Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis is a life-threatening presentation of acute pancreatitis. The mortality of 20–80% initially depends on the persistence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and, in the later course of the disease, on secondary infection of the necrosis. The questions whether prophylactic antibiotics aiming to prevent this infection should be administered and which antibiotic is the best to use, as well as the problem of fungal infection under antibiotic treatment are still intriguing and insufficiently solved. Methods: A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programmes of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW). Results: Despite the widely practised prophylactic antibiotic administration in severe pancreatitis, no evidence for the benefit of this strategy exists. One of the drawbacks might be a tendency for disastrous fungal infection under prophylactic antibiotics. Bacterial translocation from the gut in the second week after the onset of symptoms is the major source for infection of pancreatic necrosis and provides a clear indication for antibiotic treatment. However, routine fine-needle aspiration for a calculated antibiotic therapy cannot be recommended, and all other tests offer only indirect signs. Important factors such as enteral versus parenteral feeding and the method of necrosectomy are mostly neglected in the trials but seem to be essential for the outcome of the patient. Conclusions: Even though most meta-analyses including the newer double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics showed no beneficial effects in the prevention of infection of necrosis and/or outcome of the patients, this strategy is still widely used in clinical routine. Since nearly all trials published so far show systematic problems (i.e. inaccurate definition of the severity of the disease, poor statistical testing, and neglect of differences in the route of nutrition), there is a need for randomized controlled prospective trials with exact definitions of the disease. / Hintergrund: Die nekrotisierende Pankreatitis weist eine Mortalität von 20–80% auf. Initial ist vor allem das Ausmaß des Organversagens entscheidend für die Prognose des Patienten. In der zweiten Krankheitswoche stellt dann die sekundäre Infektion der Nekrosen durch die Translokation von Darmkeimen das entscheidende Problem dar. Zur Vermeidung einer solchen Infektion werden klinisch sehr häufig Breitspektrumantibioktika prophylaktisch eingesetzt. Dies wird aber zunehmend kritisch diskutiert, und es existieren kontroverse Empfehlungen. Methoden: Eine Literaturrecherche unter Einbeziehung von PubMed und der Programme der Digestive Disease Week (DDW) und der United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) wurde durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Die meisten Studien können den prophylaktischen Einsatz von Antibiotika bei der schweren Pankreatitis nicht rechtfertigen. Einige Studien belegen vielmehr eine Selektion resistenter Keime und vor allem auch eine erhöhte Rate von schwer therapierbaren Pilzinfektionen unter einer solchen Therapie. Daher sollte erst nach dem Nachweis einer Nekroseinfektion mit einer Antibiotikatherapie begonnen werden, wobei keine Routine-Feinnadelpunktion der Nekrose zum Keimnachweis durchgeführt werden sollte. Es stehen daher nur indirekte, meist bildgebende Verfahren für den Infektionsnachweis zur Verfügung. Entscheidende Faktoren wie die enterale Ernährung und die Methode der Nekrosektomie wurden bisher bei den meisten Studien vernachlässigt, scheinen aber essenziell für das Behandlungsergebnis des Patienten zu sein. Schlussfolgerungen: Die meisten publizierten Studien weisen eine sehr heterogene Definition der Erkrankung, uneinheitliche Behandlungsprotokolle und Ungenauigkeiten bei der statistischen Testung auf. Gerade entscheidende Faktoren wie die enterale Ernährung werden größtenteils komplett vernachlässigt. Es besteht daher ein Bedarf für randomisierte placebokontrollierte Studien, die diese Probleme berücksichtigen und suffiziente Schlussfolgerungen zur Antibiotikatherapie der schweren Pankreatitis zulassen.

Effective prevention, or treatment, of invasive fungal infection in the neutropenic patient has hitherto been unsatisfactory because of either an inadequate anti-fungal spectrum of the agent or important toxicity. Itraconazole is effective against a broad spectrum of the opportunistic pathogens seen in Europe and North America. Prior problems with absorption, e.g. in the marrow transplant recipient, have been overcome with the introduction of an oral solution and an i.v. preparation. The deliberations of an expert meeting held in June, 1998 include recommendations on which patient requires one of these new preparations based on clinical trials, the dose and route. Important drug interactions are also detailed. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

No description available.

Sensing of pathogens by pattern recognition receptors (PRR) is critical to initiate protective host defence reactions. However, activation of the immune system has to be carefully titrated to avoid tissue damage necessitating mechanisms to control and terminate PRR signalling. Dectin-1 is a PRR for fungal β-glucans on immune cells that is rapidly internalised after ligand-binding. Here, we demonstrate that pathogen recognition by the Dectin-1a isoform results in the formation of a stable receptor fragment devoid of the ligand binding domain. This fragment persists in phagosomal membranes and contributes to signal transduction which is terminated by the intramembrane proteases Signal Peptide Peptidase-like (SPPL) 2a and 2b. Consequently, immune cells lacking SPPL2b demonstrate increased anti-fungal ROS production, killing capacity and cytokine responses. The identified mechanism allows to uncouple the PRR signalling response from delivery of the pathogen to degradative compartments and identifies intramembrane proteases as part of a regulatory circuit to control anti-fungal immune responses.

No description available.

Effective prevention, or treatment, of invasive fungal infection in the neutropenic patient has hitherto been unsatisfactory because of either an inadequate anti-fungal spectrum of the agent or important toxicity. Itraconazole is effective against a broad spectrum of the opportunistic pathogens seen in Europe and North America. Prior problems with absorption, e.g. in the marrow transplant recipient, have been overcome with the introduction of an oral solution and an i.v. preparation. The deliberations of an expert meeting held in June, 1998 include recommendations on which patient requires one of these new preparations based on clinical trials, the dose and route. Important drug interactions are also detailed. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.