Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B Jennings

Publications and source records attributed to B Jennings.

89 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Clinical trials designed to evaluate therapeutic preferences.

We present an experimental design for the evaluation of therapeutic preferences among well established similar modes of therapy. The measure of the degree of preference is based on clinical decisions to continue or discontinue the current treatment at each patient visit. Such a trial simulates decision-making in ordinary clinical practice, while adhering to the scientific principles of experimental design, and it alleviates some of the ethical problems inherent in randomized allocation of a treatment for a period of fixed length in conventional control trials. We discuss the design and methods of analysis and illustrate their application with data from a trial comparing three alternative drug treatments for chronic asthma. Such clinical trials provide a mechanism for examining concordance between the relative efficacy of treatments predicted from conventional controlled clinical trials and their ultimate performance in ordinary clinical practice, expressed in terms of therapeutic preferences.

Asthma↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of budesonide Turbuhaler with budesonide aqua in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Rhinocort Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of budesonide Turbuhaler 400 microg/day with budesonide aqua 256 microg/day in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Secondarily to ascertain patients' preferences for the two nasal devices and to assess quality of life. DESIGN: Randomized, multicentre, double-blind, double- dummy, parallel groups study. SETTING: Private practices and hospital clinics in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. POPULATION: Two hundred and eighty-four out-patients with SAR, who were symptomatic during the ragweed season, volunteered for enrolment (243 randomized). RESULTS: Mean daily nasal symptom scores were significantly reduced with treatment. There were no statistically significant changes from baseline for eye symptoms. Most patients (more than 80%) achieved substantial control of their symptoms with budesonide. The most common nasal and non-nasal adverse events for both groups were epistaxis and headache. Turbuhaler was easier to use and more convenient to carry, had less of an unpleasant taste, and caused less nasal irritation than the aqua spray. More than twice as many patients preferred Turbuhaler to the aqua spray (69% versus 31%). Improvement in quality of life from baseline to clinic visits was statistically significant in both groups. CONCLUSION: Once daily use of 256 mg of budesonide aqua and 400 mg of budesonide Turbuhaler are equally safe and efficacious in the treatment of SAR. Patients preferred the budesonide powder formulation delivered via Turbuhaler two to one over the aqua formulation.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A randomized, controlled trial of high dose, inhaled budesonide versus oral prednisone in patients discharged from the emergency department following an acute asthma exacerbation.

OBJECTIVE: Prednisone (PRED) is recommended at discharge to reduce the relapse rate following emergency treatment for an asthmatic attack. However, PRED has systemic side effects. Inhaled anti-inflammatory medications, such as budesonide (BUD), are well tolerated. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of PRED and BUD on relapse rate. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel group design. SETTING: Tertiary referral emergency departments. POPULATION STUDIED: One hundred and eighty-five patients with acute asthma who received standard treatment with bronchodilators and systemic glucocorticosteroids in the emergency department, had a forced expiration volume in 1 s (FEV1) greater than 50% predicted and who were deemed well enough to be discharged from the emergency department. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either BUD Turbuhaler 600 microg qid or PRED 40 mg in the morning for seven to 10 days. At discharge and final visit, symptoms, medication use, FEV1, peak expiratory flow (PEF) and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. Relapse rate to the emergency department during the follow-up was determined by a yes and/or no questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: The PRED (n=85) and BUD (n=90) treatment groups were comparable at baseline (emergency department discharge) for age (mean +/- SD; 27.6+/-8.5 years and 29. 2+/-8.7 years) and prebronchodilator FEV1 (1.77+/-0.79 L and 1. 75+/-0.78 L), respectively. BUD was at least as effective as PRED in preventing a relapse to the hospital; relapse rate was 10 (11.8%) during PRED treatment and nine (10.0%) for BUD treatment (95% CI PRED-BUD, -7.5% to 11.0%). Improvements in FEV1, asthma symptoms, PEF and QoL were not significantly different between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In patients whose acute asthma has been stabilized in the emergency department, high dose BUD may be an alternate to PRED as a follow-up treatment.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Long-acting contraceptives. Ethical guidance for policymakers and health care providers.

Realizing the promise of long-acting contraceptives depends on continuing efforts to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate policies and practices. The current debates concerning Norplant and other long-term methods generally have based ethical judgment on too slim a reed. It is insufficient and overly divisive to limit the tools of analysis to questions of freedom and coercion. A richer perspective is needed. We have sketched out an alternative approach that rests on a close, case-by-case analysis attentive to the social dimension and consequences of contraceptive decisionmaking, as well as to the individual interests at stake. The approach also takes special note of the need for access to long-acting contraceptive, the possibility for mistaken nonuse as well as mistaken use, and our country's past and present biases and power imbalances. We do not claim that this method will make judgments about justifiable or unjustifiable influence easy or automatic. However, it should prove adept at underscoring the factors that require particular scrutiny. Perhaps more importantly, the approach highlights that influences for the use of long-acting contraceptives ought to be judged, not merely dismissed.

Adolescent↗