BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE AND GALLIUM-67 LUNG SCANNING IN THE EVALUATION OF ASBESTOS-EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS

In this study, an attempt is made to evaluate certain parameters that might indicate the beginning of a certain fibrogenic activity in the lung parenchyma, even before such changes become visible on the chest x-ray. The hypothesis is that studies such as certain bronchoalveolar immunological characteristics and Gallium-67 lung scans may be more sensitive indicators of parenchymal lung damage in response to asbestos inhalation than conventional radiographic criteria. If so, then in those cases where the criteria for the diagnosis of asbestosis lack the presence of parenchymal changes, it would be unwise to deny the diagnosis unless further investigations, such as the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid analysis and the Gallium-67 lung scan techniques, are made available.^ Four groups of individuals have been included in this study. The volunteer group showing no history of asbestos exposure with normal chest x-rays has been used as a normal healthy comparison group. The other three groups are all asbestos-exposed but differ as to their findings in the chest radiographs. One has parenchymal changes (0/1 or more, ILO Classification), the second has no parenchymal but pleural changes, and the third has neither.^ The most significant laboratory parameter for bronchoalveolar lavage, in this study, is that of Neutrophils (PMNs). All three asbestos-exposed groups showed no differences when compared with each other, while such differences were statistically significant when such groups were separately compared with the normal comparison group. A similar finding existed also when the Helper: Suppressor T-Cell ratios were compared, and found to be higher in all the asbestos-exposed groups.^ Another sensitive test is that of Gallium-67 lung scan. This was found to be positive in some patients where parenchymal changes were absent. Even in some of those who showed neither parenchymal nor pleural changes in their chest x-ray showed positive test results. Such changes indicate a state of an underlying pathogenic process that is still undetectable by conventional radiography. This highly recommends the future application of such tests for the early detection of active pulmonary disease, especially in those who show no parenchymal changes in their chest x-rays. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^

Planning, implementation, and evaluation of an HIV -screening program for pregnant women

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an HIV-screening program at a private health-care institution where the providers were trained to counsel pregnant women about the HIV-antibody test according to the latest recommendations made by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) and the Texas legislature. A before-and-after study design was selected for the study. The participants were OB/GYN nurses who attended an educational program and the patients they counseled about the HIV test. Training improved the nurses' overall knowledge about the content of the program and nurses were more likely to offer the HIV test to all pregnant women regardless of their risk of infection. Still, contrary to what was predicted, the nurses did not give more information to increase the knowledge pregnant women had about HIV infection, transmission, and available treatments. Consequently, many women were not given the chance to correctly assess their risk during the counseling session and there was no evidence that knowledge would reduce the propensity of many women to deny being at risk for HIV. On the other hand, pregnant women who received prenatal care after the implementation of the HIV-screening program were more likely to be tested than women who received prenatal care before its implementation (96% vs. 48%); in turn, the likelihood that more high-risk women would be tested for HIV also increased (94% vs. 60%). There was no evidence that mandatory testing with right of refusal would deter women from being tested for HIV. When the moment comes for a woman to make her decision, other concerns are more important to her than whether the option to be tested is mandatory or not. The majority of pregnant women indicated that their main reasons for being tested were: (a) the recommendation of their health-care provider; and (b) concern about the risks to their babies. Recommending that all pregnant women be tested regardless of their risk of infection, together with making the HIV test readily available to all women, are probably the two best ways of increasing the patients' participation in an HIV-screening program for pregnant women. ^