552 mg/L and for itraconazole from 0.019 mg/L to 0.11 mg/L. All the analyzed strains isolated from patients exhibited susceptibility to caspofungin; 5 strains of Candida albicans (8.06%) proved to be resistant to itraconazole. The MIC values for caspofungin ranged from 0.114 mg/L to 1.26 mg/L and for itraconazole from 0.012 mg/L to 16.1 mg/L.
Conclusions: 1. All the studied pattern strains see more are susceptible to the examined drugs; all those isolated from patients show susceptibility to caspofungin; some Candida albicans strains (8.06%) are resistant to itraconazole. 2. The
mean MIC values calculated from the activity curves are 0.426 mg/L for caspofungin and 1.0245 mg/L for itraconazole. 3. The mean MIC values calculated for caspofungin are lower than for itraconazole in the case of Candida albicans, C. glabrata and C. tropicalis. Having compared the influence of the drugs on C. famata, C. lusitaniae, C. parapsilosis and C. ciferri we proved there are statistically significant differences (0.0046>p<0.044).”
“Background Usage of herbal and complimentary
LY411575 medicines by patients presenting for procedures that require the use of anaesthetic agents is common.
Aims To determine the prevalence of herbal medication usage among female patients attending for assisted reproduction procedures involving the use of sedative or hypnotic agents.
Methods Questionnaire-based survey carried out over a 6-month period from January to July 2007.
Results Forty-six percent of patients admitted Selleck NVP-LDE225 regular use of herbal medications, with 38% of patients having taken herbal preparations in the 3-month period prior to their attendance for treatment. No patient taking herbal preparations had discussed the use of these products with the attending anaesthetist or fertility specialist prior to attending for the procedure.
Conclusions The usage of herbal medications with potential for serious adverse effects is high in this unique patient population. Education of both healthcare providers and patients is indicated.”
“AimRecent studies suggest that misoprostol may be more effective than dinoprostone
in pregnant women with unfavorable cervix. The objective here is to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction, including incidence of cesarean section, vaginal delivery rate within 24h, uterine hyperstimulation, tachysystole, oxytocin augmentation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, and Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 and 5min.
MethodsDatabases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to July 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone in women with singleton pregnancy, intact membranes and unfavorable cervix (Bishop’s <6) were included. Pooled relative risk, mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.