<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virtual Journal Club &#187; Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob</title>
	<atom:link href="http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/category/ann-clin-microbiol-antimicrob/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub</link>
	<description>Division of Hospital Medicine Virtual Journal Club</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 02:30:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.</title>
		<link>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2009/08/28/antifungal-treatment-for-invasive-candida-infections-a-mixed-treatment-comparison-meta-analysis/</link>
		<comments>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2009/08/28/antifungal-treatment-for-invasive-candida-infections-a-mixed-treatment-comparison-meta-analysis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left"><a href="http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/8//23"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.biomedcentral.com-graphics-pubmed-1476-0711.gif" border="0"></a> <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&#38;pubmedid=19558681"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov-corehtml-pmc-pmcgifs-pubmed-pmc.gif" border="0"></a> </td><td align="right"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&#38;cmd=Display&#38;dopt=PubMed_PubMed&#38;from_uid=19558681">Related Articles</a></td></tr></table>
        <p><b>Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.</b></p>
        <p>Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2009;8:23</p>
        <p>Authors:  Mills EJ, Perri D, Cooper C, Nachega JB, Wu P, Tleyjeh I, Phillips P</p>
        <p>OBJECTIVES: Invasive fungal infections are a major cause of mortality among patients at risk. Treatment guidelines vary on optimal treatment strategies. We aimed to determine the effects of different antifungal therapies on global response rates, mortality and safety. METHODS: We searched independently and in duplicate 10 electronic databases from inception to May 2009. We selected any randomized trial assessing established antifungal therapies for confirmed cases of invasive candidiasis among predominantly adult populations. We performed a meta-analysis and then conducted a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison to differentiate treatment effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses included dosage forms of amphotericin B and fluconazole compared to other azoles. RESULTS: Our analysis included 11 studies enrolling a total of 965 patients. For our primary analysis of global response rates, we pooled 7 trials comparing azoles to amphotericin B, Relative Risk [RR] 0.87 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.78-0.96, P = 0.007, I2 = 43%, P = 0.09. We also pooled 2 trials of echinocandins versus amphotericin B and found a pooled RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.99-1.23, P = 0.08). One study compared anidulafungin to fluconazole and yielded a RR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51) in favor of anidulafungin. We pooled 7 trials assessing azoles versus amphotericin B for all-cause mortality, resulting in a pooled RR of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.74-1.05, P = 0.17, I2 = 0%, P = 0.96). Echinocandins versus amphotericin B (2 trials) for all-cause mortality resulted in a pooled RR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84-1.20, P = 0.93). Anidulafungin versus fluconazole resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.48-1.10, P = 0.34). Our mixed treatment comparison analysis found similar within-class effects across all interventions. Adverse event profiles differed, with amphotericin B exhibiting larger adverse event effects. CONCLUSION: Treatment options appear to offer preferential effects on response rates and mortality. When mycologic data are available, therapy should be tailored.</p>
        <p>PMID: 19558681 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left"><a href="http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/8//23"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.biomedcentral.com-graphics-pubmed-1476-0711.gif" border="0"></a> <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&amp;pubmedid=19558681"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov-corehtml-pmc-pmcgifs-pubmed-pmc.gif" border="0"></a> </td><td align="right"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&amp;cmd=Display&amp;dopt=PubMed_PubMed&amp;from_uid=19558681">Related Articles</a></td></tr></table>
        <p><b>Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.</b></p>
        <p>Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2009;8:23</p>
        <p>Authors:  Mills EJ, Perri D, Cooper C, Nachega JB, Wu P, Tleyjeh I, Phillips P</p>
        <p>OBJECTIVES: Invasive fungal infections are a major cause of mortality among patients at risk. Treatment guidelines vary on optimal treatment strategies. We aimed to determine the effects of different antifungal therapies on global response rates, mortality and safety. METHODS: We searched independently and in duplicate 10 electronic databases from inception to May 2009. We selected any randomized trial assessing established antifungal therapies for confirmed cases of invasive candidiasis among predominantly adult populations. We performed a meta-analysis and then conducted a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison to differentiate treatment effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses included dosage forms of amphotericin B and fluconazole compared to other azoles. RESULTS: Our analysis included 11 studies enrolling a total of 965 patients. For our primary analysis of global response rates, we pooled 7 trials comparing azoles to amphotericin B, Relative Risk [RR] 0.87 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.78-0.96, P = 0.007, I2 = 43%, P = 0.09. We also pooled 2 trials of echinocandins versus amphotericin B and found a pooled RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.99-1.23, P = 0.08). One study compared anidulafungin to fluconazole and yielded a RR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51) in favor of anidulafungin. We pooled 7 trials assessing azoles versus amphotericin B for all-cause mortality, resulting in a pooled RR of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.74-1.05, P = 0.17, I2 = 0%, P = 0.96). Echinocandins versus amphotericin B (2 trials) for all-cause mortality resulted in a pooled RR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84-1.20, P = 0.93). Anidulafungin versus fluconazole resulted in a RR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.48-1.10, P = 0.34). Our mixed treatment comparison analysis found similar within-class effects across all interventions. Adverse event profiles differed, with amphotericin B exhibiting larger adverse event effects. CONCLUSION: Treatment options appear to offer preferential effects on response rates and mortality. When mycologic data are available, therapy should be tailored.</p>
        <p>PMID: 19558681 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2009/08/28/antifungal-treatment-for-invasive-candida-infections-a-mixed-treatment-comparison-meta-analysis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comprehensive bactericidal activity of an ethanol-based hand gel in 15 seconds.</title>
		<link>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2008/03/20/comprehensive-bactericidal-activity-of-an-ethanol-based-hand-gel-in-15-seconds/</link>
		<comments>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2008/03/20/comprehensive-bactericidal-activity-of-an-ethanol-based-hand-gel-in-15-seconds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left"><a href="http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/7//2"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/egifs/http:--www.biomedcentral.com-graphics-pubmed-1476-0711.gif" border="0"></a> <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&#38;pubmedid=18211682"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/egifs/http:--www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov-corehtml-pmc-pmcgifs-pubmed-pmc.gif" border="0"></a> </td><td align="right"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&#38;cmd=Display&#38;dopt=PubMed_PubMed&#38;from_uid=18211682">Related Articles</a></td></tr></table>
        <p><b>Comprehensive bactericidal activity of an ethanol-based hand gel in 15 seconds.</b></p>
        <p>Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2008;7:2</p>
        <p>Authors:  Kampf G, Hollingsworth A</p>
        <p>BACKGROUND: Some studies indicate that the commonly recommended 30 s application time for the post contamination treatment of hands may not be necessary as the same effect may be achieved with some formulations in a shorter application time such as 15 s. METHOD: We evaluated the bactericidal activity of an ethanol-based hand gel (Sterillium Comfort Gel) within 15 s in a time-kill-test against 11 Gram-positive, 16 Gram-negative bacteria and 11 emerging bacterial pathogens. Each strain was evaluated in quadruplicate. RESULTS: The hand gel (85% ethanol, w/w) was found to reduce all 11 Gram-positive and all 16 Gram-negative bacteria by more than 5 log10 steps within 15 s, not only against the ATCC test strains but also against corresponding clinical isolates. In addition, a log10 reduction &#62; 5 was observed against all tested emerging bacterial pathogens. CONCLUSION: The ethanol-based hand gel was found to have a broad spectrum of bactericidal activity in only 15 s which includes the most common species causing nosocomial infections and the relevant emerging pathogens. Future research will hopefully help to find out if a shorter application time for the post contamination treatment of hands provides more benefits or more risks.</p>
        <p>PMID: 18211682 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left"><a href="http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/7//2"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/egifs/http:--www.biomedcentral.com-graphics-pubmed-1476-0711.gif" border="0"></a> <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&amp;pubmedid=18211682"><img src="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/egifs/http:--www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov-corehtml-pmc-pmcgifs-pubmed-pmc.gif" border="0"></a> </td><td align="right"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&amp;cmd=Display&amp;dopt=PubMed_PubMed&amp;from_uid=18211682">Related Articles</a></td></tr></table>
        <p><b>Comprehensive bactericidal activity of an ethanol-based hand gel in 15 seconds.</b></p>
        <p>Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2008;7:2</p>
        <p>Authors:  Kampf G, Hollingsworth A</p>
        <p>BACKGROUND: Some studies indicate that the commonly recommended 30 s application time for the post contamination treatment of hands may not be necessary as the same effect may be achieved with some formulations in a shorter application time such as 15 s. METHOD: We evaluated the bactericidal activity of an ethanol-based hand gel (Sterillium Comfort Gel) within 15 s in a time-kill-test against 11 Gram-positive, 16 Gram-negative bacteria and 11 emerging bacterial pathogens. Each strain was evaluated in quadruplicate. RESULTS: The hand gel (85% ethanol, w/w) was found to reduce all 11 Gram-positive and all 16 Gram-negative bacteria by more than 5 log10 steps within 15 s, not only against the ATCC test strains but also against corresponding clinical isolates. In addition, a log10 reduction &gt; 5 was observed against all tested emerging bacterial pathogens. CONCLUSION: The ethanol-based hand gel was found to have a broad spectrum of bactericidal activity in only 15 s which includes the most common species causing nosocomial infections and the relevant emerging pathogens. Future research will hopefully help to find out if a shorter application time for the post contamination treatment of hands provides more benefits or more risks.</p>
        <p>PMID: 18211682 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://beckerinfo.net/JClub/2008/03/20/comprehensive-bactericidal-activity-of-an-ethanol-based-hand-gel-in-15-seconds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

