Trial of Vancomycin and Cefazolin as Surgical Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The addition of vancomycin to beta-lactam prophylaxis in arthroplasty may reduce surgical-site infections; however, the efficacy and safety are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, superiority, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients without known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization who were undergoing arthroplasty to receive 1.5 g of vancomycin or normal saline placebo, in addition to cefazolin prophylaxis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 4239 patients underwent randomization. Among 4113 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (2233 undergoing knee arthroplasty, 1850 undergoing hip arthroplasty, and 30 undergoing shoulder arthroplasty), surgical-site infections occurred in 91 of 2044 patients (4.5%) in the vancomycin group and in 72 of 2069 patients (3.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.73; P = 0.11). Among patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 63 of 1109 patients (5.7%) in the vancomyin group and in 42 of 1124 patients (3.7%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23). Among patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 28 of 920 patients (3.0%) in the vancomyin group and in 29 of 930 patients (3.1%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.63). Adverse events occurred in 35 of 2010 patients (1.7%) in the vancomycin group and in 35 of 2030 patients (1.7%) in the placebo group, including hypersensitivity reactions in 24 of 2010 patients (1.2%) and 11 of 2030 patients (0.5%), respectively (relative risk, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08 to 4.49), and acute kidney injury in 42 of 2010 patients (2.1%) and 74 of 2030 patients (3.6%), respectively (relative risk, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of vancomycin to cefazolin prophylaxis was not superior to placebo for the prevention of surgical-site infections in arthroplasty among patients without known MRSA colonization. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618000642280.).

A novel 'practical body image' therapy for adolescent inpatients with anorexia nervosa: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the potential effectiveness of a novel 10-week manualised Practical Body Image therapy (PBI) with mirror exposure (ME), when used as an adjuvant to an intensive treatment package (TAU) in adolescent inpatients with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). To evaluate the effectiveness of ME in an adolescent population. METHODS: Using a randomised control design, 40 girls aged 11-17 years with AN were assigned to PBI with TAU (n = 20) and TAU alone (n = 20). Both groups completed self-report measures of body image at week 1 and week 10 of the study to measure the potential effectiveness of PBI. The PBI group completed measures at week 7 to evaluate the ME component. RESULTS: 31 participants completed the study; 16 TAU, 15 PBI. PBI participants had greater improvement in all outcomes than TAU participants. Medium effect sizes were seen for self-reported weight concern, body image avoidance in terms of clothing and body image anxiety. ME produced effect sizes in self-reported body image avoidance in terms of clothing and grooming that were greater than 0.40, n = 14. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that PBI supports an intensive inpatient treatment package and addresses elements of negative body image. PBI was beneficial for addressing body image dissatisfaction with improvements in weight concerns, body image avoidance and physical appearance trait anxiety following the ME component. The magnitude of the effect sizes is comparable to previous studies. Positive qualitative feedback indicated the intervention was acceptable to users. PBI is a promising new adjuvant treatment for AN. EMB RATING: Level I: randomized controlled trial.

Multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial of combination vancomycin and cefazolin surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the Australian surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (ASAP) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Resistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000642280.

A survey of ethical issues surrounding supply of information to members of the public by hospital pharmacy medicines information centres.

OBJECTIVES: To examine ways in which medicines information pharmacists approach ethical dilemmas encountered in information supply, to appreciate the factors affecting any observed variation in responses, and to identify and training deficits among medicines information (MI) pharmacists in this area. METHOD: A questionnaire was circulated to all medicines information pharmacists working in the hospital pharmacy service in the United Kingdom. The survey presented ten realistic scenarios involving requests for information on a variety of topics from 'lay' callers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were asked to identify any perceived ethical dilemmas presented by the scenarios and to indicate their preferred replies. Details on training given or received in this area were also requested. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 151 of 286 questionnaires mailed (52.8%), representing 137 discrete DI centres throughout the UK. Postgraduate clinical qualifications were possessed by 71% of respondents. Just 32 (21.2%) indicated that they gave training on ethical issues surrounding information supply while 57 (37.1%) said they had received such training. Over half (54.3%) had neither received nor delivered training on ethical issues. Of the 32 who said they gave training, 21 had received training themselves. Only 4 (2.6%) said they had a protocol in place for dealing with enquiries from members of the public. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variation in how respondents thought the scenarios might be resolved, emphasising the varying levels of appreciation of the issues and lack of a uniform approach to management. An interesting dichotomy emerged between liberal and conservative approaches. Liberal pharmacists clearly believed that all MI data is in the public domain and should be produced and evaluated on request because patients have a "right" to it. The conservative pharmacists had a more protective attitude toward the patient and believed that patients should not be given information by MI pharmacists directly; rather that it should be channelled through the patient's doctor. These two approaches are not incompatible, and may be adopted by the same pharmacist at different times. From their observations, the authors propose a basis of an ethical guideline for MI pharmacists.