High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination

ObjectivesSeveral outbreaks of severe infections due to contamination of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes, mainly duodenoscopes, have been described. The rate of microbial endoscope contamination varies dramatically in literature. The aim of this multicentre prospective study was to evaluate the hygiene quality of endoscopes and automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs) in Tyrol/Austria.MethodsIn 2015 and 2016, a total of 463 GI endoscopes and 105 AERs from 29 endoscopy centres were analysed by a routine (R) and a combined routine and advanced (CRA) sampling procedure and investigated for microbial contamination by culture-based and molecular-based analyses.ResultsThe contamination rate of GI endoscopes was 1.3%–4.6% according to the national guideline, suggesting that 1.3–4.6 patients out of 100 could have had contacts with hygiene-relevant microorganisms through an endoscopic intervention. Comparison of R and CRA sampling showed 1.8% of R versus 4.6% of CRA failing the acceptance criteria in phase I and 1.3% of R versus 3.0% of CRA samples failing in phase II. The most commonly identified indicator organism was Pseudomonas spp., mainly Pseudomonas oleovorans. None of the tested viruses were detected in 40 samples. While AERs in phase I failed (n = 9, 17.6%) mainly due to technical faults, phase II revealed lapses (n = 6, 11.5%) only on account of microbial contamination of the last rinsing water, mainly with Pseudomonas spp.ConclusionsIn the present study the contamination rate of endoscopes was low compared with results from other European countries, possibly due to the high quality of endoscope reprocessing, drying and storage.     

Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019

Aim

The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the ‘Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline’ (CPG) in 2019. The aim of this contribution is to summarize and to discuss the guideline development protocol for the 2019 update.

The Risk-Benefit Paradigm vs the Causal Exposure Paradigm: LDL as a primary cause of vascular disease

All current guidelines use the 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event to select subjects for statin primary preventive therapy. Benefit from therapy is stated to be determined by risk with the result that statin primary preventive therapy is initiated only when the risk of a cardiovascular event over the next decade exceeds a specified level. Thus all current guidelines are based primarily on the Risk-Benefit paradigm of primary prevention. The recent American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines differ from others in basing selection for statin therapy virtually exclusively on risk except for those few subjects with markedly elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The Causal Exposure paradigm differs from the Risk-Benefit paradigm in that the objective of therapy is to prevent the anatomic disease within arterial walls that produces cardiovascular risk. Moreover, the anatomic disease and, therefore, the cardiovascular risk, is a function of the injurious action of the causal factors of vascular disease, such as blood pressure and LDL, on the arterial wall over long periods. In this article, we explain the strengths and weaknesses of both paradigms to provide a more secure framework to compare the strengths and weaknesses in the different cholesterol guidelines with particular emphasis on the evidence that the cardiovascular risk and the benefit from statin therapy is related to the level of LDL.     

Guideline for the Out‐of‐Hospital Management of Human Exposures to Minimally Toxic Substances

Guideline Summary

All substances are capable of producing toxicity, so nothing is completely non‐toxic. Minimally toxic substances are those which produce little toxicity, minor self‐limited toxicity, or clinically insignificant effects at most doses. Examples include silica gel, A&D ointment, chalk, lipstick, and non‐camphor lip balms, watercolors, hand dishwashing detergents, non‐salicylate antacids (excluding magnesium or sodium bicarbonate containing products), calamine lotion, clay, crayons, diaper rash creams and ointments, fabric softeners/sheets, glow products, glue (white, arts, and crafts type), household plant food, oral contraceptives, pen ink, pencils, starch/sizing, throat lozenges without local anesthetics, topical antibiotics, topical antifungals, topical steroids, topical steroids with antibiotics, and water‐based paints. Minimally toxic exposures have the following characteristics: (1) The information specialist has confidence in the accuracy of the history obtained and the ability to communicate effectively with the caller. (2) The information specialist has confidence in the identity of the product(s) or substance(s) and a reasonable estimation of the maximum amount involved in the exposure. (3) The risks of adverse reactions or expected effects are acceptable to both the information specialist and the caller based on available medical literature and clinical experience. (4) The exposure does not require a healthcare referral since the potential effects are benign and self‐limited. However, decisions regarding patient disposition should take into account the patient's intent, symptoms, and social environment. In addition, individual patient circumstances (e.g., pregnancy, pre‐existing medical conditions, therapeutic interventions) need to be considered. Minimally toxic exposures may vary in route (dermal, inhalation, ingestion, ocular), chronicity (acute, chronic), and substance composition (single or multi‐ingredient, single or multiple product). Future categorization of substances as “minimally toxic” should be based on a process involving review of current knowledge, a thorough analysis of poisoning experience, and prospective validation.     

Medical Rehabilitation: Guidelines to Advance the Field With High-Impact Clinical Trials

The purpose of this Special Communication is to summarize guidelines and recommendations stemming from an expert panel convened by the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR) for a workshop entitled The Future of Medical Rehabilitation Clinical Trials, held September 29-30, 2016, at the NCMRR offices in Bethesda, Maryland. The ultimate goal of both the workshop and this summary is to offer guidance on clinical trials design and operations to the medical rehabilitation research community, with the intent of maximizing the effect of future trials.     

Acute and subchronic oral toxicity studies in rats with nanoscale and pigment grade titanium dioxide particles

Data generated using standardized testing protocols for toxicity studies generally provide reproducible and reliable results for establishing safe levels and formulating risk assessments. The findings of three OECD guideline-type oral toxicity studies of different duration in rats are summarized in this publication; each study evaluated different titanium dioxide (TiO₂) particles of varying sizes and surface coatings. Moreover, each study finding demonstrated an absence of any TiO₂ -related hazards. To briefly summarize the findings: 1) In a subchronic 90-day study (OECD TG 408), groups of young adult male and female rats were dosed with rutile-type, surface-coated pigment-grade TiO₂ test particles (d₅₀ = 145 nm − 21% nanoparticles by particle number criteria) by oral gavage for 90 days. The no-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for both male and female rats in this study was 1000 mg/kg bw/day, the highest dose tested. The NOAEL was determined based on a lack of TiO₂ particle-related adverse effects on any in-life, clinical pathology, or anatomic/microscopic pathology parameters; 2) In a 28-day repeated-dose oral toxicity study (OECD TG 407), groups of young adult male rats were administered daily doses of two rutile-type, uncoated, pigment-grade TiO₂ test particles (d₅₀ = 173 nm by number) by daily oral gavage at a dose of 24,000 mg/kg bw/day. There were no adverse effects measured during or following the end of the exposure period; and the NOAEL was determined to be 24,000 mg/kg bw/day; 3) In an acute oral toxicity study (OECD TG 425), female rats were administered a single oral exposure of surface-treated rutile/anatase nanoscale TiO₂ particles (d₅₀ = 73 nm by number) with doses up to 5000 mg/kg and evaluated over a 14-day post-exposure period. Under the conditions of this study, the oral LD₅₀ for the test substance was >5000 mg/kg bw. In summary, the results from these three toxicity studies – each with different TiO₂ particulate-types, demonstrated an absence of adverse toxicological effects. Apart from reporting the findings of these three studies, this publication also focuses on additional critical issues associated with particle and nanotoxicology studies. First, describing the detailed methodology requirements and rigor upon which the standardized OECD 408 guideline subchronic oral toxicity studies are conducted. Moreover, an attempt is made to reconcile the complex issue of particle size distribution as it relates to measurements of nanoscale and pigment-grade TiO₂ particles. Clearly this has been a confusing issue and often misrepresented in the media and the scientific literature. It is clear that the particle-size distribution for pigment-grade TiO₂, contains a small (“tail”) component of nanoscale particles (i.e., 21% by particle number and <1% by weight in the test material used in the 90-day study). However, this robust particle characterization finding should not be confused with mislabeling the test materials as exclusively in the nanoscale range. Moreover, based upon the findings presented herein, there appears to be no significant oral toxicity impact contributed by the nanoscale component of the TiO₂ Test Material sample in the 90-day study. Finally, it seems reasonable to conclude that the study findings should be considered for read-across purposes to food-grade TiO₂ particles (e.g., E171), as the physicochemical characteristics are quite similar.     

欧美2014年版抗丙型肝炎病毒治疗指南的比较分析

@@     

原发性硬化性胆管炎诊断及治疗指南（2021）

2015年我国第一个原发性硬化性胆管炎(PSC)的专家共识颁布。近年来PSC的临床研究提供了PSC新的研究数据和资料。为此,中华医学会肝病学分会自身免疫性肝病学组组织专家组对近年来的文献证据进行了评估,制定了本指南。本指南共有PSC推荐意见21条。为了利于鉴别PSC和IgG4相关硬化性胆管炎(IgG4-SC),也附有IgG4-SC的10条推荐意见。本指南的目的是为临床PSC和IgG4-SC的诊治提供参考和指导。     

Role of modern radiotherapy in managing patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Several treatment options are available for managing HCC patients, classified roughly as local, local-regional, and systemic therapies. The high post-monotherapy recurrence rate of HCC urges the need for the use of combined modalities to increase tumor control and patient survival. Different international guidelines offer treatment recommendations based on different points of view and classification systems. Radiotherapy (RT) is a well-known local-regional treatment modality for managing many types of cancers, including HCC. However, only some of these treatment guidelines include RT, and the role of combined modalities is rarely mentioned. Hence, the present study reviewed clinical evidence for the use of different combined modalities in managing HCC, focusing on modern RT's role. Modern RT has an increased utility in managing HCC patients, mainly due to two driving forces. First, technological advancement (e.g., stereotactic body radiotherapy and advanced proton-beam therapy) enables precise delivery of radiation to increase tumor control and reduce side effects in the surrounding normal tissue. Second, the boom in developing target therapies and checkpoint-blockade immunotherapy prolongs overall survival in HCC patients, re-emphasizing the importance of local tumor control. Remarkably, RT combines with systemic therapies to generate the systemic therapy augmented by radiotherapy effect, a benefit now being actively investigated.