IntroductionTreatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited and CRE infections remain associated with high clinical failure and mortality rates, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. A Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized controlled trial (TANGO II) was conducted from 2014 to 2017 to evaluate the efficacy/safety of meropenem–vaborbactam monotherapy versus best available therapy (BAT) for CRE.MethodsA total of 77 patients with confirmed/suspected CRE infection (bacteremia, hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection/acute pyelonephritis) were randomized, and 47 with confirmed CRE infection formed the primary analysis population (microbiologic-CRE-modified intent-to-treat, mCRE-MITT). Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to meropenem–vaborbactam (2 g/2 g over 3 h, q8h for 7–14 days) or BAT (mono/combination therapy with polymyxins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, tigecycline; or ceftazidime-avibactam alone). Efficacy endpoints included clinical cure, Day-28 all-cause mortality, microbiologic cure, and overall success (clinical cure + microbiologic eradication). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory findings.ResultsWithin the mCRE-MITT population, cure rates were 65.6% (21/32) and 33.3% (5/15) [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, 3.3% to 61.3%; P = 0.03)] at End of Treatment and 59.4% (19/32) and 26.7% (4/15) (95% CI of difference, 4.6% to 60.8%; P = 0.02) at Test of Cure;.Day-28 all-cause mortality was 15.6% (5/32) and 33.3% (5/15) (95% CI of difference, − 44.7% to 9.3%) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and renal-related AEs were 24.0% (12/50) and 4.0% (2/50) for meropenem–vaborbactam versus 44.0% (11/25) and 24.0% (6/25) for BAT. Exploratory risk–benefit analyses of composite clinical failure or nephrotoxicity favored meropenem–vaborbactam versus BAT (31.3% [10/32] versus 80.0% [12/15]; 95% CI of difference, − 74.6% to − 22.9%; P < 0.001).ConclusionsMonotherapy with meropenem–vaborbactam for CRE infection was associated with increased clinical cure, decreased mortality, and reduced nephrotoxicity compared with BAT.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT02168946.FundingThe Medicines Company.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-018-0214-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of this article is to propose new criteria for the diagnosis and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis, based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus of experts. A working group reviewed articles with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis and extracted the best current available evidence. In addition to the evidence and face-to-face discussions, domestic consensus meetings were held by the experts in order to assess the results. A provisional outcome statement regarding the diagnostic criteria and criteria for severity assessment was discussed and finalized during an International Consensus Meeting held in Tokyo 2006. Patients exhibiting one of the local signs of inflammation, such as Murphy’s sign, or a mass, pain or tenderness in the right upper quadrant, as well as one of the systemic signs of inflammation, such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein level, are diagnosed as having acute cholecystitis. Patients in whom suspected clinical findings are confirmed by diagnostic imaging are also diagnosed with acute cholecystitis. The severity of acute cholecystitis is classified into three grades, mild (grade I), moderate (grade II), and severe (grade III). Grade I (mild acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis in a patient with no organ dysfunction and limited disease in the gallbladder, making cholecystectomy a low-risk procedure. Grade II (moderate acute cholecystitis) is associated with no organ dysfunction but there is extensive disease in the gallbladder, resulting in difficulty in safely performing a cholecystectomy. Grade II disease is usually characterized by an elevated white blood cell count; a palpable, tender mass in the right upper abdominal quadrant; disease duration of more than 72 h; and imaging studies indicating significant inflammatory changes in the gallbladder. Grade III (severe acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis with organ dysfunction.

Prophylactic administration of antibiotics can decrease postoperative morbidity, shorten hospitalization, and reduce the overall costs attributable to infections. Principles of prophylaxis include providing effective levels of antibiotics in the decisive interval, and, in most instances, limiting the course to intraoperative coverage only. Use in The National Research Council clean contaminated operations is appropriate and, in many instances, has been proven beneficial. Antibiotic prophylaxis is also indicated for clean operations, such as those involved with insertion of prosthetic devices, that are associated with low infection risk and high morbidity. Extension of antibiotic prophylaxis to other categories of clean wounds should be limited to patients with two or more risk factors established by criteria in the study of the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC) because the baseline infection rate in these patients is high enough to justify their use. Cefazolin (or cefoxitin when anaerobic coverage is necessary) remains the mainstay of prophylactic therapy. Selection of an alternate agent should be based on specific contraindications, local infection control surveillance data, and the results of clinical trials. Newer criteria for determining the risk of "site infection" (wound and intracavitary) are in evolution and may lead to modification of these recommendations over the next several years.

Background Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation might have no advantage compared with its immediate discontinuation, and it unnecessarily exposes patients to risks associated with antibiotic use. In 2016, WHO recommended discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery. We aimed to update the evidence that formed the basis for that recommendation.Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and WHO regional medical databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis that were published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 24, 2018. RCTs comparing the effect of postoperative continuation versus discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing any surgical procedure with an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis were eligible. The primary outcome was the effect of postoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuation versus its immediate discontinuation on the occurrence of surgical site infection, with a prespecified subgroup analysis for studies that did and did not adhere to current best practice standards for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). We evaluated heterogeneity with the χ² test, I², and τ², and visually assesed publication bias with a contour-enhanced funnel plot. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017060829.Findings We identified 83 relevant RCTs, of which 52 RCTs with 19 273 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled RR of surgical site infection with postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis versus its immediate discontinuation was 0•89 (95% CI 0•79-1•00), with low heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ²=0•001, χ² p=0•46, I²=0•7%). Our prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant association between the effect estimate and adherence to best practice standards of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the RR of surgical site infection was reduced with continued antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery compared with its immediate discontinuation in trials that did not meet best practice standards (0•79 [95% CI 0•67-0•94]) but not in trials that did (1•04 [0•85-1•27]; p=0•048). Whether studies adhered to best practice standards explained all variance in the pooled estimate from the primary meta-analysis.Interpretation Overall, we identified no conclusive evidence for a benefit of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis over its discontinuation. When best practice standards were followed, postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis did not yield any additional benefit in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. These findings support WHO recommendations against this practice.

No abstract