Owner assessment in judging the efficacy of airway disease treatment

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Efficacy of medications for recurrent airway obstruction is typically tested using clinical, cytological and lung function examinations of severely affected animals. These trials are technically challenging and may not adequately reflect the spectrum of disease and owner complaints encountered in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine if owners of horses with chronic airway disease are better able to detect drug efficacy than a veterinarian who clinically examines horses infrequently. METHOD: In a double-blinded randomised controlled trial, owners and a veterinarian compared the efficacy of dexamethasone (0.1 mg/kg bwt per os, q. 24 h, for 3 weeks; n = 9) to placebo (n = 8) in horses with chronic airway disease. Before and after treatment, owners scored performance, breathing effort, coughing and nasal discharge using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The clinician recorded vital parameters, respiratory distress, auscultation findings, cough and nasal discharge, airway mucus score, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cytology and arterial blood gases. RESULTS: The VAS score improved significantly in dexamethasone- but not placebo-treated horses. In contrast, the clinician failed to differentiate between dexamethasone- and placebo-treated animals based on clinical observations, BALF cytology or endoscopic mucus score. Respiratory rate (RR) and arterial oxygen pressure (PaO(2)) improved with dexamethasone but not placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the design of clinical trials of airway disease treatments, more emphasis should be placed on owner-assessed VAS than on clinical, cytological and endoscopic observations made during brief examinations by a veterinarian. Quantifiable indicators reflecting lung function such as RR and PaO(2) provide a good assessment of drug efficacy.

Antimicrobial therapy using a local drug delivery system (Arestin) in the treatment of peri-implantitis. I: Microbiological outcomes

OBJECTIVES: To assess the microbiological outcome of local administration of minocycline hydrochloride microspheres 1 mg (Arestin) in cases with peri-implantitis and with a follow-up period of 12 months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After debridement, and local administration of chlorhexidine gel, peri-implantitis cases were treated with local administration of minocycline microspheres (Arestin). The DNA-DNA checkerboard hybridization method was used to detect bacterial presence during the first 360 days of therapy. RESULTS: At Day 10, lower bacterial loads for 6/40 individual bacteria including Actinomyces gerensceriae (P<0.1), Actinomyces israelii (P<0.01), Actinomyces naeslundi type 1 (P<0.01) and type 2 (P<0.03), Actinomyces odontolyticus (P<0.01), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P<0.01) and Treponema socranskii (P<0.01) were found. At Day 360 only the levels of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans were lower than at baseline (mean difference: 1x10(5); SE difference: 0.34x10(5), 95% CI: 0.2x10(5) to 1.2x10(5); P<0.03). Six implants were lost between Days 90 and 270. The microbiota was successfully controlled in 48%, and with definitive failures (implant loss and major increase in bacterial levels) in 32% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: At study endpoint, the impact of Arestin on A. actinomycetemcomitans was greater than the impact on other pathogens. Up to Day 180 reductions in levels of Tannerella forsythia, P. gingivalis, and Treponema denticola were also found. Failures in treatment could not be associated with the presence of specific pathogens or by the total bacterial load at baseline. Statistical power analysis suggested that a case control study would require approximately 200 subjects.

The use of evidence in public debates in the media: the case of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns in the health policy sector

This article analyses the reporting of evidence in Swiss direct-democratic campaigns in the health policy sector, assuming that an informed public helps democracy function successfully. A content analysis of the media’s news reporting shows that of 5030 media items retrieved, a reference to evidence is found in 6.8%. The voter receives evidence in the form of substantiating arguments, equally distributed among proponents and opponents. Experts have the highest chance of providing evidence, but appear most rarely. Integrating more evidence might provide voters with the diversity of arguments needed to make a truly informed decision.