Exclusive oral antibiotic treatment for hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy of different ways of administration and types of beta-lactams for hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on patients hospitalized for CAP (pneumonia short treatment trial) comparing 3-day vs. 8-day durations of beta-lactams, which concluded to non-inferiority, we included patients who received either amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) or third-generation cephalosporin (3GC) regimens, and exclusively either intravenous or oral treatment for the first 3 days (followed by either 5 days of oral placebo or AMC according to randomization). The choice of route and molecule was left to the physician in charge. The main outcome was a failure at 15 days after the first antibiotic intake, defined as temperature >37.9°C, and/or absence of resolution/improvement of respiratory symptoms, and/or additional antibiotic treatment for any cause. The primary outcome according to the route of administration was evaluated through logistic regression. Inverse probability treatment weighting with a propensity score model was used to adjust for non-randomization of treatment routes and potential confounders. The difference in failure rates was also evaluated among several sub-populations (AMC vs. 3GC treatments, intravenous vs. oral AMC, patients with multi-lobar infection, patients aged ≥65 years old, and patients with CURB65 scores of 3-4). RESULTS: We included 200 patients from the original trial, with 93/200 (46.5%) patients only treated with intravenous treatment and 107/200 (53.5%) patients only treated with oral therapy. The failure rate at Day 15 was not significantly different among patients treated with initial intravenous vs. oral treatment [25/93 (26.9%) vs. 28/107 (26.2%), adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 0.973 (95% CI 0.519-1.823), p 0.932)]. Failure rates at Day 15 were not significantly different among the subgroup populations. DISCUSSION: Among hospitalized patients with CAP, there was no significant difference in efficacy between initial intravenous and exclusive oral treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01963442.

Comparison of physiological markers, behavior monitoring, and clinical illness scoring as indicators of an inflammatory response in beef cattle.

Clinical illness (CI) scoring using visual observation is the most widely applied method of detecting respiratory disease in cattle but has limited effectiveness in practice. In contrast, body-mounted sensor technology effectively facilitates disease detection. To evaluate whether a combination of movement behavior and CI scoring is effective for disease detection, cattle were vaccinated to induce a temporary inflammatory immune response. Cattle were evaluated before and after vaccination to identify the CI variables that are most indicative of sick cattle. Respiratory rate (H2 = 43.08, P < 0.0001), nasal discharge (H2 = 8.35, P = 0.015), and ocular discharge (H2 = 16.38, P = 0.0003) increased after vaccination, and rumen fill decreased (H2 = 20.10, P < 0.0001). Locomotor activity was measured via leg-mounted sensors for the four days preceding and seven days following vaccination. A statistical model that included temperature, steps, lying time, respiratory rate, rumen fill, head position, and excess saliva was developed to distinguish between scores from before and after vaccination with a sensitivity of 0.898 and specificity of 0.915. Several clinical illness signs were difficult to measure in practice. Binoculars were required for scoring respiratory rate and eye-related metrics, and cattle had to be fitted with colored collars for individual identification. Scoring each animal took up to three minutes in a small research pen; therefore, technologies that can automate both behavior monitoring and identification of clinical illness signs are key to improving capacity for BRD detection and treatment.

What steps are necessary to create written or web-based selected-response assessments? / 보건의료교육평가

Before we work out what constitutes an assessment's value for a given cost in medical education, we must first outline the steps necessary to create an assessment, and then assign a cost to each step. In this study we undertook the first phase of this process: we sought to work out all the steps necessary to create written selected-response assessments. First, the lead author created an initial list of potential steps for developing written assessments. This was then distributed to the other three authors. These authors independently added further steps to the list. The lead author incorporated the contributions of these others and created a second draft. This process was repeated until consensus was achieved amongst the study's authors. Next, the list was shared by means of an online questionnaire with 100 healthcare professionals with experience in medical education. The results of the authors' and healthcare professionals' thoughts and feedback on the steps, needed to create written assessment, are outlined below in full. We outlined the steps that are necessary to create written or web-based selected-response assessments.