BENZEDRINE® AND DEXEDRINE® IN THE TREATMENT OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DISORDERS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
CHARLES BRADLEY
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Behavior Disorders ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Symptomatic Improvement ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Children's Behavior ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Clinical Diagnoses ◽  
School Progress ◽  
Increased Activity

The effect of benzedrine® (dl-amphetamine) and dexedrine® (d-amphetamine) sulfates upon the behavior of maladjusted children was studied in the somewhat controlled setting of a children's psychiatric hospital. Twelve years' experience with these drugs is reported involving observations upon 275 children who received benzedrine®, 113 who received dexedrine® and 82 who received both preparations. The most frequent optimal daily dose was 20 mg. of benzedrine® and 10 mg. of dexedrine®. Specific behavior responses to both drugs approximated one another both in quality and frequency, with 50 to 60% of the children becoming more subdued, 15 to 25% showing no change, 20% showing increased activity and 5% showing an acceleration of school progress only. Clinically these reactions indicated 60 to 75% symptomatic improvement, 15 to 25% no change and 10 to 15% unfavorable responses. Children with a variety of clinical diagnoses were benefited with no evidence of tolerance or addiction following prolonged administration. Occasional undesirable physiologic side effects were noted with both preparations, most frequently during the first few days of treatment only. Approximately equal numbers of children responded more favorably to one drug in contrast to the other. In general benzedrine® was found to produce the more dramatic results, except with individual children in whom its side effects were more pronounced, in which cases dexedrine® proved more advantageous. The conclusion is drawn that these drugs influence children's behavior by altering their emotional reactions to distressing situations. Both offer the practitioner readily available and easily controlled pharmacologic approaches to the symptomatic treatment of children's behavior disorders.

Cutaneous Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Summarized Overview

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerasia-Maria Plachouri ◽  
Eleftheria Vryzaki ◽  
Sophia Georgiou
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Maculopapular Rash ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Stevens Johnson Syndrome ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Skin Side Effects

Background:The introduction of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the recent years has resulted in high response rates and extended survival in patients with metastatic/advanced malignancies. Their mechanism of action is the indirect activation of cytotoxic T-cells through the blockade of inhibitory receptors of immunomodulatory pathways, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1). Despite their impressive therapeutic results, they can also induce immune-related toxicity, affecting various organs, including the skin.Objective:To provide an updated summarized overview of the most common immune-mediated cutaneous side effects and their management.Method:English articles derived from the databases PubMed and SCOPUS and published between 2009 and 2018, were analyzed for this narrative review.Results:The most common adverse cutaneous reactions include maculopapular rash, lichenoid reactions, vitiligo and pruritus, with severity Grade 1 or 2. Less frequent but eventually life-threatening skin side effects, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms and Toxic Epidermal necrolysis, have also been reported.Conclusion:Basic knowledge of the Immune-Checkpoint-Inhibitors-induced skin toxicity is necessary in order to recognize these treatment-related complications. The most frequent skin side effects, such as maculopapular rash, vitiligo and pruritus, tend to subside under symptomatic treatment so that permanent discontinuation of therapy is not commonly necessary. In the case of life-threatening side effects, apart from the necessary symptomatic treatment, the immunotherapy should be permanently stopped. Information concerning the management of ICIs-mediated skin toxicity can be obtained from the literature as well as from the Summary of Product Characteristics of each agent.

PHENOTHIAZINE TRANQUILIZERS AS A CAUSE OF SEVERE SEIZURES

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1959 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-492
Author(s):  
Edward B. Shaw ◽  
Robert V. Dermott ◽  
Raymond Lee ◽  
T. N. Burbridge
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Careful Observation ◽  
Small Doses

The phenothiazine tranquilizer drugs should not be used indiscriminately for symptomatic treatment without due appreciation of the alarming and potentially serious side effects which may follow relatively small doses, especially in childhood. Minimal dosage, due warning to parents of possible symptoms, and careful observation are essential precautions for physicians who use these agents.

Study of a New Analgesic Compound in the Treatment of Tension Headache*

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Borges ◽  
C Zavaleta
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Pharmacological Activity ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Tension Headache ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Effective Combination ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
Single Blind

The effect of a new analgesic compound ( propoxyphene, acetaminophen, caffeine, hydroxyzine) was investigated in a single-blind study comparing it with plain acetaminophen administered to forty patients with tension headache. For the study, patients were assigned to one of two groups of twenty each. Starting dose for each group was one to two tablets followed by one tablet every four to six hours. The results show that 90% clinical success was obtained with the analgesic compound, while a 45% success was obtained with plain acetaminophen. This is a statistically significant difference. Side-effects observed with analgesic compound were primarily drowsiness and dizziness of mild intensity; acetaminophen caused gastro-intestinal alterations ( nausea, vomiting) and dizziness of greater severity. Therapy was withdrawn in 20% of patients taking acetaminophen because of side-effects. The dosage of analgesic compound required to control each episode of tension headache way smaller than that of acetaminophen. These results can be explained by a possible potentiation of pharmacological activity of the compound's components. It can be concluded that the analgesic compound is a new and effective combination for the symptomatic treatment of tension headache.

scholarly journals Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals with Trauma Histories

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payton J. Jones ◽  
Benjamin W. Bellet ◽  
Richard J. McNally
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
World Literature ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Trauma Survivors ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Substantial Evidence ◽  
Adverse Side Effects ◽  
Mixed Samples ◽  
Trigger Warnings

Objective: Trigger warnings alert trauma survivors about potentially disturbing forthcoming content. However, most empirical studies on trigger warnings indicate that they are either functionally inert or cause small adverse side effects. These evaluations have been limited to either trauma-naïve participants or mixed samples. Accordingly, we tested whether trigger warnings would be psychologically beneficial in the most relevant population: survivors of serious trauma. Method: Our experiment was a preregistered replication and extension of a previous one (Bellet, Jones, & McNally, 2018); 451 trauma survivors were randomly assigned to either receive or not receive trigger warnings prior to reading potentially distressing passages from world literature. They provided their emotional reactions to each passage; self-reported anxiety was the primary dependent variable. Results: We found no evidence that trigger warnings were helpful for trauma survivors, for those who self-reported a PTSD diagnosis, or for those who qualified for probable PTSD, even when survivors' trauma matched the passages’ content. We found substantial evidence that trigger warnings countertherapeutically reinforce survivors' view of their trauma as central to their identity. Regarding replication hypotheses, the evidence was either ambiguous or substantially favored the hypothesis that trigger warnings have no effect. Conclusions: Trigger warnings are not helpful for trauma survivors. It is less clear whether trigger warnings are explicitly harmful. However, such knowledge is unnecessary to adjudicate whether to use trigger warnings – because trigger warnings are consistently unhelpful, there is no evidence-based reason to use them.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the effectiveness of transcranial electrostimulation in treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 019-026
Author(s):  
Hakobyan Gagik ◽  
Sekoyan Eduard ◽  
Shoman Karyna ◽  
Ekaterina Krasnopeeva
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Flexible Substrate ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Adhesive Layer ◽  
Neuropsychiatric Disorders ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Transcranial Electrostimulation ◽  
Clinical Diagnoses

Objectives: Evaluation of the effectiveness the method of transcranial electrostimulation in treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders with the use of a patches by the company “Aganyan”. Materials and methods: The study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, participated 106 patients with neuropsychiatric disorders. All participants in were divided into tables according to gender, age and diagnosis. Each subject was given the “Aganyan” patches and a special brochure, in which the method of application was indicated in detail. The wearable patch includes a flexible substrate, a binder an adhesive layer, with an electrode foil attached to it. Patients applied one patch behind each ear. The patches were applied for eight hours every third day for three months. To assess the effectiveness of therapy in patients the following tests were used: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale; MMSE Scale: Concise Mental Status Scale; diaries of observation of the patient’s condition to identify side effects; special brochures in which the subjects independently indicated the effects of the “Aganyan” patches. Tests were performed before and after the use of the “Aganyan” patches. Results: When using the patches of the “Aganyan” company, none of the participants in the study had any side effects; According to the results of the Montreal test according to the criterion of memory and the MMSE test, the effectiveness of the patch was noted in patients with all clinical diagnoses. The greatest positive dynamics was revealed according to the results of the Montreal test according to the criterion of memory in patients with migraine (30%), insomnia (31%), vascular dementia (32%), and according to the results of the MMSE test in patients with diagnoses: cerebrovascular disease: consequences of a cerebral infarction brain (31%), vascular dementia (56%). Conclusion: The patches of “Aganyan” company have proven its effectiveness through electrical stimulation with low-intensity current in patients in different age groups with different clinical diagnoses.

scholarly journals Analysis of consumption trends of antibacterial and antivirus medicines in pharmacies during COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
О. М. Заліська ◽  
О. М. Семенов ◽  
Н. М. Максимович ◽  
З. О. Заболотня ◽  
Б. М. Заліський ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Pharmaceutical Care ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Trade Names

Rational pharmacotherapy of COVID-19 in the world, treatment protocols, prescriptions of antibacterial (AB), antiviral (AV) medicines have been systematically improved due to updated data of evidence-based medicine. The study aim was to analyze the trends of  AB, AV consumption for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19: to study the reasons of the growing demand for AB, AV; optimization of pharmaceutical care directions for rational cost-effectiveness use, prevention antibiotic resistance. Methods – the survey on consumption trends of AB and AV, side effects of AB; survey data of 205 pharmacists, 5 regions of Ukraine; pharmacoeconomic analysis «cost-minimization», content analysis of instructions, side effects. Analysis of surveys showed that the demand on AB, AV increased by 50.1% to 2019, such groups: beta-lactams, respiratory fluoroquinolones, macrolides. We found the most often were released: azithromycin, cefoperazone, cefipime, piperacillin with tazobactam, meropenem. Pharmacists noted that patients often used AB, AV without a prescriptions, it complicates the release from pharmacies. So it is necessary to implement e-prescriptions for AB, AV for monitoring of effectiveness, side effects, to prevent antibiotic resistance in pandemic. We found 53.7% of pharmacists noted about insufficient of  trade names, stocks of AB and AV. It is the difficulties to provide outpatients with covid-19. Content-analysis data showed the most common side effects during AB course. We identified the main directions of information pharmacist providing to prevent side effects, antibiotic resistance. We conducted the demand for AV, AV medicines increased by 50.1% vs to 2019. It was identified the AB groups, trade names in high demand. Used pharmacoeconomic analysis «cost-minimization», we established that depending on the manufacturer, an antibiotic course costs differ by 15.1 times. The necessity of including in the list of the reimbursement program «Affordable Medicines» the essential AB, AV, to reduce costs for COVID-19 outpatients was substantiated. We showed 83,1% of pharmacists consider the need of approval, implementation of «Protocol for symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated forms of COVID-19». It will improve the results of pharmaceutical care for COVID-19 patients due to GPP requirements.

Sulpiride and Haloperidol in Schizophrenia: A Double-blind Cross-over Study of Therapeutic Effect, Side Effects and Plasma Concentrations

1985 ◽  
Vol 147 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jes Gerlach ◽  
Kirsten Behnke ◽  
Jon Heltberg ◽  
Ebbe Munk-Andersen ◽  
Henrik Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Plasma Concentrations ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Day Range ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Schizophrenic Patients ◽  
High Doses ◽  
Therapeutic Profile

SummaryIn a double-blind cross-over trial, 20 chronic schizophrenic patients were treated with sulpiride and haloperidol in two 12-week periods. The final median dose of sulpiride was 2000 mg/day (range 800–3200) and of haloperidol 12 mg/day (range 6–24). Sulpiride had an antipsychotic effect and therapeutic profile not significantly different from that of haloperidol. In spite of the high doses of sulpiride, extrapyramidal side-effects were seen less frequently during the first four weeks of the sulpiride period than during the corresponding haloperidol period (P < 0.05), whereas autonomic side-effects were equally rare for both drugs. A positive correlation was found between daily dose and plasma concentration of both sulpiride (P < 0.001) and haloperidol (P < 0.05), but no correlation could be established between clinical effects and plasma levels of either neuroleptic.

A Comparative Trial of Opipramol and Chlordiazepoxide in the Treatment of Anxiety

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Jepson ◽  
G Beaumont
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Anxiety Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Somatic Anxiety ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
The Difference

A daily dose of 200 mg of opipramol (Insidon, Geigy) and 30 mg of chlordiazepoxide (Librium, Roche) were compared in a clinical trial in general practice. The trial was double blind and a stratified randomisation technique was employed. Twenty four patients received opipramol and twenty six chlordiazepoxide for four weeks. A total anxiety score and separate ‘psychic’ anxiety and ‘somatic’ anxiety scores were recorded, using a rating scale initially and after two and four weeks treatment. No overall difference in efficacy was found between the two drugs—opipramol producing a 76% improvement and chlordiazepoxide 64% by the end of the study. There was no difference in the relief of psychic anxiety. Although opipramol appeared to give more relief of somatic anxiety, the difference was not statistically significant. Again although opipramol relieved more individual symptoms than chlordiazepoxide, none of the differences were significant. 70% of patients on opipramol and 74% of those on chlordiazepoxide were classified ‘better’ globally by both doctor and patient by the end of the trial. The total number of side effects recorded was similar on both drugs although drowsiness occurred twice as frequently on chlordiazepoxide as it did on opipramol.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document