Treatment of Giardiasis after Nonresponse to Nitroimidazole

During January 2008–October 2013, a total of 12 cases of giardiasis at the Chaim Sheba and Shaare Zedek Medical Centers, Israel, did not respond to nitroimidazole; 83.3% were associated with travel and 33% with immunoglobulin deficiency. Among 110 published cases, the most effective treatment was quinacrine (efficacy 90%–100%), but its availability is limited.     

Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with chemically modified and conventional SLA implants: five‐year follow‐up

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological parameters of standard SLA surface implants compared to chemically modified hydrophilic SLActive implants in irradiated patients after the initial 12‐month loading period up to 5 years. Twenty patients with a mean age of 61·1 years were treated with dental implants after ablative surgery and radio‐chemotherapy of oral cancer. All patients were non‐smokers. The placement of 102 implants (50 SLA, 52 SLActive) was performed bilaterally according to a split‐mouth design. Mean crestal bone changes were evaluated using standardised orthopantomographies and clinical parameters. Data were analysed using a Kaplan–Meier curve, Mann–Whitney U‐test and two‐factorial non‐parametric analysis. The average observation period was 60 months. The amount of bone loss at the implant shoulder of SLA implants was mesial and distal 0·7 mm. The SLActive implants displayed a bone loss of mesial 0·6 mm as well as distal 0·7 mm after 5 years. Two SLA implants were lost before loading. One patient lost five implants due to recurrence of a tumour. The overall cumulative 12‐month, 3‐year and 5‐year survival rate of SLA implants was 92%, 80% and 75·8% and of SLActive implants 94·2%, 78·8% and 74·4%, respectively. Eighteen implants were considered lost because the patients had died. Sandblasted acid‐etched implants with or without a chemically modified surface can be used in irradiated patients with a high predictability of success. Lower implant survival rates in patients with irradiated oral cancer may be associated with systemic effects rather than peri‐implantitis.     

Research with youth of color in low-income communities: Strategies for recruiting and retaining participants

BackgroundYouth of color from low-income urban communities are crucial participants in research, as their involvement can shape effective, culturally responsive interventions and policy to promote youth health and well-being. These young people, however, are an often-neglected research population, due in part to perceived challenges associated with their inclusion as well as marginalized communities’ justifiable mistrust of research.ObjectivesBased on our experience conducting a school-based randomized intervention trial in Baltimore, Maryland, we present strategies for conducting research with low-income, urban youth of color. We discuss strategies in three domains: university-community partnership development, participant recruitment, and participant retention.MethodsWe reviewed partnership building and recruitment strategies employed by our team across four years of trial implementation and evaluated success of participant retention at our final survey timepoint.ResultsPartnership building was facilitated by selection of a study design that maximized benefits for all participants, promotion of capacity building at partner institutions, and attention to research staff hiring and training practices. Effective study recruitment strategies included personal contact with parents and close cooperation between school personnel and study staff. Providing incentives and collecting multiple types of participant contact information contributed to increased retention rates. On average, those who participated in the final survey timepoint were less likely to be male and Latinx and exhibited more favorable baseline mental health than those who did not, suggesting differential attrition based on youth characteristics.ConclusionsLessons learned from this school-based trial can be applied more broadly to research with low-income urban youth of color. Researchers should strive to maximize scientific rigor, minimize harm to vulnerable adolescents and their communities, promote positive research experiences for young people, and provide concrete benefits to those who participate.