Urinary tract infections in extended care facilities: preventive management strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care professionals with an overview of interventions that may be done to reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in elderly patients, especially those residing in extended care facilities. DATA SOURCES: A Medline search of the English literature was performed from 1980 to January 2006 to find literature relevant to urinary tract prophylaxis. Further references were hand-searched from relevant sources. STUDY SELECTION: When assessing the effectiveness of various clinical interventions for reducing the incidence of UTIs in the elderly, preference was given to more recent, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized studies, but studies of less robust design also were included in the discussions when the former were lacking. DATA EXTRACTION: Where possible, recent publications were favored over older studies. References were all reviewed by the authors and chosen to present key citations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data selection was prioritized to address specific subtopics. CONCLUSION: Though still frequent in occurrence and quite costly in terms of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the health care system, numerous measures may be taken to ameliorate the incidence of UTIs in elderly, institutionalized residents. First and foremost, establishing and adhering to good infection-control practices by health care givers and minimizing the use of indwelling catheters are essential. Adequate staffing and training are germane to this effort. Reasonably well-designed clinical studies also give credence to the use of topical estrogens and lactobacillus "probiotics" for female subgroups and cranberry juice for a wider array of patients. Vitamin C is of no proven benefit. With regard to antibiotics, with the relative paucity of data available for this patient population, concerns for resistance proliferation must be balanced against perceived gains in UTI reduction.

Acid suppressive therapy use on an inpatient internal medicine service.

BACKGROUND: Use of acid suppressant medications has increased in both frequency and breadth in recent years. Data have indicated that questionable use of acid suppressants for non-accepted indications is common. OBJECTIVE: To assess the indications and prevalence of acid suppressants used by inpatients on admission and at discharge. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 213 patients admitted to the University of Michigan Hospital non-critical care general medical service was conducted. Relevant medical history, acid suppressant drug used, and indications were collected from both inpatient medical records and discharge medication lists. RESULTS: Of the 213 patients reviewed, 29% were taking acid suppressants prior to admission, with 33% being proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Once patients were admitted, acid suppressant use increased to 71% (152 of 213), with 84% PPIs, 11% histamine(2)-receptor antagonists, and 5% combination therapy. Based upon our criteria, only 10% (15 of 152) of those on acid suppressants were found to have an acceptable indication. In patients where any history of gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) was deemed as an acceptable indication (32 other patients), 31% (47 of 152) had an acceptable indication. For the 137 patients with non-accepted indications, 29% had no discernable indication and 38% were prescribed acid suppressants for corticosteroid-associated or stress ulcer prophylaxis. A history of gastrointestinal bleeds or peptic ulcer disease of more than 3 months since initial diagnosis or documented exacerbation of symptoms comprised 8% of the population. The aforementioned group of GERD patients made up 23% of this group. Compared to the 29% of patients taking acid suppressants prior to admission, 54% (115 of 213) of patients were prescribed acid suppressants at discharge. If only recent exacerbations of GERD were deemed as long-term indications, 10% (12 of 115) of these patients were found to have accepted indications. If all GERDs were acceptable long-term indications, 27% (31 of 115) would have met criteria for acceptable outpatient use. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable excess usage of acid suppressants in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Cyclosporine for severe ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence for the use of cyclosporine in treating patients with severe ulcerative colitis. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and ISI Web of Knowledge (1966-November 2005) with the search terms cyclosporine, cyclosporin A, CsA, ulcerative colitis, UC, inflammatory bowel disease, IBD, steroid-refractory, and immunosuppression. Additional papers were located by hand-searching relevant references. Only human studies in adults and literature published in English were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intravenous cyclosporine has been evaluated for the treatment of severe ulcerative colitis in 4 randomized, controlled trials, as well as in many open-label and retrospective studies. Studies that evaluated cyclosporine for severe ulcerative colitis were reviewed. All 4 controlled trials showed an initial positive clinical response as defined by the Crohn's Activity Index when intravenous cyclosporine 4 mg/kg/day was administered as monotherapy or combined with intravenous corticosteroids. One of the 4 trials indicated that high-dose cyclosporine (4 mg/kg/day) has no additional clinical benefit over the low-dose (2 mg/kg/day) and that the lower dose may improve safety related to dose-dependent adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the use of intravenous cyclosporine for patients with severe ulcerative colitis who are refractory to corticosteroid therapy. Because most of the adverse effects associated with cyclosporine are dose dependent, therapy should be initiated with the lower 2 mg/kg/day dose. Subsequent doses should be adjusted based on cyclosporine blood concentrations of 150-250 ng/mL. Cyclosporine should be used only to induce remission and serve as a "bridge" to azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine maintenance therapy. At this time, there are insufficient data to support the long-term use of cyclosporine monotherapy for avoidance of surgery or maintenance of remission.