The diagnostic value of urinary transferrin compared to serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) and prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) in patients with prostatic cancer.

Urinary transferrin, serum prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) and prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations were measured in patients with prostatic cancer, prostatitis, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and in a control group. In contrast to recently published data it is concluded that urinary transferrin is not suitable as a tumor marker for prostatic carcinoma. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were constructed to compare the diagnostic value of the different tests at different cutoff values. Sensitivity and specificity of the urinary marker are extremely low compared to the serum markers PAP and especially PSA, making the former not suitable as an additional marker.

Is Recormon less painful than Eprex after subcutaneous administration?

In this study, we examined the differences in pain score after subcutaneous injection of the epoetin preparations Eprex and Recormon. Patients (n = 30) received 5 injections Eprex and 5 injections Recormon in a randomized double-blind sequence. 10 Min after receiving the injection the patient was asked to complete a visual and a verbal analogue scale and two descriptive scales. The results of 25 patients were used for statistical evaluation. The overall results indicate that there are significantly more patients reporting pain after subcutaneous injection of Eprex than after Recormon (11 versus 2 patients, p less than 0.05; McNemar test). 12 Patients reported no differences in pain. 43 Out of 123 injections Eprex and 69 out of 125 injections Recormon caused no pain (p less than 0.01; chi 2 9.455). For 4 patients Recormon was significantly (p less than 0.05) less painful than Eprex. It can be concluded that Recormon may be a less painful alternative for individual patients reporting pain after subcutaneous injection of Eprex.

Absorption of clonazepam after intranasal and buccal administration.

Serum concentrations of clonazepam after intranasal, buccal and intravenous administration were compared in a cross-over study in seven healthy male volunteers. Each subject received a 1.0 mg dose of clonazepam intranasally and buccally and 0.5 mg intravenously. A Cmax of 6.3 +/- 1.0 ng ml-1 (mean; +/- s.d.) was measured 17.5 min (median) (range 15-20 min) after intranasal administration. A second peak (4.6 +/- 1.3 ng ml-1) caused by oral absorption was seen after 1.7 h (range 0.7-3.0 h). After buccal administration a Cmax of 6.0 +/- 3.0 ng ml-1 was measured after 50 min (range 30-90 min) with a second peak of 6.5 +/- 2.5 ng ml-1 after 3.0 h (range 2.0-4.0 h). Two minutes after i.v. injection of 0.5 mg clonazepam the serum concentration was 27 +/- 18 ng ml-1. It is concluded that intranasal clonazepam is an alternative to buccal administration. However, the Cmax of clonazepam after intranasal administration is not high enough to recommend the intranasal route as an alternative to intravenous injection.