Antibiotic Treatment Versus No Treatment for Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) can prevent acute graft pyelonephritis (AGP) in kidney transplant (KT) recipients has not been elucidated. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, nonblinded, prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial, we compared antibiotic treatment with no treatment for AB in KT recipients in the first year after transplantation when urinary catheters had been removed. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of AGP. Secondary endpoints included bacteremic AGP, cystitis, susceptibility of urine isolates, graft rejection, graft function, graft loss, opportunistic infections, need for hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS: We enrolled 205 KT recipients between 2013 and 2015. AB occurred in 41 (42.3%) and 46 (50.5%) patients in the treatment and no treatment groups, respectively. There were no differences in the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population (12.2% [5 of 41] in the treatment group vs 8.7% [4 of 46] in the no treatment group; risk ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.87) or the per-protocol population (13.8% [4 of 29] in the treatment group vs 6.7% [3 of 45] in the no treatment group; risk ratio, 2.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.50-8.58). No differences were found in secondary endpoints, except for antibiotic susceptibility. Fosfomycin (P = .030), amoxicillin-clavulanic (P < .001) resistance, and extended-spectrum ß-lactamase production (P = .044) were more common in KT recipients receiving antibiotic treatment for AB. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic treatment of AB was not useful to prevent AGP in KT recipients and may increase antibiotic resistance. However, our findings should be regarded with caution, due to the small sample size analyzed.

Study protocol of psychometric properties of the Spanish translation of a competence test in evidence based practice: the Fresno test.

BACKGROUND: There are few high-quality instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) curricula with objective outcomes measures. The Fresno test is an instrument that evaluates most of EBP steps with a high reliability and validity in the English original version. The present study has the aims to translate the Fresno questionnaire into Spanish and its subsequent validation to ensure the equivalence of the Spanish version against the English original. METHODS AND DESIGN: The questionnaire will be translated with the back translation technique and tested in Primary Care Teaching Units in Catalonia (PCTU). Participants will be: (a) tutors of Family Medicine residents (expert group); (b) Family Medicine residents in their second year of the Family Medicine training program (novice group), and (c) Family Medicine physicians (intermediate group). The questionnaire will be administered before and after an educational intervention. The educational intervention will be an interactive four half-day sessions designed to develop the knowledge and skills required to EBP. Responsiveness statistics used in the analysis will be the effect size, the standardised response mean and Guyatt's method. For internal consistency reliability, two measures will be used: corrected item-total correlations and Cronbach's alpha. Inter-rater reliability will be tested using Kappa coefficient for qualitative items and intra-class correlation coefficient for quantitative items and the overall score. Construct validity, item difficulty, item discrimination and feasibility will be determined. DISCUSSION: The validation of the Fresno questionnaire into different languages will enable the expansion of the questionnaire, as well as allowing comparison between countries and the evaluation of different teaching models.

Comparison of intravenous dexketoprofen and dipyrone in acute renal colic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (i.v.) bolus of dexketoprofen trometamol compared with an i.v. infusion of dipyrone in patients with moderate to severe pain due to renal colic. METHODS: A total of 308 patients with renal colic and visual analog scale (VAS) score >/=40 mm participated in a multicenter, randomized, double blind, double-dummy, parallel, and active-controlled study and were randomized to dexketoprofen 25 mg (n = 101), dexketoprofen 50 mg (n = 104), and dipyrone 2 g (n = 103). RESULTS: Mean [+/- standard deviation (SD)] total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores were similar in the dexketoprofen 50 mg (15.3 +/- 8.6) and dipyrone (15.5 +/- 8.6) and slighly higher than in dexketoprofen 25 mg (13.5 +/- 8.6), although significant differences were not achieved. In the same way, patients in the dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups showed higher scores in the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) and the sum of analogue pain intensity differences (SAPID) than patients in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group, reaching statistical significance in comparison with dexketoprofen 25 mg and dipyrone for SPID and SAPID (p < 0.05). The time-effect course for pain intensity differences and pain relief showed significantly higher values for both doses of dexketoprofen during the first 30 min after drug administration (p < 0.05). Dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups had 66% and 70%, respectively, of patients with at least 50% of maximum obtainable TOTPAR in comparison with 56% in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group. The study medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Dexketoprofen 50 mg administered as a single i.v. bolus was effective for the relief of moderate to severe pain in patients with renal colic, with a good safety profile and efficacy similar to i.v. dipyrone 2 g. Dexketoprofen produced analgesia that was faster in onset.

Respiratory tract infections in general practice: considerable differences in prescribing habits between general practitioners in Denmark and Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of antibiotic resistance in a country reflects the local consumption of antibiotics. The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in general practice and most prescriptions are attributable to treatment of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The aim of this study was to compare general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in a country with a high prevalence of antibiotic resistance (Spain) with a country with a low prevalence of antibiotic resistance (Denmark). METHODS: A group of GPs in Copenhagen and Barcelona registered all contacts ( n=2833) with patients with RTIs during a 3-week period between 1 November 2001 and 31 January 2002. RESULTS: Overall, Spanish GPs treated a higher proportion of patients than Danish GPs. After adjusting for unequal distribution of age and sex, we found that Spanish GPs prescribed significantly more antibiotics to patients with focus of infection in tonsils and bronchi/lungs. Narrow-spectrum penicillin was the most used antibiotic in Denmark, representing 58% of all prescriptions issued, followed by macrolide and broad-spectrum penicillin. In Spain, prescriptions were distributed among a great number of compounds, with broad-spectrum penicillins and combinations of amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitors most frequently used. CONCLUSION: The substantial difference in the way GPs manage respiratory tract infections in Denmark and Spain cannot be explained by different patterns of RTIs in general practice. The discrepancies indicate variations in national recommendations, different treatment traditions or different impact of pharmaceutical marketing.