The initial efforts of the Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine (BgVV) and the Free University of Berlin to standardise terminology in the field of developmental toxicology began in 1995. Procedures were undertaken to harmonise the terminology used by the International Federation of Teratology Societies (IFTS) and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). This article reflects these activities and is a report on the Third Workshop on the Terminology in Developmental Toxicology held in September 2000. This Workshop served as a forum to discuss the results of a survey on the classification of skeletal anomalies that had been previously sent to scientists active in the field. Although high agreement was reached among the evaluators for several terms, the use of a number of terms was rather variable. Therefore, the discussions at the workshop among the experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industry were mainly focussed on those terms for which there was disagreement and/or uncertainties and the possible reasons. Pictures provided by the participants for the illustration of "grey zone" anomalies constituted the basis for detailed discussions. In many of the cases with lower agreement, decisions were facilitated by the provision of the corresponding picture. The main reasons for lower agreement were imprecise terms, insufficient knowledge on postnatal consequences, theoretical terms that are unlikely to occur in isolation, and the possibility of observing a range of severity that might be decisive for the classification of either a malformation or variation. The attendees concluded that "grey-zone" anomalies will never disappear completely and that for the assessment, the grade of severity and/or the frequency of the observation can be decisive for the terminology chosen. A Joint IPCS/IFTS Project was proposed to further consensus of terminology and classification and to link these anomalies to pictures at different skeletal sites. In order to support the harmonisation of regulatory decisions, it was proposed to establish a "Clearinghouse" System under the umbrella of the IPCS. The Clearinghouse could be contacted either by the regulatory authorities or by any company to clarify their queries, particularly with regard to registration or authorisation processes. Finally, it was recommended to also carry out a similar survey on "soft tissue anomalies" and "external findings." The results of this survey will be discussed at a Joint IPCS/IFTS Workshop in Berlin in 2002.

Abnormalities, Drug-Induced↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Prospective comparison of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime for the short-term treatment of bacterial meningitis in children.

The effectiveness and safety of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime in the short-term treatment of primary bacterial meningitis were compared using a prospective, randomized, multicenter study design. Children between the ages of 6 weeks and 16 years received either ceftriaxone as a single dose (100 mg/kg on the first day followed by 75 mg/kg/day) or cefotaxime as four divided doses (200 mg/kg/day) for 4-7 days. A total of 82 patients (44 ceftriaxone, 38 cefotaxime) with documented bacteria in the CSF were studied. In patients receiving ceftriaxone, full recovery occurred in 79.5% while a further 13.7% recovered with neurologic sequelae. Full recovery was observed in 71.1% of children treated with cefotaxime with sequelae in a further 23.6% (no statistically significant differences between drugs). The time to clinical improvement and resolution of fever (3-4 days) was also similar for both drugs. All but 1 of the 82 patients studied had negative CSF cultures within 24 h of the beginning of therapy consistent with the excellent penetration into the CSF (trough concentrations of 2.7 mg/l for both drugs at the end of therapy). No differences were observed in the incidence of clinically significant adverse events. Ceftriaxone and cefotaxime are both effective in the treatment of bacterial meningitis. Ceftriaxone offers an advantage in case of administration since it is administered as a single daily dose.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

COX-inhibitors relieve the immunosuppressive effect of tumor cells and improve functions of immune effectors.

A common phenomenon in cancer patients is a suppressed cell-mediated immunity, characterized by the inability of immune effector cells to mount efficient anti-tumor responses. Immunosuppressive factors, released by the tumor, contribute to this phenomenon and thus to tolerance. Prostaglandins, catalyzed by the cyclooxygenases (COX-1 and COX-2) from arachidonic acid, are one class of these factors. Since at least one of the COX enzymes is often expressed at high level in human cancers, the enzymes were ascribed a causal role in tumor etiology and progression. Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like aspirin, which block COX activity, have demonstrated their antitumor effects in preclinical and clinical trials. Pro-apoptotic and anti-angiogenic effects in tumor cells may account for this activity. In addition, by inhibiting the release of prostaglandins from the tumor and by blocking COX activity in immune effector cells, NSAIDs may also bias the function of immune cells towards a more tumoricidal phenotype. We show here that tumor cells inhibit the physiological function of immune cells, and that NSAIDs restore this function. These data contribute to an understanding of the antineoplastic effect ascribed to NSAIDs and support the prophylactic use of these drugs in high-risk patients.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗