Prolonged use of linezolid in bone and joint infections: a retrospective analysis of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic treatment for bone and joint infections generally lasts for 6 weeks or longer. Linezolid may be a good option for treating bone and joint infections, but there is an increased risk of potential serious adverse drug events (ADEs) when used for more than 28 days. The aim of this study was to obtain detailed information on the type and time to occurrence of the patient-reported ADEs, the dynamics of haematopoiesis over time, and the reasons for early discontinuation of linezolid when used for an intended maximum duration of 12 weeks. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study was conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek in The Netherlands. Patients were included if they were planned to use linezolid for more than 28 days. The main reason for discontinuation of linezolid, the ADE according to the Naranjo score, and the time to occurrence of ADEs were analysed. RESULTS: Among 78 patients, drug toxicity led to early discontinuation of linezolid in 11 (14%) patients before and nine (12%) after 28 days of therapy. The median treatment duration was 42 days. Gastrointestinal intolerance (42%) and malaise (32%) were the most common ADEs. In 75% of the cases the ADE occurred within 28 days of therapy. Sixty-seven patients were able to continue linezolid beyond 28 days, 87% of whom completed therapy as scheduled. Severe cytopenia, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse events (CTCA), was observed in four patients and was reversible after discontinuation of linezolid. One patient suffered optic neuropathy related to linezolid use. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid could be considered an alternative option to the current standard of IV glycopeptides for the treatment of bone and joint infection for up to 12 weeks. If patients pass the first 28 days of therapy, the likelihood of successful completion of therapy is high with a low risk of serious ADEs.

The presence of Cutibacterium acnes on the skin of the shoulder after the use of benzoyl peroxide: a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized trial.

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that benzoyl peroxide (BPO) would reduce the presence of Cutibacterium acnes on the skin of the shoulder by 50% compared with placebo. Infections after shoulder surgery are most commonly caused by C acnes. Current prophylactic methods do not effectively reduce the bacterial load of this bacterium. However, it seems that BPO may reduce C acnes on the skin of the shoulder. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of BPO on the presence of C acnes on the shoulder skin. METHODS: A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed including healthy participants aged between 40 and 80 years. Thirty participants with C acnes on the shoulder skin according to baseline skin swabs were randomized into the BPO or placebo group. After gel application 5 times, skin swabs were taken to determine the presence of C acnes. RESULTS: Forty-two participants were screened for the presence of C acnes to include 30 participants with the bacterium. Participants with C acnes at baseline were 7.4 years younger than participants without C acnes (P = .015). One participant in the placebo group dropped out before application because of fear of adverse events. After application, C acnes remained present in 3 of 15 participants (20.0%) in the BPO group and in 10 of 14 participants (71.4%) in the placebo group, resulting in a 51.4% reduction in the presence of C acnes. CONCLUSION: Applying BPO 5 times on the shoulder skin effectively reduces C acnes. Consequently, BPO may reduce the risk of postoperative infections.

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases: quality of self-reported medical information in a prospective cohort event monitoring system.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the quality of patient-reported medical information in the Dutch Biologic Monitor and evaluation of the representativeness of the sampled participants. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients using a biologic DMARD (bDMARD) for an immune-mediated inflammatory disease were included in eight Dutch centres. For this substudy, data of 550 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were used. Patient-reported bDMARD prescription, indication and combination therapy were verified for patients that permitted access to their electronic health record using percentage agreement and/or Cohen's kappa (n = 483). Conservative post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to account for missing data. Population representativeness was tested for the entire substudy population by comparing age, gender and prescribed bDMARD to the centres' reference populations using Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2 goodness-of-fit or Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo simulation (n = 550). RESULTS: The correct bDMARD was reported by 95.8% of the participants. Agreement between patients and electronic health record was almost perfect for indications (κ = 0.832) and substantial for combination therapies (κ = 0.725). Agreement on combination therapies remained substantial after post hoc sensitivity analysis (κ = 0.640). Gender distribution (P > 0.05) and bDMARD use (P > 0.05) were similar to the reference populations. Median age was different (58.0 vs 56.0 years, P = 0.04), but considered clinically irrelevant. CONCLUSION: The Dutch Biologic Monitor seems to be a valid tool to obtain patient-reported medical information. Reported medical information generally corresponded to the electronic health records and the participants represented their reference populations regarding age, gender and prescribed bDMARD.

The patient's perspective of the quality of breast cancer care. The development of an instrument to measure quality of care through focus groups and concept mapping with breast cancer patients.

Quality of care is often described by professionals. However, in this study breast cancer patients participated in developing an instrument that reflects quality of care from the patient's perspective. Through focus groups and concept mapping patients' ideas on determinants of good quality of care were generated and categorised according to similarity and importance. Information from eight focus group interviews with a total of 72 participants yielded 221 quality of care aspects. Following reduction, 81 aspects were used for categorisation during six concept mapping sessions with 67 participants. After analysis, 55 aspects remained grouped into six clusters. This study was conducted with a large number of breast cancer patients, undergoing the full range of treatment modalities, in different hospitals, in different areas in the Netherlands. Therefore, this set of quality of care indicators can be considered valid and suitable for the evaluation of breast cancer care as experienced by patients.