Réplica: Profilaxis antibiótica en implantología oral. Revisión crítica de la literatural / Reply: Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral implantology. A critical review of the literature

No disponible

Profilaxis antibiótica en implantología oral. Revisión crítica de la literatura / Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral implantology. A critical review of the literature

La masiva difusión de los tratamientos implantológicos conlleva, según los patrones de prescripción actuales, la administración de antibióticos profilácticos, los cuales no están indicados en la mayoría de los casos; sin embargo, su uso suele basarse en la experiencia del operador, en muchos casos influenciado por presiones legales. El desarrollo creciente a nivel mundial de resistencias bacterianas a la casi totalidad de familias de antibióticos conocidos provoca que cada vez sea mayor el número de infecciones cuyo tratamiento se vuelve más complicado debido a la pérdida de eficacia de estos fármacos, lo que constituye un problema fundamental de salud pública. La evidencia disponible respecto a la prescripción profiláctica antibiótica en tratamientos de implantes muestra que la administración de 2 gramos de amoxicilina, 1 hora antes de la intervención, disminuye significativamente el riesgo de fracaso temprano, no así el riesgo de infección. Pese a ello, no está justificado su uso indiscriminado, sino que se debería prescribir en pacientes en riesgo de sufrir una endocarditis bacteriana, en pacientes inmunodeprimidos, en la inserción de implantes en alvéolos infectados, en cirugías extensas y prolongadas, y en cirugías regenerativas por un mayor riesgo de dehiscencia mucosa, debido a un mayor riesgo de infección asociada a estos casos. Su prescripción en pacientes sanos, sin condicionantes anatómicos y en lechos quirúrgicos con una correcta calidad ósea no estaría justificado

The high frequency of the implant procedures leads to massive use of prophylactic antibiotic treatments. These prescriptions are not indicated in the majority of the cases, are only based on the experience of the surgeon and influenced by legal reasons. Global increase in bacterial resistance to almost all known antibiotic families cause, not only an increase in the number of infections, but also severe difficulties in their management, which leads to a public health problem. Available literature regarding prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions for implant treatments shows that the administration of 2gr of amoxicillin 1 hour prior to the surgery reduces significantly early implant failure risk. However, risk of infection is not reduced. Despite this fact, indiscriminated antibiotic use is not justified and it should be restricted to patients that have proven risk of suffering from bacterial endocarditis, immunosuppressed patients, implant insertion in infected alveolous, large surgeries and regenerative surgeries due to the increased potential of mucosal dehiscence and increased risk of infection. Antibiotic prescription in healthy patients without anatomical considerations and with acceptable bone quality is not reasonable

Phase 1 study of EGFR-antisense DNA, cetuximab, and radiotherapy in head and neck cancer with preclinical correlatives.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab combined with radiation therapy (RT) is an evidence-based treatment for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC); however, locoregional failure remains the primary cause of cancer-related death in this disease. Intratumoral injection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-antisense plasmid DNA (EGFR-AS) is safe and has been associated with promising lesional responses in patients who have recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. For the current study, the authors investigated the antitumor effects of cetuximab and EGFR-AS in preclinical HNSCC models and reported their phase 1 experience adding intratumoral EGFR-AS to cetuximab RT. METHODS: Antitumor mechanisms were investigated in cell line and xenograft models. Phase 1 trial eligibility required stage IVA through IVC HNSCC and a measurable lesion accessible for repeat injections. Patients received standard cetuximab was for 9 weeks. EGFR-AS was injected weekly until they achieved a lesional complete response. RT was delivered by conventional fractionation for 7 weeks, starting at week 3. Research biopsies were obtained at baseline and week 2. RESULTS: When added to cetuximab, EGFR-AS decreased cell viability and xenograft growth compared with EGFR-sense control, partially mediated by reduced EGFR expression. Six patients were enrolled in the phase 1 cohort. No grade 2 or greater EGFR-AS-related adverse events occurred. The best lesional response was a complete response (4 patients), and 1 patient each had a partial response and disease progression. EGFR expression decreased in 4 patients who had available paired specimens. CONCLUSIONS: In preclinical models, dual EGFR inhibition with cetuximab and EGFR-AS enhanced antitumor effects. In a phase 1 cohort, intratumoral EGFR-AS injections, cetuximab, and RT were well tolerated. A phase 2 trial is needed to conduct an extended evaluation of safety and to establish efficacy.

Severe autoimmune neutropenia associated with acute autoimmune hepatitis.

A 49-year-old previously healthy female presented with acute hepatitis and severe neutropenia. A diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune hepatitis was made based on the histological appearance of a liver core biopsy, positive anti-smooth muscle antibodies, and positive anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (atypical ANCA). Hemogram revealed mild leukopenia with severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count 256/mm(3)), normal hemoglobin and mild thrombocytopenia (115000/mm(3)). A bone marrow biopsy and aspirate had a normal karyotype, increase in granulopoiesis, prominence of promyelocytes (31%) and absence of mature granulocytes. Anti-neutrophil antibodies were detected in the patient's blood. Therapy was directed at the underlying hepatitis with resolution of neutropenia without the use of colony-stimulating factors.