Comparing Visual and Digital Counting Methods to Estimate Horn Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Populations on Cattle.

Horn fly, Haematobia irritans (L.), population estimates often serve as a diagnostic tool prior to implementing managerial control options available to researchers and producers. Digital photographs taken of cattle infested with horn flies have been suggested to provide similarly accurate population estimates as compared with traditional visual assessments. The objective of this study was to compare visual and digital techniques used to estimate horn fly populations. Sixteen Angus × Hereford yearling heifers artificially infested with four levels of horn flies (Low = 0 flies; Medium = 250 flies; High = 500 flies; Extreme = 1,000 flies) were evaluated. Population estimates were taken visually by experienced (VE1) and inexperienced (VE2) technicians, as well as digitally, with photographs taken on both lateral sides of the south-facing animal. Horn flies were counted in both photographs and combined (CDC) for full body estimates. In addition, the highest photographed side population times two (DDC) was used for comparison. Estimations were made at 0700, 1200, and 1900 h the day following infestation. A time of observation × infestation level interaction (P < 0.01) was detected. On average, VE1 population estimates were greater (P < 0.01) than any other counting method observed. Morning estimates were greater (P < 0.05) than those taken at noon or in the early evening regardless of counting method. Further research regarding the standardization of these techniques to ensure more accurate population estimates is needed before these methods can be incorporated into integrated pest management programs.

[Sensitization to chymopapain in patients treated with chemonucleolysis]. / Sensibilización a la quimopapaína en pacientes tratados con quimionucleólisis.

BACKGROUND: Chemonucleolysis (intradisk administration of chymopapain) is a procedure to treat intervertebral disk hernia. Recently, its use has been questioned due to the development of anaphylactic reactions in patients sensitized to chymopapain. The prevalence of sensitization to chymopapain has been evaluated before and after chemonucleolysis, and the possibility to establish risk groups through the allergy history has been assessed. METHODS: 104 consecutive patients who were candidates to chemonucleolysis were evaluated with an allergy questionnaire, cutaneous tests to aeroallergens and to chymopapain, and chymopapain-specific IgE. The two latter tests were repeated one month after chemonucleolysis. RESULTS: Only 2 patients (1.9%) showed evidence of chymopapain sensitization before the procedure. Sixteen patients (16%) were sensitized after chemonucleolysis. None of the possible risk factors evaluated in the allergy questionnaire (atopy, drug allergy, papaya occupational exposure or use of additives, cosmetics or drugs containing papaine) were significantly related with the risk of sensitization to chymopapain. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chymopapain sensitization in the study group was low. The allergy questionnaire (atopy, drug allergy, use of papaya, occupational history did not identify sensitized patients. Cutaneous tests and specific IgE are the best method to detect chymopapain sensitization. The remarkable rate of sensitization after chemonucleolysis may partially limit the usefulness of the procedure.

Coronary artery spasm and acute myocardial infarction in naproxen-associated anaphylactic reaction.

We present the case of a 43-year-old man who suffered an acute myocardial infarction after oral administration of 250 mg of naproxen, prescribed as antiinflammatory-analgesic agent after tooth extraction. Both intradermal skin test and human basophil degranulation test were positive to naproxen. These findings suggest a naproxen-associated anaphylactic reaction with concomitant coronary artery spasm and posteroinferior infarction, a clinical event previously not reported with the use of this drug.