Home  About us  Contact
 

Treatment Success Rates (treatment + success_rate)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences85%

Selected Abstracts

Dose determination and confirmation of a long-acting formulation of ceftiofur (ceftiofur crystalline free acid) administered subcutaneously for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 3 2002
B. HIBBARD
Hibbard, B., Robb, E. J., Chester Jr., S. T., Dame, K. J., Boucher, J. F., Alaniz, G. R. Dose determination and confirmation of a long-acting formulation of Ceftiofur (Ceftiofur crystalline free acid) administered subcutaneously for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease. J. vet. Pharmacol. Therap.25, 175,180. The objective of this work was to determine and confirm an effective dose of ceftiofur crystalline free acid sterile oil suspension (CCFA-SS, 100 mg ceftiofur equivalents (CE)/mL], a long-acting single-administration ceftiofur formulation, for the treatment of the bacterial component of bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Study 1 was a dose determination study that used an intratracheal Mannheimia haemolytica (Pasteurella haemolytica) challenge model to evaluate single-administration doses of CCFA-SS at 0.0, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4 or 5.5 mg CE/kg body weight (BW) for the treatment of BRD. Data from this study were used to select doses for field testing in three multi-location clinical studies. In Study 2, the efficacy of a single administration dose of CCFA-SS at 4.4 mg CE/kg BW was compared with a negative control for the treatment of naturally occurring BRD in feedlot cattle. Treatments were administered when uniform clinical signs of BRD were present. Study 3 used a design similar to Study 2, and compared single-administration doses of CCFA-SS at 3.0 or 4.4 mg CE/kg BW with the positive-control tilmicosin (Micotil® 300 Injection, Elanco Animal Health) at 10 mg/kg BW. Study 4 compared the efficacy of single doses of CCFA-SS of 1.1,8.8 mg CE/kg BW with tilmicosin at 10 mg/kg BW. A total of 1176 cattle were included in these clinical studies. In Study 1, a dose of 4.55 mg CE/kg BW was determined to be effective. This was rounded to 4.4 mg CE/kg for field testing. In Study 2, a single dose of CCFA-SS at 4.4 mg CE/kg BW had a higher treatment success rate on day 14 (61%) than negative controls (26%, P < 0.01). However, in Study 3 this dose was judged to be at the beginning of an efficacious dose range for the treatment of BRD when compared with tilmicosin. In Study 4, day 28 treatment success rates were higher for CCFA-SS at 4.4,8.8 CE/kg BW than for tilmicosin (P=0.002) or the noneffective CCFA-SS dose of 1.1 mg CE/kg BW (P < 0.001). Based on decision criteria for Study 4, the effective dose was determined to be 4.4,5.5 mg CE/kg BW. These clinical studies demonstrated that a single dose of CCFA-SS (100 mg CE/mL) administered subcutaneously (s.c.) in the neck at 4.4,5.5 mg CE/kg BW is an effective treatment for BRD in feedlot cattle. However, this route of administration is no longer being considered for this formulation because of the ceftiofur residues that are present at the injection site for extended periods of time. [source]

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2009
M Del Fabbro
Background:, After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics, involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a continuous search for enhancing the visualization of the surgical field. It would be interesting to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices like surgical microscope, endoscope and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient, in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Objectives:, The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed at comparing among them the different magnification devices used in endodontics (microscope, endoscope, magnifying loupes). Search strategy:, The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched with appropriate search strategies. Handsearching included nine dental journals. The bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and relevant articles were checked for identifying studies outside the handsearched journals. Seven manufacturers of instruments in the field of endodontics and/or endodontic surgery, as well as the authors of the identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were contacted in order to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. There were no language restrictions. The last electronic search was conducted on 2nd April 2009, and the last handsearching was undertaken on 31st January 2009. Selection criteria:, All randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with or without using one or more types of magnification device, as well as randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy were considered. Data collection and analysis:, Screening of studies and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. Main results:, No trial could be included in the present review. All of the prospective trials that were identified, all dealing with endodontic surgery, had to be excluded for various reasons. Only one RCT was identified comparing three magnificators (magnifying loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) in endodontic surgery. No RCT was found that compared the outcome of endodontic therapy using or without using a given magnification device. Authors' conclusions:, No objective conclusion can be drawn from the results of this review as no article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term RCTs with large sample size. Technical advantages of magnificators have been widely reported in low evidence level studies, but they should be systematically addressed to know if there can be the clinical indication for using a given magnification device for specific clinical situations, such as for molar teeth, or if they can all be used interchangeably. Well-designed RCTs should also be performed to determine the true difference in terms of treatment success rates between using or not using a magnification device in both conventional and surgical endodontic treatment, if any exist. Plain language summary:, Magnification devices for endodontic therapy. There are no data to draw a sound conclusion on the effect of adopting either a microscope, an endoscope, or magnifying loupes for better visualization in endodontic therapy, in terms of clinical outcomes. Though the use of magnification devices has often been associated with technical advantages for the operator and with an improved management of the root canal due to a better visualization of the operative field, it still has to be demonstrated that their use may lead to an improved treatment success rate. More long-term well-designed randomized trials with a large sample size are urgently needed to address the issues of the present review. [source]

Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 6 2009
German O. Gallucci
Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival rate, success rate and primary complications associated with mandibular fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers over 5 years of function. Material and methods: In this prospective multi-center trial, 45 fully edentulous patients were treated with implant-supported mandibular hybrid prostheses with distal extension cantilevers. Data were collected at numerous time points, including but not limited to: implant placement, abutment placement, final prosthesis delivery, 3 months and 5 years post-loading. Biological, implant and prosthetic parameters defining survival and success were evaluated for each implant including: sulcus bleeding ndex (SBI) at four sites per implant, width of facial and lingual keratinized gingiva (mm), peri-implant mucosal level (mid-facial from the top of the implant collar, measured in mm), modified plaque index (MPI) at four sites per implant, mobility and peri-implant radiolucency. Survival was defined as implants or prostheses that did not need to be replaced. Success rate was defined as meeting well-established criteria that were chosen to indicate healthy peri-implant mucosa osseointegration, prostheses success and complications. Results: A total of 237 implants in 45 completely edentulous patients were included in the study. In each patient, four to six implants were placed to support hybrid prostheses with distal cantilevers. Cantilevers ranged in length from 6 to 21 mm, with an average length of 15.6 mm. The ages of the patients ranged from 34 to 78 with a mean age of 59.5 years. The survival rate of implants was 100% (237/237) and for prostheses 95.5% (43/45). The overall treatment success rate was calculated as 86.7% (39/45). Of the six patients that have not met the criteria for success, two patients required replacement of the entire prosthesis and four patients presented >four complications events. Conclusion: Fixed implant-supported rehabilitation with distal cantilever resulted in a reliable treatment modality over the 5-year observation period. Although biological parameters of MPI, SBI, keratinized tissue and peri-implant mucosal levels showed statistically significant differences over time, the mean values for each patient remained within the normal limits of oral health. Complications were categorized as biological or technical. The majority of complications were technical complications (54/79) and of these most involved fracture of the acrylic teeth and base (20/54). While the survival rate was 100% for implants and 95.5% for prostheses, the application of strict criteria for treatment success resulted in an overall treatment success rate of 86.7%. [source]

Patients' perceptions of information and support received from the nurse specialist during HCV treatment

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 19-20 2010
Anne Grogan
Aim., To identify patients' perceptions of support received from the nurse specialist during Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. Background., HCV is a worldwide health problem. However, it is a treatable disease and treatment success rates are high. Unfortunately, treatment comes with a multitude of adverse side effects and patients require informational and psychological support from specialist nurses while on treatment. To date, there is little nursing research on support received from this specialist nursing care. Design., This study used a quantitative descriptive design. Method., A 59-item questionnaire collected data from 106 patients with a diagnosis of HCV attending a HCV outpatient clinic. Results., Overall, patients were very satisfied with support received. Advice on contraception was well received. However, many patients did not feel supported with regard to advice on sleep management. There were no statistically significant differences between overall satisfaction and gender, age, genotype and risk factor. However, there were significant correlations found between support received and reported genotype. Those patients presenting with genotype 1, who are mostly infected through blood or blood products, indicated that they require more support in relation to information on side effects of treatment, quality of life and support groups. Specific approaches to support and advice for this cohort may need to be incorporated into current services. Conclusion., Results of this study reinforce the need for the ongoing use of specialist nurse services and development of this service where no such facilities exist. In addition, the service may need to further recognise and support the information and psychological needs of patients with differing modes of HCV infection. Relevance to clinical practice., Findings provide information to practising nurse specialists about patient's views of information and support received from nurse specialists in HCV treatment centres and identify where deficits exist. [source]

Dose determination and confirmation of a long-acting formulation of ceftiofur (ceftiofur crystalline free acid) administered subcutaneously for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 3 2002
B. HIBBARD
Hibbard, B., Robb, E. J., Chester Jr., S. T., Dame, K. J., Boucher, J. F., Alaniz, G. R. Dose determination and confirmation of a long-acting formulation of Ceftiofur (Ceftiofur crystalline free acid) administered subcutaneously for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease. J. vet. Pharmacol. Therap.25, 175,180. The objective of this work was to determine and confirm an effective dose of ceftiofur crystalline free acid sterile oil suspension (CCFA-SS, 100 mg ceftiofur equivalents (CE)/mL], a long-acting single-administration ceftiofur formulation, for the treatment of the bacterial component of bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Study 1 was a dose determination study that used an intratracheal Mannheimia haemolytica (Pasteurella haemolytica) challenge model to evaluate single-administration doses of CCFA-SS at 0.0, 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.4 or 5.5 mg CE/kg body weight (BW) for the treatment of BRD. Data from this study were used to select doses for field testing in three multi-location clinical studies. In Study 2, the efficacy of a single administration dose of CCFA-SS at 4.4 mg CE/kg BW was compared with a negative control for the treatment of naturally occurring BRD in feedlot cattle. Treatments were administered when uniform clinical signs of BRD were present. Study 3 used a design similar to Study 2, and compared single-administration doses of CCFA-SS at 3.0 or 4.4 mg CE/kg BW with the positive-control tilmicosin (Micotil® 300 Injection, Elanco Animal Health) at 10 mg/kg BW. Study 4 compared the efficacy of single doses of CCFA-SS of 1.1,8.8 mg CE/kg BW with tilmicosin at 10 mg/kg BW. A total of 1176 cattle were included in these clinical studies. In Study 1, a dose of 4.55 mg CE/kg BW was determined to be effective. This was rounded to 4.4 mg CE/kg for field testing. In Study 2, a single dose of CCFA-SS at 4.4 mg CE/kg BW had a higher treatment success rate on day 14 (61%) than negative controls (26%, P < 0.01). However, in Study 3 this dose was judged to be at the beginning of an efficacious dose range for the treatment of BRD when compared with tilmicosin. In Study 4, day 28 treatment success rates were higher for CCFA-SS at 4.4,8.8 CE/kg BW than for tilmicosin (P=0.002) or the noneffective CCFA-SS dose of 1.1 mg CE/kg BW (P < 0.001). Based on decision criteria for Study 4, the effective dose was determined to be 4.4,5.5 mg CE/kg BW. These clinical studies demonstrated that a single dose of CCFA-SS (100 mg CE/mL) administered subcutaneously (s.c.) in the neck at 4.4,5.5 mg CE/kg BW is an effective treatment for BRD in feedlot cattle. However, this route of administration is no longer being considered for this formulation because of the ceftiofur residues that are present at the injection site for extended periods of time. [source]

A COMPARISON OF THE IMPRECISE BETA CLASS, THE RANDOMIZED PLAY-THE-WINNER RULE AND THE TRIANGULAR TEST FOR CLINICAL TRIALS WITH BINARY RESPONSES

AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF STATISTICS, Issue 1 2007
Lyle C. Gurrin
Summary This paper develops clinical trial designs that compare two treatments with a binary outcome. The imprecise beta class (IBC), a class of beta probability distributions, is used in a robust Bayesian framework to calculate posterior upper and lower expectations for treatment success rates using accumulating data. The posterior expectation for the difference in success rates can be used to decide when there is sufficient evidence for randomized treatment allocation to cease. This design is formally related to the randomized play-the-winner (RPW) design, an adaptive allocation scheme where randomization probabilities are updated sequentially to favour the treatment with the higher observed success rate. A connection is also made between the IBC and the sequential clinical trial design based on the triangular test. Theoretical and simulation results are presented to show that the expected sample sizes on the truly inferior arm are lower using the IBC compared with either the triangular test or the RPW design, and that the IBC performs well against established criteria involving error rates and the expected number of treatment failures. [source]

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2009
M Del Fabbro
Background:, After the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics, involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a continuous search for enhancing the visualization of the surgical field. It would be interesting to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices like surgical microscope, endoscope and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient, in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Objectives:, The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed at comparing among them the different magnification devices used in endodontics (microscope, endoscope, magnifying loupes). Search strategy:, The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched with appropriate search strategies. Handsearching included nine dental journals. The bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and relevant articles were checked for identifying studies outside the handsearched journals. Seven manufacturers of instruments in the field of endodontics and/or endodontic surgery, as well as the authors of the identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were contacted in order to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. There were no language restrictions. The last electronic search was conducted on 2nd April 2009, and the last handsearching was undertaken on 31st January 2009. Selection criteria:, All randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with or without using one or more types of magnification device, as well as randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy were considered. Data collection and analysis:, Screening of studies and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. Main results:, No trial could be included in the present review. All of the prospective trials that were identified, all dealing with endodontic surgery, had to be excluded for various reasons. Only one RCT was identified comparing three magnificators (magnifying loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) in endodontic surgery. No RCT was found that compared the outcome of endodontic therapy using or without using a given magnification device. Authors' conclusions:, No objective conclusion can be drawn from the results of this review as no article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term RCTs with large sample size. Technical advantages of magnificators have been widely reported in low evidence level studies, but they should be systematically addressed to know if there can be the clinical indication for using a given magnification device for specific clinical situations, such as for molar teeth, or if they can all be used interchangeably. Well-designed RCTs should also be performed to determine the true difference in terms of treatment success rates between using or not using a magnification device in both conventional and surgical endodontic treatment, if any exist. Plain language summary:, Magnification devices for endodontic therapy. There are no data to draw a sound conclusion on the effect of adopting either a microscope, an endoscope, or magnifying loupes for better visualization in endodontic therapy, in terms of clinical outcomes. Though the use of magnification devices has often been associated with technical advantages for the operator and with an improved management of the root canal due to a better visualization of the operative field, it still has to be demonstrated that their use may lead to an improved treatment success rate. More long-term well-designed randomized trials with a large sample size are urgently needed to address the issues of the present review. [source]