Roxatidine versus ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcers: A randomized double-blind controlled multicentre study in Singapore

Roxatidine acetate, a new H₂ receptor antagonist, was compared with ranitidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcers in a double-blind multicentre study. Eighty-four patients with endoscopically proven duodenal ulcer were randomized to receive 150 mg roxatidine acetate or 300 mg ranitidine at bedtime. Repeat endoscopy was performed after 4 weeks (25–33 days) and if the ulcer had not healed, another endoscopy was performed after a further 4 weeks of treatment. Using per protocol analysis 73.6% of ulcers treated with roxatidine healed at 4 weeks compared to 72.2% of ulcers treated with ranitidine (P=NS). The healing rates at 8 weeks were 92% with roxatidine and 83.3% with ranitidine (P=NS). Using equivalence tests, the healing rate of roxatidine was found to be equivalent to that of ranitidine within a 20% region. Roxatidine users took significantly less antacids than ranitidine users (P < 0.05). There were no significant adverse effects due to roxatidine or ranitidine. Roxatidine is a safe effective drug in the treatment of duodenal ulcers with a healing rate comparable to that of ranitidine.     

Conjunctival Biopsy as an Aid in the Evaluation of the Patient with Suspected Sarcoidosis

Conjunctival biopsy is an underused but simple technique in the evaluation of the patient with sarcoidosis and occasionally other systemic diseases. In 55% of patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis from other sites, a blind conjunctival biopsy was positive. Bilateral conjunctival biopsies and the examination of multiple sections of each biopsy were essential to obtain this high of a yield. There was no relationship between an anterior uveitis and a positive conjunctival biopsy.     

Acute type B aortic dissection in elderly patients: clinical features, outcomes, and simple risk stratification rule

BACKGROUND: The clinical features and outcomes of elderly patients with acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) are less well known. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes and derive a simple risk stratification rule for elderly with ABAD. METHODS: We categorized 383 patients with ABAD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection into two strata (aged less than 70 years and aged 70 years or more) and compared their clinical features and in-hospital outcomes. Further, we developed a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify elderly with ABAD. RESULTS: Forty-two percent (161 of 383) of patients with ABAD were aged 70 years or more. Hypertension, diabetes, history of prior aortic aneurysm, and arteriosclerosis were more common in the elderly patients, whereas Marfan syndrome and cocaine abuse were less common. The in-hospital complication of hypotension/shock was more common among elderly, and malperfusion of a visceral organ less frequent among elderly patients. In-hospital mortality was higher in the elderly cohort compared with the younger patients (16% versus 10%, p = 0.07). A classification tree identified that elderly patients with hypotension/shock had the highest risk of death (56%). In absence of this, any branch vessel involvement was associated with the next highest mortality rate (28.6%) followed by presence of periaortic hematoma (10.5%). In contrast, elderly patients without any of these three risk factors had an extremely low mortality rate (1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights important differences between older and younger patients with ABAD in their clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes. We also propose a simple decision rule that allows stepwise risk-stratification in elderly patients with ABAD.