Effect of timolol versus pilocarpine on visual field progression in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies have been conducted linking decreasing intraocular pressure (IOP) to preservation of visual field. This investigation was conducted to determine if this link could be made and to compare the long-term effect of two ocular hypotensive agents on preservation of visual field. METHODS: In an observer-masked study, 189 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma received either timolol or pilocarpine by random allocation. The dose of antiglaucoma agent was increased from 0.25% to 0.5% twice daily for timolol or from 2% to 4% four times daily for pilocarpine if the initial IOP response was inadequate. After an on-treatment baseline, visual fields were followed every 4 months for 2 years using the Octopus program 32. RESULTS: Compared with timolol, significantly more patients receiving pilocarpine discontinued use because of inadequate IOP control (P < or = 0.01). By comparing the mean visual field scores, it can be seen that the pilocarpine group had a significantly worse score at all timepoints from month 4 to month 24. The pilocarpine group also had a greater mean number of test loci with decreased sensitivity of 5 or more decibels (dB) at all timepoints. The mean within-patient regression slope for timolol was 0.01 dB/month and for pilocarpine was -0.06 dB/month (P < 0.01). The study has shown that over a 2-year period, patients treated with pilocarpine 2% or 4% four times daily experienced a significantly greater visual field deterioration than that seen in patients receiving either 0.25% or 0.5% timolol twice daily. CONCLUSION: Although these data do not support a link between lowering of IOP and visual field preservation, treatment with timolol was associated with significantly less visual field loss than treatment with pilocarpine.     

A variety of environmentally persistent chemicals, including some phthalate plasticizers, are weakly estrogenic.

Sewage, a complex mixture of organic and inorganic chemicals, is considered to be a major source of environmental pollution. A random screen of 20 organic man-made chemicals present in liquid effluents revealed that half appeared able to interact with the estradiol receptor. This was demonstrated by their ability to inhibit binding of 17 beta-estradiol to the fish estrogen receptor. Further studies, using mammalian estrogen screens in vitro, revealed that the two phthalate esters butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP) and di-n-butylphthalate (DBP) and a food antioxidant, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) were estrogenic; however, they were all less estrogenic than the environmental estrogen octylphenol. Phthalate esters, used in the production of various plastics (including PVC), are among the most common industrial chemicals. Their ubiquity in the environment and tendency to bioconcentrate in animal fat are well known. Neither BBP nor DBP were able to act as antagonists, indicating that, in the presence of endogenous estrogens, their overall effect would be cumulative. Recently, it has been suggested that environmental estrogens may be etiological agents in several human diseases, including disorders of the male reproductive tract and breast and testicular cancers. The current finding that some phthalate compounds and some food additives are weakly estrogenic in vitro, needs to be supported by further studies on their effects in vivo before any conclusions can be made regarding their possible role in the development of these conditions.     

Criteria for evaluating the clinical and practical utility of models used by nurses

Arguably, nursing, like all health care disciplines, is an applied science. Essentially, this refers to the application of theory in order to understand and respond to the health problems of clients. These theories may be drawn (borrowed) from any applied science, or generated inductively from clinical nursing practice. Alternatively, nurses may attempt to apply deductive theory (global theoretical frameworks) known as nursing models. In this paper, all theoretical approaches, irrespective of origin, are referred to as models used by nurses. Thirteen criteria by which clinicians, and others, can evaluate the clinical and practical utility of models used by nurses which are expressed in the form of questions are identified and discussed. The criteria are an extension, both in detail and in number, of those developed by Reynolds and Cormack and subsequently applied by those writers to the Johnson Behavioural System Model of Nursing. The value, or otherwise, of individual models, or of models in general, will not be discussed in this paper. However, the authors propose that if the evaluation criteria described here are applied to existing models, serious deficits will be identified in relation to their clinical and practical utility.