RESUMO
The advent of rapid molecular microbiology testing has revolutionized infectious disease diagnostics and is now impacting pneumonia diagnosis and management. Molecular platforms offer highly multiplexed assays for diverse viral and bacterial detection, alongside antimicrobial resistance markers, providing the potential to significantly shape patient care. Despite the superiority in sensitivity and speed, debates continue regarding the clinical role of multiplex molecular testing, notably in comparison to standard methods and distinguishing colonization from infection. Recent guidelines endorse molecular pneumonia panels for enhanced sensitivity and rapidity, but implementation requires addressing methodological differences and ensuring clinical relevance. Diagnostic stewardship should be leveraged to optimize pneumonia testing, emphasizing pre- and post-analytical strategies. Collaboration between clinical microbiologists and bedside providers is essential in developing implementation strategies to maximize the clinical utility of multiplex molecular diagnostics in pneumonia. This narrative review explores these multifaceted issues, examining the current evidence on the clinical performance of multiplex molecular assays in pneumonia, and reflects on lessons learned from previous microbiological advances. Additionally, given the complexity of pneumonia and the sensitivity of molecular diagnostics, diagnostic stewardship is discussed within the context of current literature, including implementation strategies that consider pre-analytical and post-analytical modifications to optimize the clinical utility of advanced technologies like multiplex PCR.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the published clinical data on fospropofol, critically review the safety and efficacy information, and provide pertinent information for formulary review. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from searches of MEDLINE (1966-June 30, 2009), EMBASE (1974-June 30, 2009), bibliographies of manuscripts, and www.fda.gov. Key search terms included fospropofol, Lusedra, Aquavan, sedative-hypnotic, and monitored anesthesia care. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials studying the safety and efficacy of fospropofol were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fospropofol is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, a potent sedative-hypnotic agent. Propofol is highly lipophilic and is formulated in lipid-containing solvents, which have known disadvantages, including pain on injection, narrow therapeutic window with the potential to cause deep sedation, high lipid intake during long-term sedation, and risk of infection resulting from bacterial contamination. Due to its water solubility, fospropofol eliminates some of the known lipid emulsion-associated disadvantages of propofol and provides a more predictable peak onset of activity and more gradual recovery to a full state of consciousness. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of fospropofol make it an attractive agent for sedation for procedures of short duration. Unfortunately, the number of patients studied has been relatively small and the amount of safety data is limited. Of concern are reports of hypoxemia and hypotension; these reports are limited in number, but the episodes are serious and may require acute intervention. Although fospropofol holds promise for procedural sedation, due to limited safety data, the Food and Drug Administration has limited approval of fospropofol to monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Fospropofol is a viable addition to the class of sedative-hypnotic agents due to the minimization of unwanted adverse effects of propofol and maintenance of a favorable pharmacokinetic profile facilitating sedation, anxiolysis, and rapid recovery. However, there are limited safety data to justify its use without the presence of dedicated anesthesia personnel.
