/pdf/2021-esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-4pqhe8c49t.pdf

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure.

The pride in British medicine that was established by this flagship-the first edition of the Oxford textbook of medicine-is rekindled by the second edition. Some rearrangement and expansion of sections have occurred. The first edition indicated that the book was intended for anyone studying or practising clinical medicine (as a first reference source for general practitioners and specialists) and this new edition amply fulfils that challenge. A section on primary care brings this discipline into its rightful place in such a textbook and helps to break down any artificial barrier that may exist between hospital and family practice medicine. One looks for updating between the two editions and apart from increase in size there are 'improvements' throughout-almost completely new and recent references in the section on pituitary and hypothalmic disorders, an account of CT scanning in pituitary and adrenal disease, developments such as magnetic resonance imaging included in the cardiovascular disease section. The section on respiratory disease has illuminating descriptions of the pathophysiology of the airways and gas exchange. The clinical section on asthma is updated to modern concepts. Rheumatology and connective tissue disorders is expanded from eight to 15 subsections. AIDS, dealt with in only three pages, may (one hopes) be in the end a true perspective or, alternatively, this field is changing so rapidly that we can await a major assessment of this condition in a third edition.

Oxford textbook of medicine

The expert panel on diabetic foot infection (DFI) of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot conducted a systematic review seeking all published reports relating to any type of treatment for infection of the foot in persons with diabetes published as of 30 June 2014. This review, conducted with both PubMed and EMBASE, was used to update an earlier one undertaken on 30 June 2010 using the same search string. Eligible publications included those that had outcome measures reported for both a treated and a control population that were managed either at the same time, or as part of a before-and-after case design. We did not include studies that contained only information related to definition or diagnosis, but not treatment, of DFI. The current search identified just seven new articles meeting our criteria that were published since the 33 identified with the previous search, making a total of 40 articles from the world literature. The identified articles included 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies with concurrent controls, and included studies on the use of surgical procedures, topical antiseptics, negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. Among the studies were 15 RCTs that compared outcomes of treatment with new antibiotic preparations compared with a conventional therapy in the management of skin and soft tissue infection. In addition, 10 RCTs and 1 cohort study compared different treatments for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Results of comparisons of different antibiotic regimens generally demonstrated that newly introduced antibiotic regimens appeared to be as effective as conventional therapy (and also more cost-effective in one study), but one study failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of a new antibiotic compared with that of a standard agent. Overall, the available literature was both limited in both the number of studies and the quality of their design. Thus, our systematic review revealed little evidence upon which to make recommendations for treatment of DFIs. There is a great need for further well-designed trials that will provide robust data upon which to make decisions about the most appropriate treatment of both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dmrr.3282

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

Cardiac Rehabilitation for Patients With Heart Failure: JACC Expert Panel

Introduction There is uncertainty surrounding the diagnosis, prevalence, phenotype, duration and treatment of Long COVID. This study aims to (A) describe the clinical phenotype of post-COVID symptomatology in children and young people (CYP) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with test-negative controls, (B) produce an operational definition of Long COVID in CYP, and (C) establish its prevalence in CYP. Methods and analysis A cohort study of SARS-CoV-2-positive CYP aged 11–17 years compared with age, sex and geographically matched SARS-CoV-2 test-negative CYP. CYP aged 11–17 testing positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection will be identified and contacted 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after the test date. Consenting CYP will complete an online questionnaire. We initially planned to recruit 3000 test positives and 3000 test negatives but have since extended our target. Data visualisation techniques will be used to examine trajectories over time for symptoms and variables measured repeatedly, separately by original test status. Summary measures of fatigue and mental health dimensions will be generated using dimension reduction methods such as latent variables/latent class/principal component analysis methods. Cross-tabulation of collected and derived variables against test status and discriminant analysis will help operationalise preliminary definitions of Long COVID. Ethics and dissemination Research Ethics Committee approval granted. Data will be stored in secure Public Health England servers or University College London’s Data Safe Haven. Risks of harm will be minimised by providing information on where to seek support. Results will be published on a preprint server followed by journal publication, with reuse of articles under a CC BY licence. Data will be published with protection against identification when there are small frequencies involved. Trial registration number ISRCTN34804192; Pre-results.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/8/e052838.full.pdf

Long COVID and the mental and physical health of children and young people: national matched cohort study protocol (the CLoCk study).

Background Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. Objective To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. Design Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. Setting Twenty-six NHS hospitals. Participants Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Interventions Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. Results Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. Limitations The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. Conclusions PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Future work Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

/pdf/oral-versus-intravenous-antibiotics-for-bone-and-joint-qk1bup6da5.pdf

J Folb

Papers

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT