Advances in the treatment of peanut allergy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergies affect 1.5% of children. The majority of reactions to peanuts are mild, but peanut allergy is also the most common cause of fatal anaphylactic reactions to food. CASE REPORT: The purpose of this case report was to describe a 1-year old boy who developed difficulty breathing after eating a peanut food product. The boy was taken immediately by his mother to an Emergency Department, exhibiting severe respiratory distress. After speaking to the child's mother, the emergency physician (EP) realized that the wheezing was due to a peanut food allergy. The child's respiratory symptoms responded within 10 min to bronchodilatator inhalation. The EP gave the mother educational information regarding the management of asthma and the proper use of metered dose inhalers with spacer devices. The EP referred the child to a clinical allergist who specializes in the management of food allergies. The diagnosis was made by skin prick testing as well as in vitro measurement of peanut-specific immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: The allergist explained that the mainstay of management of peanut allergy is avoidance of the allergenic food. Patient education involved teaching the mother to avoid high-risk situations such as dinner with family members who are not informed about the child's allergy to peanuts, encouraging the child to wear a Medic Alert Bracelet, and teaching the family and child to recognize early symptoms of allergic reactions and to manage an anaphylactic reaction, including the use of self-injectable epinephrine, as well as activating emergency services.

Legislation and informed consent brochures for dental patients receiving amalgam restorations.

In 2008, Norway banned the use of mercury for amalgam restorations. Four states in the United States have developed Informed Consent Brochures for amalgam restorations that must be given to their dental patients. The authors describe a patient who had a large cavity in his left lower molar tooth no.18 that had to be removed by an oral surgeon. When the patient went to the oral surgeon, the surgeon told the patient that he would replace the carious tooth with a gold implant. He was not given an Informed Consent Brochure regarding dental restorative materials. The oral surgeon extracted the carious tooth, replacing the tooth with a supposed gold crown implant. On his yearly dental examination, his dentist took an x-ray of his dental implant and explained that the x-ray could not distinguish whether the implant contained either gold or mercury. Consequently, the dentist referred him to a dental clinic in which the dental implant could be removed without mercury contamination of the patient's neurologic system during the extraction of the implant from the root canal. During the removal of the dental restoration, the dentist found build up expanding into the root canal that had a black color. The crown and underlying tooth were sent to ALT BioScience for analysis. Elemental analysis of the crown and underlying tooth confirmed the presence of mercury in the restoration. The patient should have been given an Informed Consent Brochure by the dentist that described the dental restoration that was used in the dental implant.

Management of femoral fracture in a patient with essential thrombocythemia treated with plateletpheresis and intramedullary rod fixation, followed by hydroxyurea: a case report.

We describe the management of a patient with a femoral fracture who had asymptomatic essential thrombocythemia. When the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia was made, the patient was treated with plateletpheresis to reduce the platelet count before intramedullary rod fixation of his fracture. His postoperative management included the examination of his peripheral blood as well as bone marrow, which confirmed that the cause of his elevated platelet count was due to JAK2 V617F mutation that is treated by hydroxyurea and aspirin after being discharged from the hospital.

Need for informed consent for dentists who use mercury amalgam restorative material as well as technical considerations in removal of dental amalgam restorations.

Amalgam restorative material generally contains 50% mercury (Hg) in a complex mixture of copper, tin, silver, and zinc. It has been well documented that this mixture continually emits mercury vapor, which is dramatically increased by chewing, eating, brushing, and drinking hot liquids. Mercury has been demonstrated to have damaging effects on the kidney, central nervous system, and cardiovascular system, and has been implicated in gingival tattoos. While mercury amalgams may result in detrimental exposure to the patient, they can also be a danger in dental practices. In Europe, the federal governments of Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden have enacted legislation requiring that dental patients receive informed consent information about the dental restorative material that will be used. In the United States, a few state governments have enacted informed consent legislation for dental patients receiving dental restorations. These state legislations were enacted by Maine, California, Connecticut, and Vermont. It is a sad tragedy that mercury is causing such health damage to many people. The American Dental Association has said for the past 150 years that the mercury in amalgam is safe and does not leak; however, no clinical studies were ever done and the Food and Drug Administration approved amalgam under a grandfather clause. Subsequent studies have shown this claim of safety not to be true. Over ten years ago, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal published a comprehensive article calling mercury restorative material a major source of mercury exposure to the U.S. population. The authors of this paper recommend that federal and state legislation be passed throughout our country to ensure that consent forms are given to patients receiving silver-mercury amalgam restorative material.