The Anaesthetic Efficacy of Tetracaine and Oxymetazoline Compared With Co-Phenylcaine in Healthy Individuals.

OBJECTIVES: Nasal anaesthetic-decongestant sprays are commonly used prior to nasal instrumentation, such as flexible and rigid nasal endoscopy. Co-phenylcaine (lignocaine 5%, phenylephrine 0.5%, ENT Technologies Pty Ltd., Melbourne, VIC, Australia) is a combination spray commonly used for this purpose. However, lignocaine is less potent than other local anaesthetics, and both active constituents of Co-phenylcaine have a bitter taste. It was hypothesised that a combination spray containing tetracaine and oxymetazoline would both offer more potent topical anaesthesia and have a better taste. METHODS: Four anaesthetic-decongestant nasal sprays were tested in 10 healthy participants (Co-phenylcaine, and tetracaine 0.5%, 1% and 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%). Sensory thresholds were sequentially measured at the head of the inferior turbinate using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments over the following hour. Participants also rated taste on a Likert-style scale, and reported whether they experienced subjective numbness of the maxillary teeth. RESULTS: A median peak sensory threshold of 60 g (the maximum tested) was observed with Co-phenylcaine, but this threshold was exceeded by all the tetracaine-based sprays. Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% had a significantly more rapid onset than Co-phenylcaine (4 min vs. 6 min, p < 0.05) and a longer duration of action. Eight participants reported dental numbness after administration of tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%, but only one participant after Co-phenylcaine. Tetracaine-based sprays were generally perceived to taste less unpleasant than Co-phenylcaine. CONCLUSION: Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% is a more potent and rapidly acting anaesthetic-decongestant spray than Co-phenylcaine, with a longer duration of action.

Treatment of depression in the first primary care consultation: A qualitative study.

Introduction: The first primary care consultation for patients with depression can have long-term consequences for patients, but little is known about treatment decisions at this visit. The aim of this study was to explore the treatment of patients presenting in primary care with a new episode of depression and the drivers behind GPs' treatment decisions at the initial consultation. Materials and Methods: A random sample of GPs in Auckland was invited to participate. A qualitative study was undertaken using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a general inductive approach. Results: Twenty-one GPs were interviewed. We identified three themes as drivers of treatment decisions at the first visit: characteristics of GPs, characteristics of patients, and characteristics of treatment options. Drivers for prescribing were severe depression and time constraints. A driver for non-pharmacological treatment was a strong doctor-patient relationship. Limited time, skill, and training were associated with low confidence using talking therapies. Access to counseling was reported as poor. There was a very wide range of approaches taken. GPs described preferring antidepressants less and talking therapies more with Maori patients. Behavioral activation was used least despite its ease of use and it being one of the most effective treatments for depression. Conclusion: Treatment of depression at the first visit varies widely between practitioners. GPs report multiple barriers to the provision of talking therapies. A move to a more standardized approach may lead to more equitable care. This is the first study to report findings about the initial primary care consultation for depression.