitals. METHODS: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire survey. We contacted representatives of all hospitals with more than 800 acute-care hospital beds in France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia, Spain and selected hospitals in the USA. We asked respondents to describe the most common actual practice at their hospital regarding management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa through close-ended questions. RESULTS: Between January and June 2017, 115 of 141 eligible hospitals participated (overall response rate 81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%-100%). Most were tertiary-care (99/114, 86.8%), university-affiliated (110/115, 89.1%) hospitals and most representatives were infectious disease specialists (99/115, 86.1%). Combination therapy was prescribed in 114/115 (99.1%) hospitals at least occasionally. Respondents were more likely to consider combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central nervous system infections and for Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly. Combination of a polymyxin with a carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a polymyxin with tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was used for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin. The intended goal of combination therapy was to improve the effectiveness of the treatment and to prevent development of resistance. In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy is supported by strong scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was the preferred treatment strategy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria among hospital representatives, even though high-quality evidence for carbapenem-based combination therapy is lacking.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Carbapenémicos/uso terapéutico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana/efectos de los fármacos , Bacterias Gramnegativas/efectos de los fármacos , Infecciones por Bacterias Gramnegativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Estudios Transversales , Hospitales , Humanos , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical and laboratory features of patients with Influenza A H1N1 virus infection hospitalized during 2009/2010 pandemic. METHODS: Prospective observational study comparing clinical and laboratory characteristics of Influenza A H1N1 positive and negative patients with influenza-like illness (ILI). RESULTS: From October 21, 2009 to February 14, 2010 196 ILI patients were admitted, of which 66 tested positive for Influenza A H1N1. The patients with H1N1 infection were younger (43 years vs. 65 years; P < 0.01), more patients were pregnant (P < 0.01), had allergies (P < 0.05) or, asthma (P < 0.01). H1N1 positive patients were more often febrile (91% vs. 72.9%; P < 0.01) and had a higher prevalence of headache (31.8% vs. 18.5%; P < 0.05). Lower values of C-reactive protein (88 pg/dl vs. 126 pg/dl; P < 0.01), procalcitonine (0.42 µg/l vs. 3.98 µg/l; P < 0.05), leukocyte count (7.4*10(9)/l vs. 11.7*10(9)/l; P < 0.01) and higher values of troponin (0.162 µ/l vs. 0.146 µg/l; P < 0.01) were found in H1N1 positive patients. More bacterial infections were found in H1N1 negative group (68.8% vs. 89.2%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study patients infected with Influenza A H1N1 differed from H1N1 negative ILI patients in several clinical and laboratory characteristics. The same was observed also by other investigators. The results of the study suggest some other specific features, such as a higher incidence of headache and higher values of troponin in Influenza A H1N1 infected patients.