RESUMEN
Objectives. To provide a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of H1-antihistamines pharmacological uses pattern among children (<6 years old) and to evaluate the parental-related awareness. Methods. A cross-sectional study was carried out at 5 retail pharmacies in Jordan over 5 months (October/2019-February/2020). Parents who requested any of H1-antihistmine agent for a child (<6 years) were invited to participate. Results. A total of 516 children, most of them were toddlers (1-3) years, received at least 1 H1-antihistamine. More than half of the cases received H1-antihistamine as self-medication (56.3%). Sedating antihistamine agents were the most frequently used among children (<6 years old) (77.9%) among which Chlorpheniramine maleate was the most commonly used agent (62.9%). About half of the children (47.0%) received H1-antihistamine to induce sleep. Whereas, 21.7% and 12.9% received them to manage flu, and allergic rhinitis (AR), respectively. Around 66.6% of the cases were classified as off-label use. Most of the parents (80.5%) were aware of the sedative adverse effects of H1-antihistamines, whereas a fewer number (31.9%) were aware of their cognitive effects. Finally, more than two thirds of parents (79.7%) were unfamiliar with off-label drug use in children. Conclusion. Despite the availability of less-sedating H1-antihistamines with a wide safety and efficacy record, the use of sedating H1-antihistamines remains popular in children.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Delaying broad-spectrum antibiotics beyond 1-2 hours once the septic shock is diagnosed increases patients' risk of death. However, what is the impact of already being on antibiotics when a septic shock is diagnosed? AIM: We compared demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes in septic shock patients on antibiotics initiated prior to versus after septic shock was diagnosed; whose initial antibiotics were considered appropriate for the offending organism(s); and who died in versus were discharged from the ICU. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 161 patients ≥ 14-years-old (female: male=1:1; mean age 61.1yrs) admitted to the ICU for septic shock, and followed for ≥30 days, or until hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: Few inter-group differences were identified. Those treated early were more likely to have a nosocomial infection (p=0.03), skin or soft tissue source of their infection (p=0.01), or a diabetes-related limb amputation (p=0.02); but received fewer antibiotics (p=0.01). Those on appropriate antibiotics were more likely to be female (p=0.048), but less likely to have a skin or soft tissue source of infection (p=0.03). Neither starting antibiotics early, nor being on appropriate antibiotics impacted any outcome measure, including survival. Predictors of mortality were ≥1 co-morbid condition (p=0.03), more versus fewer co-morbid conditions (p=0.009), cardiovascular disease at baseline (p=03), requiring dialysis at baseline (p=0.008), and a higher day#1 SOFA score (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data fail to demonstrate any benefit to being on antibiotics prior to the diagnosis, irrespective of whether the ultimately-identified offending organism is sensitive or resistant.
RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the healing and osseous regeneration of mandibular third molar extraction sockets with and without platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with the evaluation of clinical objectives such as pain, swelling, trismus, soft tissue healing, pocket depth distal to second molar and radiological evaluation of the bony density in the postextracted third molar socket. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 100 patients were selected by the random sampling method from the outpatient department of oral and maxillofacial surgery in the year 2016-2017. Patients were equally allocated into intervention (transalveolar extraction followed by PRP placement) and nonintervention (transalveolar extraction without PRP placement) group as group I and group II, respectively, and evaluation parameters were considered accordingly. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 15.0 (IBM, USA) statistical analysis software. RESULTS: The pain score of patients of group I (non-PRP) was found to be higher as compared to group II (with PRP). Mean trismus of patients of group II was found to be higher than that of group I at postoperative day 7, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Swelling at T-Sn (Tragus-Subnasale) and T-Pog (Tragus-Pogonion) was higher among patients of group I as compared to group II. Healing in group II was two to three times faster than group I. Healing among patients of group I and group II was found to be statistically significant. The mean pocket depth of patients of group I was found to be significantly higher than that of group II at follow-up of 1 and 2 months. The bone density of patients of group II was found to be significantly higher than that of group I at 3 months and 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The procedure of PRP preparation is simple and cost-effective, and can be prepared at the point of care. It had a significant impact on the postoperative healing of the third molar socket. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of PRP application increases the bone density, healing process, and improvement in the pain and swelling, and there was a definite reduction in trismus and periodontal probing depth after the impacted mandibular wisdom teeth extraction.
