Search

The following is an historically-based analysis of a new phenomenon affecting rural schools and communities: animal confinement operations. A contrast is made between "enclosure" as it unfolded in England a few centuries ago and the way animal concentration units constitute a second, "modern" form of enclosure today. In both instances, as this essay demonstrates, rural populations have suffered markedly. (Contains 5 footnotes.)

Background & Aims: Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is among the most common causes of acute liver failure in the United States, accounting for approximately 13% of cases. A prospective study was begun in 2003 to recruit patients with suspected DILI and create a repository of biological samples for analysis. This report summarizes the causes, clinical features, and outcomes from the first 300 patients enrolled. Methods: Patients with suspected DILI were enrolled based on predefined criteria and followed up for at least 6 months. Patients with acetaminophen liver injury were excluded. Results: DILI was caused by a single prescription medication in 73% of the cases, by dietary supplements in 9%, and by multiple agents in 18%. More than 100 different agents were associated with DILI; antimicrobials (45.5%) and central nervous system agents (15%) were the most common. Causality was considered to be definite in 32%, highly likely in 41%, probable in 14%, possible in 10%, and unlikely in 3%. Acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was the final diagnosis in 4 of 9 unlikely cases. Six months after enrollment, 14% of patients had persistent laboratory abnormalities and 8% had died; the cause of death was liver related in 44%. Conclusions: DILI is caused by a wide array of medications, herbal supplements, and dietary supplements. Antibiotics are the single largest class of agents that cause DILI. Acute HCV infection should be excluded in patients with suspected DILI by HCV RNA testing. The overall 6-month mortality was 8%, but the majority of deaths were not liver related. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Racial, ethnic, and sex-based healthcare disparities have been documented for the past several decades. Nonetheless, disparities remain firmly entrenched in our care delivery systems, with multiple contributing factors, including patient interactions with care providers, systemic barriers to access, and socioeconomic determinants of health. Interventional radiology is also subject to these drivers of health inequity. In this review, documented disparities for the most common conditions being addressed by interventional radiologists are summarized; their magnitude is quantified where relevant, and underlying drivers are identified. Specific examples are provided to illustrate how medical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors interact to produce unequal outcomes. By outlining known disparities and common contributors, this review aims to motivate future efforts to mitigate them., (Copyright © 2022 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To study the relation between reported drug performance in published trials and support of the trials by the manufacturer of the drug under evaluation, we studied a sample of trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used in the treatment of arthritis., Methods: All randomized control trials of NSAIDs published between September 1987 and May 1990 identified by MEDLINE were reviewed. If an article met the following criteria (n = 61), it was selected: trials involving adult patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 180), use of nonsalicylate NSAIDs marketed in the United States (n = 101), randomized control trial (n = 81), duration of the trial 4 or more days (n = 78), and use of an efficacy outcome measure (n = 61). Reviewers, "blinded" to manufacturer status, evaluated the narrative interpretation of results and extracted numeric data on efficacy and toxicity. Manufacturer-associated trials were defined as those that acknowledged an association with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Because of the scarcity of non-manufacturer-associated trials (n = 9), we report only on the manufacturer-associated articles., Results: Fifty-two publications (85.2%) representing 56 trials were associated with a manufacturer. The manufacturer-associated drug was reported as comparable with (71.4%) or superior to (28.6%) the comparison drug in all 56 trials. These narrative claims of superiority were usually justified with trial data. Of the trials identifying one drug as less toxic (n = 22), the manufacturer-associated drug's safety was reported as superior to the comparison drug in 86.4% of cases. Justification for the narrative interpretation of the trial findings regarding less toxicity was provided in only 12 (54.5%) of 22 trials., Conclusion: The manufacturer-associated NSAID is almost always reported as being equal or superior in efficacy and toxicity to the comparison drug. These claims of superiority, especially in regard to side effect profiles, are often not supported by trial data. These data raise concerns about selective publication or biased interpretation of results in manufacturer-associated trials.