Objectives We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Data Sources and Study Selection A comprehensive search was performed using a pre-defined protocol. Inclusion criteria: adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, reported time to antibiotic administration in relation to ED triage and/or shock recognition, and mortality. Exclusion criteria: immunosuppressed populations, review article, editorial, or non-human studies. Data Extraction Two reviewers screened abstracts with a third reviewer arbitrating. The effect of time to antibiotic administration on mortality was based on current guideline recommendations: 1) administration within 3 hours of ED triage; 2) administration within 1 hour of severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Odds Ratios (OR) were calculated using a random effect model. The primary outcome was mortality. Data Synthesis 1123 publications were identified and 11 were included in the analysis. Among the 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from ED triage. Patients who received antibiotics more than 3 hours after ED triage (< 3 hours reference), had a pooled OR for mortality of 1.16 (0.92 to 1.46, p = 0.21). A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Patients who received antibiotics more than 1 hour after severe sepsis/shock recognition (< 1 hour reference) had a pooled OR for mortality of 1.46 (0.89 to 2.40, p = 0.13). There was no increased mortality in the pooled ORs for each hourly delay from <1 to >5 hours in antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/shock recognition. Conclusion Using the available pooled data we found no significant mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within 3 hours of ED triage or within 1 hour of shock recognition in severe sepsis and septic shock. These results suggest that currently recommended timing metrics as measures of quality of care are not supported by the available evidence.

Rates of less than optimal IPI were high in this population already experiencing significant maternal-child health disparities, with short IPI a particular risk factor for poor outcomes for the most disadvantaged women, suggesting yet another precursor for adverse birth outcomes in those already most at risk.

Objective To evaluate whether women planning a pregnancy are less likely to use alcohol in early pregnancy than those with unintended pregnancies. Methods Right From the Start (2000–2012) is a prospective, community-based pregnancy cohort. Maternal demographic, reproductive, and behavioral data were collected in telephone interviews at enrollment (mean ± SD: 48 ± 13 days of gestation) and later in the first trimester (mean ± SD: 85 ± 21 days). Alcohol consumption characteristics were included in the interviews. We used logistic regression to investigate the association of pregnancy intention with alcohol use. Results Among 5,036 women, 55% reported using alcohol in the first trimester, with 6% continuing use at the first trimester interview. Pregnancy was planned by 70% of participants. Alcohol use occurred in 55% and 56% of intended and unintended pregnancies, respectively (p=0.32). Adjusting for confounders, women with intended pregnancies were 31% less likely to consume any alcohol in early pregnancy (adjusted OR (aOR): 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60–0.81) or binge drink (aOR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54–0.86). Most women, regardless of intention, stopped or decreased alcohol consumption in early pregnancy. Conclusion The majority of women, irrespective of intention, stopped or decreased drinking after pregnancy recognition. This suggests promoting early pregnancy awareness could prove more effective than promoting abstinence from alcohol among all who could conceive.