ABSTRACT
The potential impact of biofilm on healing in acute and chronic wounds is one of the most controversial current issues in wound care. A significant amount of laboratory-based research has been carried out on this topic, however, in 2013 the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) pointed out the lack of guidance for managing biofilms in clinical practice and solicited the need for guidelines and further clinical research. In response to this challenge, the Italian Nursing Wound Healing Society (AISLeC) initiated a project which aimed to achieve consensus among a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional international panel of experts to identify what could be considered part of 'good clinical practice' with respect to the recognition and management of biofilms in acute and chronic wounds. The group followed a systematic approach, developed by the GRADE working group, to define relevant questions and clinical recommendations raised in clinical practice. An independent librarian retrieved and screened approximately 2000 pertinent published papers to produce tables of levels of evidence. After a smaller focus group had a multistep structured discussion, and a formal voting process had been completed, ten therapeutic interventions were identified as being strongly recommendable for clinical practice, while another four recommendations were graded as being 'weak'. The panel subsequently formulated a preliminary statement (although with a weak grade of agreement): 'provided that other causes that prevent optimal wound healing have been ruled out, chronic wounds are chronically infected'. All members of the panel agreed that there is a paucity of reliable, well-conducted clinical trials which have produced clear evidence related to the effects of biofilm presence. In the meantime it was agreed that expert-based guidelines were needed to be developed for the recognition and management of biofilms in wounds and for the best design of future clinical trials. This is a fundamental and urgent task for both laboratory-based scientists and clinicians.
Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Bandages , Biofilms , Burns/therapy , Debridement/methods , Diabetic Foot/therapy , Pressure Ulcer/therapy , Surgical Wound Dehiscence/therapy , Varicose Ulcer/therapy , Wound Infection/therapy , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Burns/diagnosis , Diabetic Foot/diagnosis , Disease Management , Humans , Pressure Ulcer/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Dehiscence/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Infection/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Infection/therapy , Varicose Ulcer/diagnosis , Wound Infection/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/therapyABSTRACT
Multiple myeloma (MM) is the leading indication for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) worldwide. The safety and efficacy of reducing hospital stay for MM patients undergoing ASCT have been widely explored, and different outpatient models have been proposed. However, there is no agreement on the criteria for selecting patients eligible for this strategy as well as the standards for their clinical management. On the basis of this rationale, the Italian Group for Stem Cell Transplantation (GITMO) endorsed a project to develop guidelines for the management of outpatient ASCT in MM, using evidence-based knowledge and consensus-formation techniques. An expert panel convened to discuss the currently available data on the practice of outpatient ASCT management and formulated recommendations according to the supporting evidence. Evidence gaps were filled with consensus-based statements. Three main topics were addressed: (1) the identification of criteria for selecting MM patients eligible for outpatient ASCT management; (2) the definition of standard procedures for performing outpatient ASCT (model, supportive care and monitoring during the aplastic phase); (3) the definition of the standard criteria and procedures for re-hospitalization during the aplastic phase at home. Herein, we report the summary and the results of the discussion and the consensus.
