No abstract

Background Testosterone supplementation has been shown to increase muscle mass and strength in healthy older men. The safety and efficacy of testosterone treatment in older men who have limitations in mobility have not been studied. Methods Community-dwelling men, 65 years of age or older, with limitations in mobility and a total serum testosterone level of 100 to 350 ng per deciliter (3.5 to 12.1 nmol per liter) or a free serum testosterone level of less than 50 pg per milliliter (173 pmol per liter) were randomly assigned to receive placebo gel or testosterone gel, to be applied daily for 6 months. Adverse events were categorized with the use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. The data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be discontinued early because there was a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the testosterone group than in the placebo group. Results A total of 209 men (mean age, 74 years) were enrolled at the time the trial was terminated. At baseline, there was a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity among the participants. During the course of the study, the testosterone group had higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, and dermatologic events than did the placebo group. A total of 23 subjects in the testosterone group, as compared with 5 in the placebo group, had cardiovascular-related adverse events. The relative risk of a cardiovascular-related adverse event remained constant throughout the 6-month treatment period. As compared with the placebo group, the testosterone group had significantly greater improvements in leg-press and chest-press strength and in stair climbing while carrying a load. Conclusions In this population of older men with limitations in mobility and a high prevalence of chronic disease, the application of a testosterone gel was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. The small size of the trial and the unique population prevent broader inferences from being made about the safety of testosterone therapy.

Background The Institute of Medicine calls for the use of clinical guidelines and practice parameters to promote “best practices” and to improve patient outcomes. Objective 2007 update of the 2002 American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock. Participants Society of Critical Care Medicine members with special interest in neonatal and pediatric septic shock were identified from general solicitation at the Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2001–2006). Methods The Pubmed/MEDLINE literature database (1966–2006) was searched using the keywords and phrases: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines. Best practice centers that reported best outcomes were identified and their practices examined as models of care. Using a modified Delphi method, 30 experts graded new literature. Over 30 additional experts then reviewed the updated recommendations. The document was subsequently modified until there was greater than 90% expert consensus. Results The 2002 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and AHA sanctioned recommendations. Centers that implemented the 2002 guidelines reported best practice outcomes (hospital mortality 1%–3% in previously healthy, and 7%– 10% in chronically ill children). Early use of 2002 guidelines was associated with improved outcome in the community hospital emergency department (number needed to treat = 3.3) and tertiary pediatric intensive care setting (number needed to treat = 3.6); every hour that went by without guideline adherence was associated with a 1.4-fold increased mortality risk. The updated 2007 guidelines continue to recognize an increased likelihood that children with septic shock, compared with adults, require 1) proportionally larger quantities of fluid, 2) inotrope and vasodilator therapies, 3) hydrocortisone for absolute adrenal insufficiency, and 4) ECMO for refractory shock. The major new recommendation in the 2007 update is earlier use of inotrope support through peripheral access until central access is attained. Conclusion The 2007 update continues to emphasize early use of age-specific therapies to attain time-sensitive goals, specifically recommending 1) first hour fluid resuscitation and inotrope therapy directed to goals of threshold heart rates, normal blood pressure, and capillary refill ≤2 secs, and 2) subsequent intensive care unit hemodynamic support directed to goals of central venous oxygen saturation >70% and cardiac index 3.3–6.0 L/min/m2.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Design: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. Methods: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, “in our practice” statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. Results: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, “in our practice” statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. Conclusions: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.