methods Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone (fractionated focal irradiation in daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days per week for 6 weeks, for a total of 60 Gy) or radiotherapy plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day, 7 days per week from the first to the last day of radiotherapy), followed by six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter for 5 days during each 28-day cycle). The primary end point was overall survival. results A total of 573 patients from 85 centers underwent randomization. The median age was 56 years, and 84 percent of patients had undergone debulking surgery. At a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 12.1 months with radiotherapy alone. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the radiotherapy-plus-temozolomide group was 0.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.75; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The two-year survival rate was 26.5 percent with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 10.4 percent with radiotherapy alone. Concomitant treatment with radiotherapy plus temozolomide resulted in grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in 7 percent of patients.

/pdf/radiotherapy-plus-concomitant-and-adjuvant-temozolomide-for-421wvfhcfx.pdf

Radiotherapy plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma

Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation.

A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis

To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao
 2/Fio
 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao
 2/Fi
 o
 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-229kg8suph.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Lionel A. Mandell, Richard G. Wunderink, Antonio Anzueto, John G. Bartlett, G. Douglas Campbell, Nathan C. Dean, Scott F. Dowell, Thomas M. File, Jr. Daniel M. Musher, Michael S. Niederman, Antonio Torres, and Cynthia G. Whitney McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; University of Texas Health Science Center and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, and Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, and Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York; and Cap de Servei de Pneumologia i Allergia Respiratoria, Institut Clinic del Torax, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, CIBER CB06/06/0028, Barcelona, Spain.

/pdf/infectious-diseases-society-of-america-american-thoracic-1cn65eiqga.pdf

Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has been a frustrating com­ plication for infectious diseases practitioners who treat immu­ nosuppressed patients. CMV disease is clearly a frequent and lethal complication of both solid-organ and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. CMV disease is also a dreaded compli­ cation of advanced HIV disease because of the associated mor­ bidity and because CMV disease and its therapy result in a decrease in the quality of life. See articles on pages 824-40. Prevention of CMV disease is an important goal for both organ transplant recipients and patients with advanced HIV disease. Some of these patients are seronegative for CMV and are at little risk ofacquiring CMV during the period ofimmuno­ suppression because they have received CMV-negative organs and blood products, and the risk of other environmental expo­ sures (e.g., sexual exposure) is also remote. Therefore, these presumably uninfected patients are at exceedingly low risk for developing CMV disease. For CMV-seropositive patients or those CMV-seronegative patients who receive a transplanted organ or unfiltered blood products from a CMV-infected donor, there is obviously a risk of developing CMV disease. The time of peak vulnerability for transplant recipients has been well described and is related to the date of transplantation, the type of immunosuppressive therapy administered, and other events related to transplanta­ tion. For patients with advanced HIV disease, the time of peak vulnerability is related to a decrease in the CD4 T lymphocyte count to < 501pL. Providing intravenous or oral chemotherapy for CMV dis­ ease during this period ofpeak vulnerability is a difficult propo­ sition even if this period is measured in weeks or months (in the case of transplant recipients) rather than months or years (in the case of HIV-infected patients). The currently available drugs with activity against CMV (i.e., ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir) are associated with considerable toxicity, ex­ pense, and inconvenience. Ganciclovir, whether given intrave­ nously or orally, is especially ill-suited for these patients

/pdf/editorial-response-laboratory-monitoring-of-cytomegalovirus-2env80gqsj.pdf

Editorial Response: Laboratory Monitoring of Cytomegalovirus Disease-Is Polymerase Chain Reaction the Answer?

Management of Opportunistic Infections

Severe reversible myocardial depression in septic shock

Caring for AIDS patients in the ICU: expanding horizons.

Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become first-line treatment for venous thrombotic events. DOAC prescribing trends among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) are not well described. The coadministration of DOACs with the antiretroviral (ARV) pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir (RTV) or cobicistat (COBI) may be complicated by pharmacokinetic interactions. Methods A longitudinal cohort study was conducted using the D.C. Cohort Database in Washington, D.C., from January 2011 to March 2017, to describe oral anticoagulant prescribing among PWH ≥ 18 years old and the prevalence of DOAC use with RTV or COBI. Data collection included demographic and clinical characteristics, ARV and anticoagulant prescriptions, and International Classification of Diseases Ninth and Tenth Edition diagnosis codes. Results Among 8315 PWH, there were 236 anticoagulant prescriptions (96 DOAC, 140 warfarin) for 206 persons. PWH prescribed anticoagulants were predominantly Black (82%) and male (82%), with a mean age at anticoagulant initiation of 56 years. DOAC use increased from 3% of total anticoagulant prescribing in 2011 to 43% in 2016, accounting for 64% of all newly recorded anticoagulant prescriptions by 2016. There were 19 bleeding events recorded among 16 individuals. Despite the Food and Drug Administration label recommendation to avoid rivaroxaban with boosted ARVs, 41% remained on boosted ARVs after rivaroxaban initiation. Conclusions DOAC use increased substantially in PWH by 2016. Although rivaroxaban is not recommended with RTV or COBI, concomitant use was recorded in 41% of rivaroxaban recipients in this cohort. As DOAC usage increases, clinicians need to be aware of potential DOAC/ARV interactions in order to select the most appropriate oral anticoagulant and monitoring plan for PWH.

Henry Masur

Papers

Editorial Response: Laboratory Monitoring of Cytomegalovirus Disease-Is Polymerase Chain Reaction the Answer?

Management of Opportunistic Infections

Severe reversible myocardial depression in septic shock

Caring for AIDS patients in the ICU: expanding horizons.

Utilization of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Observational Data from the District of Columbia Cohort.