THE TREATMENT OF ACUTE AND CHRONIC VAGINAL CANDIDOSIS

Vaginal candidosis is one of the most common infections of the vagina and the first accredited record of the disease appeared in 1849. Over the years the terms ‘candidiasis’ and ‘candidosis’ have been used, but it is generally accepted now that the terms are synonymous, and the term most commonly in use today is ‘candidosis’. Mainly caused by the yeast Candida albicans, the condition is characterised by intense inflammation of the vaginal mucosa and a curdy, off-white discharge; it is often associated with severe vulval itching and possibly burning pain. The severity of symptoms seems to vary greatly from patient to patient and the reason for this is unclear. It is suggested that in some patients there may be an element of hypersensitivity. Vaginal candidosis may occur in children but is most common in adults and only sometimes affects the elderly. The majority of women will suffer at least one attack of vaginal candidosis during their lifetime, and there are several predisposing factors such as diabetes, pregnancy and antibiotics. Some authorities consider the condition more frequent in those taking oral contraceptives or other hormones.     

LIPOPROTEIN(α) IN HEALTH AND DISEASE

SUMMARY Elevated plasma levels of Lp(a) do seem to influence the progression of atherosclerosis. Evidence is emerging that certain apo(a) isoforms may be more atherogenic than others, and in transgenic mice free apo(a) has been shown to be associated with accelerated atherosclerosis. Currently it is not known whether treating elevated Lp(a) levels will reduce progression of atherosclerosis and, as therapeutic options are limited, mass screening of Lp(a) levels in populations is not indicated. The presence of raised Lp(a) levels, however, warrants aggressive treatment to reduce other cardiovascular risk factors. Continuing research to investigate the relationship of the apo(a) gene to other genes, including the plasminogen gene and apo(a)-related genes, will add further information pertaining to the evolution, function, regulation and clinical implications of Lp(a).     

Social work, general practice and evidence-based policy in the collaborative care of older people: current problems and future possibilities

While collaborative (or joint) working between social services and primary healthcare continues to rise up the policy agenda, current policy is not based on sound evidence of benefit to either patients or the wider community. Both sets of practitioners report benefits for their own work from adopting new arrangements for collaboration. The underlying assumption behind much of this activity is that a greater degree of integration provides benefits to both users and their carers, a perspective that at times obscures the issue of resource availability, especially in the form of practical community services such as district nursing and home help. At the present time there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that formal arrangements for collaborative working (CW) are better than those forged informally between committed individuals or teams. Furthermore, arrangements for CW have not hitherto been widely evaluated in systematic studies with a comparative design and focus on outcomes for users and carers rather than on processes. In this paper we propose a number of process measures for future evaluation of CW: (1) study populations must be comparable; (2) details of how services are actually delivered must be obtained and colocation should not be assumed to mean collaboration; (3) care packages in areas of comparable resources should be examined; (4) both destinational outcomes and user‐defined evaluations of benefit should be considered; (5) possible disadvantages of integrated care also need to be actively considered; (6) evaluations should include an economic analysis. Those implementing new policies in Primary Care Trusts have, at present, little sound evidence to guide them in their innovative work. However, they should take the opportunity to rigorously test the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.     

A dilemma for doctors

Community physicians have recently, albeit often reluctantly, been involved in preparations for nuclear war. This paper suggests an alternative: that they should use their skills in epidemiology and in preventive and social medicine in the prevention of nuclear war.     

RESEARCH LETTER: Uptake of research findings into clinical practice: a controlled study of the impact of a brief external intervention on the use of corticosteroids in preterm delivery

To the Editor: There are a large number of studies addressing the impact of continuing medical education (Davis et al. 1995) and clinical guidelines (Grimshaw & Russell 1993) on changing clinical practice, but comparatively little on the impact of purchasers of health care. There is some evidence that financial incentives and penalties can influence practice (Greco & Eisenberg 1993). It has been suggested that purchasers can play an important role in implementing research findings (Haines & Jones 1994). Indeed, the separation of purchasers and providers has been viewed as an opportunity to use knowledge about effectiveness to improve health services (Dunning et al. 1994). We report a study the aim of which was to explore the impact that a specific brief external intervention might have on a detailed aspect of clinical practice: the use of corticosteroids in preterm labour. The intervention was initiated by public health physicians on behalf of a Health Authority. It formed a part of the Getting Research Into Practice (GRIP) initiative in the old Oxford Health Region, UK.  The administration of corticosteroids to mothers expected to deliver prematurely reduces neonatal mortality and morbidity (Crowley et al. 1990). The first trial which suggested that corticosteroids were effective in this role was published in 1972, and evidence from 12 trials was assembled in a systematic review published in January 1990 (Crowley et al. 1990). Despite the accumulating evidence, in 1991 many women delivering prematurely in the UK and elsewhere were not receiving corticosteroids (Anon 1992;Donaldson 1992). The apparent failure of obstetricians to make full use of this treatment has been cited as an example of the delayed implementation of research findings that can occur in clinical practice (Haines & Jones 1994; Enkin 1996).