Management of asthma in patients supervised by primary care physicians or by specialists.

French asthma patients may be supervised by general practitioners (GPs) and/or specialists. Therefore, this study examined asthma management in patients exclusively supervised by specialists (SPE), GPs, (GP) and both (GP+SPE group), and compared the findings. Asthma patients were consecutively recruited in 348 pharmacies. Each patient completed a questionnaire providing data on personal characteristics, asthma management, perception of disease and asthma supervision. Asthma control was measured using the Asthma Control Test. Questionnaires were linked to computerised records of medications which had been dispensed before inclusion in the study. From the 1,256 patients (mean age = 36.1 yrs, 54.3% females), 11.4, 36.6, and 52.0% were placed in the SPE, GP, and GP+SPE groups, respectively. During the previous 4 weeks, most patients in the SPE group were properly controlled (52.2 versus 26.4 and 21.5% in GP and GP+SPE groups, respectively). The SPE group made more use of fixed combinations of long-acting beta agonist and inhaled corticosteroid, while receiving less short-acting beta agonists, antitussives and antibiotics. Striking differences in symptoms and asthma management were observed according to the type of asthma supervision. The current results strongly support the need to improve the management of asthma in primary care, and the coordination of care between general practitioners and specialists.     

Lack of a rationale for the Task Force recommendation regarding re-administration of streptokinase

Dear Sir In the recently published Task force report, under section ‘Fibrinolyticregimens’, the authors recommend not to re-administerstreptokinase for at least 10 years. The reference supportingthis statement is Ref. 51. After evaluating this paper and lookinginto the literature my comments     

The role of intraoperative monitoring of oculomotor and trochlear nuclei -safe entry zone to tegmental lesions.

OBJECTIVE: A safe entry zone to tegmental lesions was identified based on intraoperative electrophysiological findings, the compound muscle action potentials (CMAP) from the extraocular muscles, and anatomic considerations. This entry zone is bordered caudally by the intramesencephalic path of the trochlear, laterally by the spinothalamic tract, and rostrally by the caudal margin of the brachium of the superior colliculus. METHODS: Four intrinsic midbrain lesions were operated upon via the safe entry zone using the infratentorial paramedian supracerebellar approach. All lesions involved the tegmentum and included an anaplastic astrocytoma, a metastatic brain tumor, a radiation necrosis, and a cavernous angioma. CMAP were bilaterally monitored from the inferior recti (for oculomotor function) and superior oblique (for trochlear nerve function) muscles. RESULTS: In three of four cases, CMAP related to the oculomotor nerve were obtained upon stimulation at the cavity wall after removal of the tumor. Stimulation at the surface of the quadrigeminal plate, however, did not cause any CMAP response. Using this monitoring as an indicator, the lesions were totally removed. CONCLUSIONS: In the surgery of tegmental lesions, CMAP monitoring from extraocular muscles is particularly helpful to prevent damage to crucial neural structures during removal of intrinsic lesions, but less so to select the site of the medullary incision. The approach via the lateral part of the colliculi is considered to be a safe route to approach the tegmental lesions.