The theatre nurse in the future.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to J Mazza.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The efficacy of measuring the transferrin saturation and the serum ferritin concentration to detect iron deficiency was determined under routine conditions in a general hospital. The tests were performed on 100 adult patients who consecutively underwent bone marrow aspiration for the appraisal of a wide range of clinical conditions. The absence of stainable reticuloendothelial iron in smears of the aspirate was used as the benchmark of iron deficiency. Of the 86 patients who were anemic 19 lacked hemosiderin in the bone marrow. The percentage of patients with iron deficiency who were correctly classified by the tests (i.e., the tests' sensitivity) was 84% for the transferrin saturation and 79% for the serum ferritin concentration, and the percentage of patients free of iron deficiency who were correctly classified by the tests (i.e., the tests' specificity) was 63% and 96% respectively. The predictive value of an abnormal (positive) result for the detection of iron deficiency was 39% for the transferrin saturation and 83% for the serum ferritin concentration, whereas the predictive value of a normal or high (negative) result for the exclusion of iron deficiency was 93% and 94% respectively. Measurement of the serum ferritin concentration was superior to measurement of the transferrin saturation only in its specificity. The former is of particular value in clinical settings where the prevalence of iron deficiency is low and conditions that increase the serum ferritin concentration out of proportion to the size of the body iron stores are infrequent.
From a structural study of the midgut of Centropages typicus, three main zones presenting different cellular associations may be defined. The ultrastructural study carried out allows us to distinguish several cell types. The four principal cell categories (E, R, F and B) show a more or less marked resemblance with those identified in the Malacostraceans, especially in the hepatopancreas of Decapods. The three types R, F and B, which are subdivided according to their localization (R and R') or their developing stages (F1, F2; B1 to B5), are recognized by the following characteristics: R-cells with smooth endoplasmic reticulum and high microvilli (zones I and III); F-cells with rough endoplasmic reticulum and short or spherical microvilli (zones I and II); B-cells with a large vacuolar apparatus made up of lysosome-like dense bodies associated with vacuoles originating from pinocytosis (zone II). From the comparisons of morphological, ultrastructural and histochemical results concerning Centropages typicus with author's data, we propose and discuss these functions for the three principal cell types: synthesis and secretion of pre-digestive enzymes (F1 and F2-cells); enzyme synthesis, intracellular digestion and extrusion (B1 to B5-cells); absorption (R and R'-cells).
The Kalmedic D-3 Fragiligraph was used to obtain both cumulative and derivative osmotic fragility data. Several instrumental modifications and several procedural changes combined to make the data more reproducible and more easily obtained. An analytical expression employing but two parameters was found to give excellent fits for the cumulative data, and when differentiated, reproduced the experimental derivative data equally well. The curve fitting procedure used is given in detail. Data obtained on a limited number of subjects with beta-thalassemia or multiple sclerosis are presented. The interpretation of these data by techniques common to the literature is compared with the procedure developed in this paper.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
Budesonide, a topical corticosteroid used in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, can be administered to the nose as an aerosol via a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) or as a metered nasal pump spray. Studies have shown that about 64% (256 micrograms) of a nominal dose of 400 micrograms budesonide pMDI preparation is delivered to the patient compared with 100% of the nominal dose of the pump spray. The present study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered via a nasal pMDI twice daily (Rhinocort pMDI, at 400 micrograms/day) with an aqueous suspension of budesonide delivered via a metered nasal pump spray once daily (Rhinocort Aqua, at 256 micrograms/day or 400 micrograms/day). The multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 318 patients (154 men, 164 women; aged 12-67 years) with ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis. A 1-week baseline period was followed by a 3-week treatment. Nasal symptoms were recorded by the patients, adverse events were noted, an overall evaluation of treatment efficacy was made, and urine cortisol and creatinine levels were measured. Substantial or total control of symptoms was achieved in 83.8% of patients treated with 256 micrograms of aqueous budesonide, 76.3% with 400 micrograms of aqueous budesonide, and 80.8% with 400 micrograms of budesonide pMDI; these were all significantly different (p < 0.001) compared with placebo (23.4% of patients). There were no significant differences in the 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups and there were few, infrequent adverse events, similar between the groups and resolved completely on discontinuation of treatment. It was concluded that budesonide, given once daily as 256 micrograms or 400 micrograms in an aqueous suspension or twice daily as 400 micrograms in a pMDI provides good alleviation of the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis with no significant risk of suppression of urine cortisol.
The efficacy and safety of an extended-release combination of loratadine plus pseudoephedrine sulfate (SCH 434) was compared with that of a tablet containing chlorpheniramine maleate plus pseudoephedrine sulfate (CTM-D) in 131 patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SCH 434 (loratadine 5 mg and pseudoephedrine sulfate 120 mg) or CTM-D (chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg and pseudoephedrine sulfate 120 mg) twice daily for 2 weeks. Evaluations were made after 3, 7, and 14 days of treatment. Demographics (age, race, sex, and duration of seasonal allergic rhinitis) and baseline total symptom scores were comparable between groups. Both combination products were effective in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Improvement in total symptom scores was 54% on day 3 and 65% on day 14 in the SCH 434 group versus 57% on day 3 and 64% on day 14 in the CTM-D group. Individual symptom scores (nasal discharge, stuffiness, nasal itching, sneezing, and ocular symptoms) responded similarly. A smaller proportion of patients in the SCH 434 group reported side effects, especially dry mouth (7% vs 19%, P = 0.07), fatigue (6% vs 25%, P < 0.01), and sedation (7% vs 22%, P < 0.03). In conclusion, the combination of loratadine plus pseudoephedrine sulfate was equally as effective as a classic antihistamine (chlorpheniramine maleate) plus pseudoephedrine sulfate but had a lower incidence of side effects.