McMaster University

About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 Revision

Abstract: Background: Allergic rhinitis represents a global health problem affecting 10% to 20% of the population. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been widely used to treat the approximately 500 million affected patients globally. Objective: To develop explicit, unambiguous, and transparent clinical recommendations systematically for treatment of allergic rhinitis on the basis of current best evidence. Methods: The authors updated ARIA clinical recommendations in collaboration with Global Allergy and Asthma European Network following the approach suggested by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: This article presents recommendations about the prevention of allergic diseases, the use of oral and topical medications, allergen specific immunotherapy, and complementary treatments in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The guideline panel developed evidence profiles for each recommendation and considered health benefits and harms, burden, patient preferences, and resource use, when appropriate, to formulate recommendations for patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals. Conclusion: These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Patients, clinicians, and policy makers are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.

Sampling the Antibiotic Resistome

Abstract: Microbial resistance to antibiotics currently spans all known classes of natural and synthetic compounds. It has not only hindered our treatment of infections but also dramatically reshaped drug discovery, yet its origins have not been systematically studied. Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics, evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies. They are a reservoir of resistance determinants that can be mobilized into the microbial community. Study of this reservoir could provide an early warning system for future clinically relevant antibiotic resistance mechanisms.

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine Infusion in Patients with Septic Shock

Abstract: Background Vasopressin is commonly used as an adjunct to catecholamines to support blood pressure in refractory septic shock, but its effect on mortality is unknown. We hypothesized that low-dose vasopressin as compared with norepinephrine would decrease mortality among patients with septic shock who were being treated with conventional (catecholamine) vasopressors. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who had septic shock and were receiving a minimum of 5 μg of norepinephrine per minute to receive either low-dose vasopressin (0.01 to 0.03 U per minute) or norepinephrine (5 to 15 μg per minute) in addition to open-label vasopressors. All vasopressor infusions were titrated and tapered according to protocols to maintain a target blood pressure. The primary end point was the mortality rate 28 days after the start of infusions. Results A total of 778 patients underwent randomization, were infused with the study drug (396 patients received vasopressin, and 382 norepinephrine), and were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups in the 28-day mortality rate (35.4% and 39.3%, respectively; P = 0.26) or in 90-day mortality (43.9% and 49.6%, respectively; P = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the overall rates of serious adverse events (10.3% and 10.5%, respectively; P = 1.00). In the prospectively defined stratum of less severe septic shock, the mortality rate was lower in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group at 28 days (26.5% vs. 35.7%, P = 0.05); in the stratum of more severe septic shock, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (44.0% and 42.5%, respectively; P = 0.76). A test for heterogeneity between these two study strata was not significant (P = 0.10). Conclusions Low-dose vasopressin did not reduce mortality rates as compared with norepinephrine among patients with septic shock who were treated with catecholamine vasopressors. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN94845869.)