Search

Background: Children 0-4 years attending childcare are more prone to acquire infections than home-cared children. Childcare illness absenteeism due to fever is mostly driven by fear towards fever in childcare staff and parents. This may cause high childcare absenteeism, healthcare service use, and work absenteeism in parents. This study evaluates a multicomponent intervention targeting determinants of decision-making among childcare staff on illness absenteeism due to fever and common infections., Methods: The multicomponent intervention was developed based on the Intervention Mapping approach and consisted of (i) an educational session, (ii) a decision tool, (iii) an information booklet and (iv) an online video. The intervention was evaluated in a cluster randomized controlled trial in Southern Netherlands. Nine centres received the intervention and nine provided childcare-as-usual. Primary outcome measure was the percentage of illness absenteeism on cluster level, defined as number of childcare days absent due to illness on total of registered childcare contract days in a 12-week period. Secondary outcome measures included intended behaviour, attitude, risk perception, knowledge and self-efficacy of childcare staff. Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed models accounting for clustering. Knowledge was descriptively analysed., Results: Overall illness absenteeism was comparable in intervention (2.95%) and control group (2.52%). Secondary outcomes showed significant improvements in intervention group regarding intended behaviour, two of three attitude dimensions. Knowledge increased compared with control but no differences regarding self-efficacy., Conclusion: The intervention was not effective in reducing illness absenteeism. However, the intervention improved determinants of decision-making such as intended behaviour, attitude, and knowledge on fever., Trial Registration: NTR6402 (registered on 21 April 2017)., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, ciprofloxacin/metronidazole was compared with imipenem/cilastatin for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. A secondary objective was to demonstrate the ability to switch responding patients from intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) therapy., Summary Background Data: Intra-abdominal infections result in substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. Antimicrobial therapy often includes a 7- to 10-day intravenous course. The use of oral antimicrobials is a recent advance due to the availability of agents with good tissue pharmacokinetics and potent aerobic gram-negative activity., Methods: Patients were randomized to either ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole intravenously (CIP/MTZ IV) or imipenem intravenously (IMI IV) throughout their treatment course, or ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole intravenously and treatment with oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole when oral feeding was resumed (CIP/MTZ IV/PO)., Results: Among 671 patients who constituted the intent-to-treat population, overall success rates were as follows: 82% for the group treated with CIP/MTZ IV; 84% for the CIP/MTZ IV/PO group; and 82% for the IMI IV group. For 330 valid patients, treatment success occurred in 84% of patients treated with CIP/MTZ IV, 86% of those treated with CIP/MTZ IV/PO, and 81% of the patients treated with IMI IV. Analysis of microbiology in the 30 patients undergoing intervention after treatment failure suggested that persistence of gram-negative organisms was more common in the IMI IV-treated patients who subsequently failed. Of 46 CIP/MTZ IV/PO patients (active oral arm), treatment success occurred in 96%, compared with 89% for those treated with CIP/MTZ IV and 89% for those receiving IMI IV. Patients who received intravenous/oral therapy were treated, overall, for an average of 8.6 +/- 3.6 days, with an average of 4.0 +/- 3.0 days of oral treatment., Conclusions: These results demonstrate statistical equivalence between CIP/MTZ IV and IMI IV in both the intent-to-treat and valid populations. Conversion to oral therapy with CIP/MTZ appears as effective as continued intravenous therapy in patients able to tolerate oral feedings.

Objective: To compare the outcome of abdominal infection in patients with or without previous systemic glucocorticoid therapy and to determine the effect of steroid administration on the relationship between APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) scores and mortality., Hypothesis: Steroid therapy leads to greater mortality and relatively lower APACHE II scores., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: University hospital., Patients: Two hundred ninety-seven consecutive adult patients with abdominal infection treated by surgical or percutaneous drainage. Treatment was at the clinician's discretion. Seventy-one patients received systemic steroid therapy., Outcome Measures: APACHE II score, clinical course, and death in hospital; relationship between APACHE II score and mortality in the steroid and no steroid groups., Results: Thirty-three patients receiving steroid therapy (46%) died vs 55 (24%) of 226 patients not receiving steroid therapy. The APACHE II score (P < .0001) and steroid administration (P = .04) were each independently associated with death. Steroid-treated patients had the same probability of dying as "nonsteroid" patients with an APACHE II score a mean of 3.7 points higher (95% confidence limits, 0.03 and 7.7). The confidence that 2, 3, or 4 extra APACHE II points is the appropriate correction for steroid-treated patients is 80%, 60%, or 40%, respectively., Conclusions: Patients receiving steroid therapy appear to be at higher risk of dying of abdominal infection than predicted by APACHE II scores. The number of patients receiving cancer chemotherapy was too small to determine whether this was an additional risk factor. In the design of clinical trials stratified by APACHE II scores, steroid-treated patients should either be excluded or assigned two extra APACHE II points.

Several antibiotics have been marketed for therapeutic use in intra-abdominal infection. Often, these agents do not provide a sufficient spectrum activity against both facultative and obligate anaerobic gram-negative organisms, or have certain toxic effects that would not otherwise support their use. Guidelines have been developed for selection of antibiotic therapy for intra-abdominal infections and are presented as a statement of the Surgical Infection Society endorsed by the Executive Council. These guidelines are restricted to infections derived from the gastrointestinal tract and deal with those microorganisms commonly seen in such infections. The recommendations are based on in vitro activity against enteric bacteria, experience in animal models, and documented efficacy in clinical trials. Other concerns regarding pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of action, microbial resistance, and safety were also used in the formation of these guidelines. For community-acquired infections of mild to moderate severity, single-agent therapy with cefoxitin, cefotetan, or cefmetazole or ticarcillin-clavulanic acid is recommended. For more severe infections, single-agent therapy with carbapenems (imipenem/cilastatin) or combination therapy with either a third-generation cephalosporin, a monobactam (aztreonam), or an aminoglycoside plus clindamycin or metronidazole is recommended. Regimens with little or no activity against facultative gram-negative rods or anaerobic gram-negative rods are not considered acceptable.