Completion of RIF and RPT/INH for LTBI in an HCW population is more likely than INH. Rates of discontinuation due to side effects were lower among those taking RPT/INH. Shorter LTBI treatment regimens should be more widely considered for HCWs in the United States.

BackgroundThe use of hospital discharge administrative data (HDAD) has been recommended for automating, improving, even substituting, population-based cancer registries. The frequency of false positive and false negative cases recommends local validation.MethodsThe aim of this study was to detect newly diagnosed, false positive and false negative cases of cancer from hospital discharge claims, using four Spanish population-based cancer registries as the gold standard. Prostate cancer was used as a case study.ResultsA total of 2286 incident cases of prostate cancer registered in 2000 were used for validation. In the most sensitive algorithm (that using five diagnostic codes), estimates for Sensitivity ranged from 14.5% (CI95% 10.3-19.6) to 45.7% (CI95% 41.4-50.1). In the most predictive algorithm (that using five diagnostic and five surgical codes) Positive Predictive Value estimates ranged from 55.9% (CI95% 42.4-68.8) to 74.3% (CI95% 67.0-80.6). The most frequent reason for false positive cases was the number of prevalent cases inadequately considered as newly diagnosed cancers, ranging from 61.1% to 82.3% of false positive cases. The most frequent reason for false negative cases was related to the number of cases not attended in hospital settings. In this case, figures ranged from 34.4% to 69.7% of false negative cases, in the most predictive algorithm.ConclusionsHDAD might be a helpful tool for cancer registries to reach their goals. The findings suggest that, for automating cancer registries, algorithms combining diagnoses and procedures are the best option. However, for cancer surveillance purposes, in those cancers like prostate cancer in which care is not only hospital-based, combining inpatient and outpatient information will be required.

Streptococci group G is an important opportunistic pathogen and causes a wide variety of infections, including pharyngitis, skin and soft tissue infections, bacteremia, endocarditis, septic arthritis, intra‐abdominal infections, meningitis, and streptococcal toxic shock‐like syndrome. As a result, we discuss an interesting case of recurrent group G streptococcal bacteremia in a 68‐year‐old man presenting with altered mental status. We also discuss the risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of group G streptococcal bacteremia.

No abstract