ABSTRACT
Using a repetitive-sequence-based (rep)-PCR (DiversiLab), we have molecularly typed Acinetobacter nosocomial bloodstream isolates (Acinetobacter baumannii [n = 187], Acinetobacter pittii [n = 23], and Acinetobacter nosocomialis [n = 61]) obtained from patients hospitalized in U.S. hospitals over a 10-year period (1995-2004) during a nationwide surveillance study (Surveillance and Control of Pathogens of Epidemiological Importance [SCOPE]). Patterns of A. baumannii rep-PCR were compared to those of previously identified international clonal lineages (ICs) and were further investigated by multilocus sequence typing (MLST) to compare the two typing methods. Forty-seven of the A. baumannii isolates clustered with the previously defined IC 2. ICs 1, 3, 6, and 7 were also detected. The remaining 81 isolates were unrelated to the described ICs. In contrast, A. pittii and A. nosocomialis isolates were more heterogeneous, as determined by rep-PCR. Our MLST results were in good correlation with the rep-PCR clusters. Our study confirms previous data indicating the predominance of a few major clonal A. baumannii lineages in the United States, particularly IC 2. The presence in the United States of A. baumannii ICs 1, 2, and 3 from as early as 1995 suggests that global dissemination of these lineages was an early event.
Subject(s)
Acinetobacter Infections/epidemiology , Acinetobacter Infections/microbiology , Acinetobacter baumannii/classification , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Bacteremia/microbiology , Multilocus Sequence Typing , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Acinetobacter baumannii/genetics , Acinetobacter baumannii/isolation & purification , Cluster Analysis , Genotype , Hospitals , Humans , Molecular Epidemiology , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
In patients with acute myelogenous leukemia, published guidelines and treatment recommendations are usually the basis for starting the work-up process for allogeneic transplant. However, only consistent recommendations would allow a standardized clinical practice. We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search to identify and evaluate the best available evidence from controlled clinical trials. In addition, recommendations given by leading organizations in the USA and Europe were analyzed. The following aspects were selected for systematic comparison: factors for risk assessment and categorization, role of type of donor, significance of allogeneic transplant in first or second complete remission and in relapse/progressive disease; and role of reduced intensity conditioning regimens. In conclusion, the recommendations for the use of allogeneic transplant given by the literature and by published guidelines are inconsistent and will need clarification.