Astaxanthin Attenuates D-Galactosamine-Induced Pancreatic Injury by Activating Antioxidant Enzymes and Inhibiting VEGF-C Gene Expression.

<b>Background and Objective:</b> Astaxanthin (3,3'-dihydroxy-ß-ß-carotene-4,4'-dione) is a carotenoid, commonly found in marine environments has been reported to possess versatile biological properties including anti-inflammatory and antioxidant. In this study, the pancreatic protective effect of astaxanthin was investigated in D-Galactosamine-induced pancreas injury in rats. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> In this experimental study, MTT assay was used to determine cytotoxic effects of the Astaxanthin on pnc1 cells. A total of 30 adult albino rats divided into 5 groups, six rats in each. Group I was given an equal amount of distilled water, group II was received 400 mg kg¹ b.wt. D-galactosamine on 15th day, groups III-V were treated with astaxanthin (50 and 100 mg kg¹) and/or silymarin (50 mg kg¹) for 14 days + 400 mg kg¹ b.wt. D-galactosamine on the 15th day, respectively. <b>Results:</b> IC₅₀of Astaxanthin against the pnc1 cell line was 92.9 µg mL¹. The daily oral administration of astaxanthin (50 and 100 mg kg¹) as well as silymarin (50 mg kg¹) for 14 days to rats treated with D-galactosamine resulted in a significant improvement in plasma AST, ALT, ALP as well as pancreatic TNF-α, IL-1ß, IL-10, NO and VEGF-C gene expression. On the other hand, inducible oral administration of astaxanthin increased the activity of pancreatic GSH, SOD, GPx, GR, CAT and the level of TBARs in D-galactosamine-treated pancreatic of rats. Furthermore, Astaxanthin almost normalized these effects in pancreatic tissue histoarchitecture and MRI examination. <b>Conclusion:</b> The obtained results showed that Astaxanthin protected experimental animals against D-galactosamine-induced pancreatic injury through activation of antioxidant enzymes and IL-10 and inhibition of VEGF-C activation.

Management of skin and soft-tissue infections at a community teaching hospital using a severity-of-illness tool.

OBJECTIVES: Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a diverse range of infections of varying severity. The Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) scoring system stratifies patients into four classes (I = least severe to IV = most severe) based on the Standardized Early Warning Score (SEWS). The objective of this study was to apply CREST to hospitalized patients with SSTIs in order to quantify disease severity and evaluate appropriateness of antibiotic management. METHODS: This was a retrospective, hypothesis-generating, single-centre evaluation of hospitalized patients with SSTIs admitted in 2011. Based on CREST classification, the empirical antimicrobial choices were categorized as appropriate, over-treatment or under-treatment. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients were screened and 200 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were classified as either CREST class I (n = 68) or class II (n = 102). Over-treatment was more common in the less severe classes (88% and 32% in class I and class II, respectively; P < 0.05). Sixty-three percent of class I (n = 43) were over-treated due to both the use of intravenous antibiotics when oral therapy was sufficient and use of unnecessarily broad-spectrum antibiotics. In contrast, 25% (n = 26) of class II were over-treated due to use of unnecessarily broad-spectrum antibiotics. Overall clinical failure rates remained low with only 1%, 4% and 17% of patients unable to achieve initial response in class II, class III and class IV. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of CREST identified opportunities to improve the management of SSTIs. CREST can be of great value in discriminating less-severe SSTIs, which can be treated on an outpatient basis.

Administration of a survey to evaluate the attitudes of house staff physicians towards antimicrobial resistance and the antimicrobial stewardship programme at a community teaching hospital.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) are used in numerous institutions in an effort to promote safe and effective antimicrobial use. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess physicians' perceptions, attitudes and knowledge about antimicrobial use, resistance and the ASP at The Brooklyn Hospital Center (TBHC) and (ii) measure physicians' beliefs and attitudes to the current system of prior authorisation of antimicrobials. A 75-item, anonymous, voluntary, traditional paper and pencil survey was distributed to resident physicians at TBHC. Multiple-choice, 5-point Likert scale and knowledge-based questions were utilised. Of the 261 residents, 129 (49%) completed the survey. The respondents significantly believed that antibiotics are overused more frequently nationally vs. locally [117/129 (91%) vs. 91/129 (71%); P=0.0001]. Although 49% (63/129) felt that other providers overprescribe antibiotics, only 26% (34/129) agreed that they themselves were contributing to the current problem (P=0.0003). Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed that individual patient care is improved by having an antibiotic approval programme; however, 45% of respondents reported that the antibiotic approval programme limits their autonomy in choosing antibiotics. Compared with surgical residents, medical residents were more likely (33% vs. 13%; P=0.02) to feel that the antibiotic approval programme forced them to choose an inappropriate antibiotic. On the antibiotic knowledge assessment segment of the survey, there was no difference in score when stratified by specialty or years of postgraduate training. Based on the survey results, house staff are supportive of antimicrobial stewardship and feel that the ASP is valuable for patient care.