ERMANCIA: Epidemiology of Stroke in Martinique, French West Indies: Part I: methodology, incidence, and 30-day case fatality rate.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ERMANCIA (Etude Réalisée en Martinique et Centrée sur l'Incidence de Accidents vasculaires cérébraux) study was designed to provide the first comparable epidemiological data on stroke in a black Caribbean population. METHODS: ERMANCIA was a prospective community-based study performed in Martinique (French West Indies) from June 1, 1998, to May 31, 1999. The black at-risk population was approximately 360 000. Multiple sources were used to identify hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients with first-ever stroke. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty patients (285 men and 295 women; mean+/-SD age, 71.2+/-14 years) suffered from a first-ever in a lifetime stroke, yielding a crude annual incidence of 164/100 000 per year (95% CI, 151 to 177). The rates adjusted by age and sex to the French population (1999 census) and to the European population were 202 (95% CI, 185 to 218) and 151 (95% CI, 139 to 164), respectively. Thirty-eight patients (6.5%) were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the stroke; 92.8% had CT scan. Pathological types of strokes were infarction (79.8%, including 23% of lacunar strokes), intracerebral hemorrhage (14.3%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (3.4%), and undetermined (2.4%). The main risk factors for stroke were hypertension (69.1%) and diabetes (29.5%). The 30-day case fatality rate was 19.3% (15.8% for cerebral infarction and 37.3% for intracerebral hemorrhage). CONCLUSIONS: In Martinique, the ERMANCIA population-based study showed a high stroke incidence and a high prevalence of hypertension and diabetes in the stroke population compared with those observed in continental France. Epidemiological data on stroke in African Caribbeans from Martinique are comparable to those reported in blacks from the United States and United Kingdom.

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results of conservative and radical treatments in 716 patients.

Until now, less than 5% of the patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been enrolled in clinical trials. Consequently, we have analysed the results of "current practice" among 716 women treated in eight French Cancer Centres from 1985 to 1992: 441 cases (61.6%) corresponded to impalpable lesions, 92 had a clinical size of less than or equal to 2 cm and 70 from 2 to 5 cm; in 113 cases, the size was unspecified. Median age was 53.2 years (range: 21-87 years). 145 patients underwent mastectomy (RS) and 571 conservative surgery (CS) without (136) or with (435) radiotherapy (CS+RT). The mean histological tumour sizes in these three groups were 25.6, 8.2, 14.8 mm, respectively (P<0.0001). After a 91-month median follow-up, local recurrence (LR) rates were 2.1, 30.1 and 13.8% in the RS, CS and CS +RT groups, respectively (P=0.001); LR were invasive in 59 and 60% in the CS and CS+RT groups, respectively. In these groups, the 8-year LR rates were 31.3 and 13.9%, respectively (P=0.0001). Nodal recurrence occurred in 3.7 and 1.8% in the CS and CS+RT groups. Metastases rates were 1.4, 4.4 and 1.4% in the RS, CS and CS+RT groups. Among the 60 cases of invasive LR, in CS and CS+RT groups 19% developed metastases. After multivariate analysis, we did not identify any significant LR risk factor in the CS group, whereas young age (<40 years) and incomplete excision were significant in the CS+RT group (P=0.012 and P=0.02, respectively).

[African Quin: results of a pragmatic study on the diagnosis of uncomplicated malaria attacks and treatment using quinine in French-speaking Africa]. / African-Quin: résultats d'une étude pragmatique sur le diagnostic de l'accès palustre simple et son traitement par la quinine en Afrique francophone.

Management and treatment of disease do not always conform with official recommendations. African-quin is a pragmatic multicentric study carried out in 13 African countries to evaluate non-conformities in the management and treatment of uncomplicated malarial attacks using quinine. This study involved a total of 3,981 patients with documented uncomplicated malarial attacks diagnosed by 500 clinical physicians. Physicians were supplied with quinine tablets (125 mg et 500 mg Quinimax containing 125 mg and 500 mg of quinine base respectively) to allow treatment according to the dose recommendations of the WHO (24 mg/kg/day of quinine base). In 38% of the 3,981 patients, diagnosis was based on clinical findings without measurement of parasitemia. The median dose of Quinimax was 15.4 mg/kg/day in 3 intakes in 67% and 2 intakes in 33%. The dose was 23.2 mg/kg/day for patients under 12 years and 14.7 mg/kg/day for patients over 18 years (p < 0.001). Treatment lasted for at least 5 days in 62% of patients. Fever control was achieved within a mean delay of 3.9 +/- 1.5 days and was followed by a rapid decrease in clinical symptoms. Clinical control (normal temperature) was obtained in 96% of patients. The dose of Quinimax was the same regardless of whether treatment was a success or failure. The results of this study demonstrate the gap between official recommendations and everyday clinical practice and raise several important questions concerning the basis for decision-making, treatment goals, drug dosage, and treatment duration.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and ebastine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Cetirizine and ebastine are two second-generation histamine H1 antagonists undergoing evaluation for treatment of perennial rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy and safety of once daily cetirizine 10 mg were compared with ebastine 10 mg in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter study. METHOD: Two hundred fourteen patients (120 females, 94 males, aged 17 to 70 years, mean 31.2 years) were selected on the basis of perennial allergic rhinitis history, positive skin test for perennial allergens and a minimum rhinitis symptom score of 6/12. Patients recorded nasal symptom severity (nasal stuffiness, nasal discharge, sneezing, and itching) once daily on diary cards using a rating scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Clinicians made an overall evaluation after 4 weeks of treatment. An intent-to-treat-analysis was performed comparing cetirizine (106 patients) and ebastine groups (108 patients). RESULTS: The individual and total baseline symptom scores were comparable in both treatment groups. During the first week, the percentage mean decrease in the total nasal symptom score from baseline (sum of nasal stuffiness, discharge, sneezing, and itching) was significantly higher for cetirizine 46.2% than for ebastine 32.8% (P = .037). After 4 weeks of treatment, total symptom score improvement was 53.7% for cetirizine and 44.7% for ebastine (P = .12), and the clinician's overall evaluation showed that the percentage of symptom-free patients was significantly higher for cetirizine 17.8% than for ebastine 6.9% (P = .02). Cetirizine also significantly improved nasal stuffiness. An associated antiinflammatory effect is suggested. Commonly reported drug-related side effects were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that both antihistamines, cetirizine 10 mg and ebastine 10 mg once a day, improved symptom scores of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Cetirizine, however, provided faster improvement and total relief in a greater number of patients after 4 weeks.

Compliance and antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine compared with nifedipine slow-release.

Poor compliance is a principal cause of treatment failure in hypertensive patients. Once-daily dosing improves compliance, but 24-h antihypertensive activity should be provided. The compliance, efficacy, and safety of amlodipine and nifedipine slow-release (SR) were compared in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension recruited among 24 centers in France. After a 2-week washout period, 103 patients were randomized to 12 weeks of 5 to 10 amlodipine mg once daily (n = 55) or 20 mg nifedipine SR twice daily (n = 48). Compliance was calculated by electronic drug monitoring. Efficacy was measured by ambulatory and casual BP recordings. Patients receiving amlodipine demonstrated better compliance than patients receiving nifedipine SR with respect to compliance index (the total number of doses taken divided by the total number of doses prescribed, expressed as a percentage; 98.3% v 87%; P < .0001), days on which the correct number of doses were taken (92.5% v 74.8%; P < .0001), and prescribed doses taken on schedule (88.7% v 71.6%; P < .0001). Absolute and relative therapeutic coverage were higher in patients receiving amlodipine than nifedipine SR (P < .0001). Mean SBP and DBP decreased equally in both groups, although amlodipine offered better BP control compared with nifedipine SR at specific times of day. Fewer patients had high nocturnal SBP with amlodipine (39.3%) than nifedipine SR (71.4%; P = .042). Adverse events and treatment withdrawals occurred less frequently in amlodipine-treated patients than in nifedipine SR-treated patients. Amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily provides improved compliance, better 24-h BP control, and fewer adverse events than 20 mg nifedipine SR twice daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.