Severe complications of ulcerative colitis after high-dose prednisolone and azathioprine treatment

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Japanese community hospital: 5-year experience

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is exceptionally critical to infection treatment and control in the health-care setting. MRSA has been detected at high levels in Japan, and the frequency of MRSA infection must be ascertained to provide a baseline with which to assess various infection control efforts. We studied MRSA infection rate at a general hospital in Japan in all 65,135 inpatients of Sendai Kousei Hospital from January 2004 to December 2008. MRSA's prevalence among strains of S. aureus and the rate of MRSA detection were studied. Identification of MRSA infection is according to the laboratory-based ward liaison surveillance. The minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of vancomycin, teicoplanin, and arbekacin for the various isolates were determined. During the period studied, there were 621 MRSA-positive patients. MRSA prevalence among strains of S. aureus was 45.5% (621/1,365). The rate of MRSA detection in inpatients was 0.953/100 inpatients. Of the 621 patients from whom MRSA was isolated, 51 (8.2%) had an MRSA infection (MRSA infection rate 0.078/100 inpatients). MRSA was often detected from the respiratory tract, but this seldom led to infection, since many of those affected were merely carriers. MICs against MRSA was 0.5-4 μg/ml for vancomycin, 0.5-16 μg/ml for teicoplanin, and 0.5 to >16 μg/ml for arbekacin, with no tendency for tolerance observed for these drugs. Findings suggest that whereas MRSA remains prevalent, there is a low incidence of infection in a general hospital in Japan.

Review article: the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine

The thioguanine derivative, azathioprine, is a prodrug of 6-mercaptopurine that is further metabolized by various enzymes present in the liver and gut. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine have been used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, i.e. ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, for more than 30 years. However, widespread use of azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine in inflammatory bowel disease is of more recent origin, the primary reason being a long-standing debate on the efficacy of these agents in inflammatory bowel disease. Both drugs are slow acting, which is why clinical efficacy cannot be expected until several weeks or even months of treatment have elapsed. Consequently, azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine have no place as monotherapy in the treatment of acute relapsing inflammatory bowel disease. Today, azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine are the most commonly used immunomodulatory drugs in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Their clinical effects are probably identical, although their exact mode of action is still unknown. The mode of action of azathioprine is thought to be multifactorial, including conversion to 6-mercaptopurine (which acts as a purine antimetabolite), possible blockade of thiol groups by alkylation, inhibition of several pathways in nucleic acid biosynthesis (preventing proliferation of cells involved in the determination and amplification of the immune response) and damage to DNA through the incorporation of thiopurine analogues. However, 6-thioguanine nucleotides may accumulate in toxic doses in myeloid precursor cells, resulting in life-threatening myelosuppression. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine are further known to alter lymphocyte function, reduce the number of lamina propria plasma cells and affect natural killer cell function. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to suggest guidelines for the application of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

All patients with inflammatory bowel disease should have bone density assessment: pro

Bone loss is a common problem for individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. Corticosteroids play an important role in the development of osteoporosis in these patients; however, active disease and longer disease duration also appear to increase the risk of osteoporosis. Given the current burden of osteoporosis, bone mineral density is recommended.