No abstract

IntroductionSepsis, a leading cause of death in critically ill patients, is the result of complex interactions between the infecting microorganisms and the host responses that influence clinical outcomes. We evaluated the prognostic value of presepsin (sCD14-ST), a novel biomarker of bacterial infection, and compared it with procalcitonin (PCT).MethodsThis is a retrospective, case–control study of a multicenter, randomized clinical trial enrolling patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in ICUs in Italy. We selected 50 survivors and 50 non-survivors at ICU discharge, matched for age, sex and time from sepsis diagnosis to enrollment. Plasma samples were collected 1, 2 and 7 days after enrollment to assay presepsin and PCT. Outcome was assessed 28 and 90 days after enrollment.ResultsEarly presepsin (day 1) was higher in decedents (2,269 pg/ml, median (Q1 to Q3), 1,171 to 4,300 pg/ml) than in survivors (1,184 pg/ml (median, 875 to 2,113); P = 0.002), whereas PCT was not different (18.5 μg/L (median 3.4 to 45.2) and 10.8 μg/L (2.7 to 41.9); P = 0.31). The evolution of presepsin levels over time was significantly different in survivors compared to decedents (P for time-survival interaction = 0.03), whereas PCT decreased similarly in the two groups (P = 0.13). Presepsin was the only variable independently associated with ICU and 28-day mortality in Cox models adjusted for clinical characteristics. It showed better prognostic accuracy than PCT in the range of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (area under the curve (AUC) from 0.64 to 0.75 vs. AUC 0.53 to 0.65).ConclusionsIn this multicenter clinical trial, we provide the first evidence that presepsin measurements may have useful prognostic information for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. These preliminary findings suggest that presepsin may be of clinical importance for early risk stratification.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The WHO guidelines on cancer pain management recommend a sequential three-step analgesic ladder. However, conclusive data are lacking as to whether moderate pain should be treated with either step II weak opioids or low-dose step III strong opioids. Patients and Methods In a multicenter, 28-day, open-label randomized controlled study, adults with moderate cancer pain were assigned to receive either a weak opioid or low-dose morphine. The primary outcome was the number of responder patients, defined as patients with a 20% reduction in pain intensity on the numerical rating scale. Results A total of 240 patients with cancer (118 in the low-dose morphine and 122 in the weak-opioid group) were included in the study. The primary outcome occurred in 88.2% of the low-dose morphine and in 57.7% of the weak-opioid group (odds risk, 6.18; 95% CI, 3.12 to 12.24; P < .001). The percentage of responder patients was higher in the low-dose morphine group, as early as at 1 week. Clinically meaningful (≥ 30%) and highly meaningful (≥ 50%) pain reduction from baseline was significantly higher in the low-dose morphine group (P < .001). A change in the assigned treatment occurred more frequently in the weak-opioid group, because of inadequate analgesia. The general condition of patients, which was based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System overall symptom score, was better in the morphine group. Adverse effects were similar in both groups. Conclusion In patients with cancer and moderate pain, low-dose morphine reduced pain intensity significantly compared with weak opioids, with a similarly good tolerability and an earlier effect.

Circulating N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T are frequently elevated in severe sepsis or septic shock and have relevant prognostic value, which may be important in monitoring the clinical efficacy of supporting therapy.

BackgroundRecent studies showed that the non-adherence to the pharmacological therapy of patients affected by BPH-associated LUTS increased the risk of clinical progression of BPH. We examined the patients adherence to pharmacological therapy and its clinical consequences in men with BPH-associated LUTS looking at the differences between drug classes comparing mono vs combination therapy.MethodsA retrospective, population-based cohort study, using prescription administrative database and hospital discharge codes from a total of 1.5 million Italian men. Patients ≥40 years, administered alpha-blockers (AB) and 5alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs), alone or in combination (CT), for BPH-associated LUTS were analyzed. The 1–year and long term adherence together with the analyses of hospitalization rates for BPH and BPH-related surgery were examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model and Pearson chi square test.ResultsPatients exposed to at least 6 months of therapy had a 1-year overall adherence of 29 % (monotherapy AB 35 %, monotherapy 5ARI 18 %, CT 9 %). Patient adherence progressively declined to 15 %, 8 % and 3 % for AB, 5ARI, and CT, respectively at the fifth year of follow up. Patients on CT had a higher discontinuation rate along all the follow-up compared to those under monotherapy with ABs or 5ARIs (all p < 0.0001). Moreover, CT was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for BPH-related surgery (HR 0.94; p < 0.0001) compared to AB monotherapy.ConclusionsAdherence to pharmacological therapy of BPH-associated LUTS is low and varies depending on drugs class. Patients under CT have a higher likelihood of discontinuing treatment for a number of reasons that should be better investigated. Our study suggests that new strategies aiming to increase patient’s adherence to the prescribed treatment are necessary in order to prevent BPH progression.

No abstract