Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Carbapenems have not been comprehensively compared in clinical trials with fourth-generation cephalosporins (4GC) and antipseudomonal penicillins (APP) in the treatment of severe infections (SI) and febrile neutropenia (FN). A systematic review of CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and JICST-EPlus for randomised controlled trials was conducted to establish the currently available evidence. Database searching was supplemented by hand searching and contacting conference organisers. Searching was completed in November 2006 and no restriction was placed on the language of publication. Data were extracted on clinical response, bacteriologic response, all-cause mortality and adverse events. Of the 265 papers identified, 12 were appropriate for meta-analysis (four 4GC and eight APP). The results showed that carbapenems are associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.95; p=0.03) compared to APP in the treatment of SI, and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96; p=0.03) are also less common. When compared in the treatment of FN, carbapenems are associated with a significant increase in clinical response during the initial 72 h of treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.74; p=0.008) and bacteriologic response (RR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.89; p=0.04). For all other outcomes, including all comparisons with 4GC, there were no significant differences between treatments. The use of carbapenems rather than APP could reduce mortality and, by simplifying treatment decisions, reduce the time before patients receive appropriate antibiotic treatment. The currently available evidence is insufficient for distinguishing between carbapenems and 4GC.

Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine for the relief of all grades of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-associated heartburn, irrespective of the presence or absence of endoscopic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated greater efficacy for omeprazole compared with cimetidine in patients with endoscopically verified oesophagitis, but excluded the substantial group of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients with reflux symptoms but without endoscopic abnormality. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared omeprazole and cimetidine in the treatment of GERD-associated heartburn both in patients with symptomatic non-ulcerative oesophagitis and in those with heartburn but without oesophagitis. METHODS: A total of 221 patients with heartburn and oesophageal mucosa grade 0 (normal, n = 51), 1 (no macroscopic erosions, n = 52), 2 (isolated erosions, n = 97) or 3 (confluent erosions, n = 21) were randomized to receive double-blind either omeprazole 20 mg daily or cimetidine 400 mg q.d.s. for a period of 4 weeks. Those still symptomatic after 4 weeks of treatment received omeprazole 20 mg daily for a further 4 weeks. RESULTS: There was no correlation between severity of heartburn and endoscopic grade at entry (correlation coefficient = 0.196). After 4 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients in whom heartburn was controlled (no more than mild symptoms on no more than 1 day in the previous 7) on omeprazole (66%; 74/112) was more than double that on cimetidine (31%; 34/109) (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the relief of heartburn in the 47% of patients without unequivocal oesophagitis (endoscopic grade 0 or 1) and in the 53% of patients with erosive oesophagitis (grade 2 or 3) (P = 0.31). Only treatment with omeprazole (P < 0.0001) and lower severity of heartburn at entry (P < 0.01) were significant in predicting heartburn relief. Amongst those patients requiring an additional 4 weeks of treatment with omeprazole, 67% (54/81) reported that their heartburn was controlled after 8 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that omeprazole is superior to cimetidine for the relief of all grades of heartburn in GERD, whether or not the patient has unequivocal endoscopic oesophagitis.

Addition of metronidazole to omeprazole/amoxycillin dual therapy increases the rate of Helicobacter pylori eradication: a double-blind, randomized trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of an omeprazole/amoxycillin (OA) dual therapy Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen with an omeprazole/amoxycillin/metronidazole (OAM) triple therapy regimen. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, conducted in 19 hospitals, 119 patients with symptomatic duodenal ulcer disease were randomized to receive either 14 days treatment with omeprazole 40 mg daily, amoxycillin 500 mg t.d.s. and placebo followed by a further 14 days' treatment with omeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 59) or 14 days treatment with omeprazole 40 mg daily, amoxycillin 500 mg t.d.s., and metronidazole 400 mg t.d.s., followed by a further 14 days' treatment with omeprazole 20 mg daily (n = 60). H. pylori status was assessed by 13C-urea breath test at entry and at 4 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: H. pylori infection was eradicated in 46% of the OA treated patients and in 92% of the OAM treated patients, a mean difference of 46% (P < 0.0001, 95% CI for the difference: +30 to +62). In only one patient was the duodenal ulcer not endoscopically healed after 4 weeks of treatment (OA 100%; OAM 98% healed). There were no significant differences in speed of symptom relief or improvement in symptoms between the two groups. Both regimens were well tolerated, with 96% of patients completing the course, and only one patient withdrawing due to an adverse event. The only side-effect with a significantly higher incidence in the OAM group was diarrhoea, which occurred in 36% of patients compared to 16% of patients in the OA group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A regimen consisting of omeprazole 40 mg daily, amoxycillin 500 mg t.d.s. and metronidazole 400 mg t.d.s. for 14 days gives an appreciably higher H. pylori eradication rate than omeprazole and amoxycillin alone, with acceptable tolerability.

Effect of ligand binding and DNA binding on the structure of the mouse oestrogen receptor.

We have investigated the effects of ligand and DNA binding on the structure of the oestrogen receptor by performing limited proteolysis and analysing DNA binding activity by gel shift analysis. The effects of oestradiol, 4-hydroxytamoxifen and ICI 164,384 have been examined and we have found that despite differences in the DNA binding activity or relative mobility of the receptor-DNA complex we were unable to detect differences in the cleavage pattern produced by trypsin, chymotrypsin, Staphylococcus aureus V8, papain or elastase. Inhibition of DNA binding by ICI 164,384 was lost in receptor fragments that lacked the hormone binding domain. In contrast to the full-length receptor, proteolytic fragments produced by chymotrypsin differed in their ability to bind to an oestrogen response element (ERE) vs a thyroid response element (TRE). Evidence is presented that this difference can be accounted for by the inability of fragments lacking the hormone binding domain to dimerise on a TRE.