Perspectives of Librarians on Quality Assurance Measures for Admission of Students in Distance Education Programme in Nigeria

The quality assurance measures for admission of students into Distance Education (DE) programs in Nigeria were evaluated in this study. The study employed a descriptive survey design, with a total population of Librarians and learners in distance learning centers in Southeast in Nigeria, of which 206 librarians were used in the study. The librarians and learners were chosen using a multi-stage sampling technique. The data gathering instrument was a questionnaire. Three professionals independently validated the instrument. The questionnaire\u27s reliability index was 0.97. The data was analyzed using the mean, standard deviation, and analysis of variance. The findings revealed that quality is highly assured for students admitted to DE programs (X = 2.87, SD = 0.49). In South East Nigeria, significant variations in the mean assessments of students and librarians on how quality is ensured in the admission of students to DE programs were discovered. It was suggested that prospective students be provided greater opportunities to enroll in distant education programs in order to minimize illiteracy among the population

Mast Cell Quantification in Orofacial Granulomatosis

This study was to quantify mast cells (MC), their corresponding densities, surface areas and surface areas of their distribution in relation to oedema formation. Formalin fixed, wax embedded, oral tissue sections from 29 cases of OFG were reviewed retrospectively, using the image analysis system. The Mann Whitney test showed that the p value of MC densities was significant at 0.049 for the non-oedema versus oedema field. Similarly, the p value for the mast cell area densities was significant at 0.016 for the non-oedema versus the oedema fields. Total area of MC profiles was significantly less in oedematous areas. The study points to a possible association between mast cells and orofacial granulomatosis, as oedematous area usually associated with OFG showed less numbers of mast cells. This is probably due to degranulation, releasing mediators of inflammation, which is responsible for oedema formation. Further light needs to be shed on the subject as this might eventually lead to a change in the available treatment modalities, which are currently unsatisfactory. NQJHM Vol. 13 (3-4) 2003: pp. 34-3

Thermal damage and excision time of micro and super pulsed diode lasers: A comparative ex vivo analysis

Abstract Objectives The primary aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate thermal damage and cutting efficiency of micro and super pulsed diode lasers. The secondary aim was to suggest a guideline to perform simple surgical excisions adequate for histopathological evaluation. Material and Methods Ten groups of 10 specimens of pig tongues were excised using a blade (G1), a micro pulsed (G2–G9), and a super pulsed diode (G10) lasers. Different output power, pulse duration, pulse interval, and duty cycle were tested. Quantitative measures of thermal damage and excision times were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed at a significance level of 5%. Results The control group (G1) presented no thermal damage. Within the laser groups (G2–G10), no statistically significant differences in depth of thermal damage (µm) were noted. G3 showed significantly less area of thermal damage (mm2) when compared with G7 and G9 (p < .05). The median excision time of the control group and super pulsed diode laser group were significantly lower (p < .001) than the micro pulsed diode laser groups. Conclusions The cutting efficiency of the super pulsed diode laser is comparable to traditional blade, and with appropriate parameters, these lasers can produce predictable surgical outcomes with less collateral damage

Social action : a quarterly review of social trends

Background Uncertainty exists about the best treatment for people with HIV-1 who have virological failure with first-line combination antiretroviral therapy of a non-nucleoside analogue (NNRTI) plus two nucleoside or nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTI). We compared a second-line regimen combining two new classes of drug with a WHO-recommended regimen.Methods We did this 96-week, phase 3b/4, randomised, open-label non-inferiority trial at 37 sites worldwide. Adults with HIV-1 who had confirmed virological failure (plasma viral load >500 copies per mL) after 24 weeks or more of first-line treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NtRTIs (control group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with block randomisation (block size four). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma viral load less than 200 copies per mL at 48 weeks in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00931463.Findings We enrolled 558 patients, of whom 541 (271 in the control group, 270 in the raltegravir group) were included in the primary analysis. At 48 weeks, 219 (81%) patients in the control group compared with 223 (83%) in the raltegravir group met the primary endpoint (difference 1.8%, 95% CI -4.7 to 8.3), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. 993 adverse events occurred in 271 participants in the control group versus 895 in 270 participants in the raltegravir group, the most common being gastrointestinal.Interpretation The raltegravir regimen was no less efficacious than the standard of care and was safe and well tolerated. This simple NtRTI-free treatment strategy might extend the successful public health approach to management of HIV by providing simple, easy to administer, effective, safe, and tolerable second-line combination antiretroviral therapy

Efficacy and safety of efavirenz 400 mg daily versus 600 mg daily: 96-week data from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority ENCORE1 study

Background: The week 48 primary analysis of the ENCORE1 trial established the virological non-inferiority and safety of efavirenz 400 mg compared with the standard 600 mg dose, combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine, as first-line HIV therapy. This 96-week follow-up of the trial assesses the durability of efficacy and safety of this treatment over 96 weeks. Methods: ENCORE1 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. HIV-infected adult patients (≥16 years of age) with no previous antiretroviral therapy, a CD4 cell count of 50-500 cells per μL, and plasma HIV-1 viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic case report form to receive fixed-dose daily tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg plus efavirenz either 400 mg daily or 600 mg daily. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 viral load at baseline (≤ or >100 000 copies per mL). The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportions of patients in the two treatment groups with a plasma HIV-1 viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 96. Treatment groups were deemed to be non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was above -10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and non-completer=failure (NC=F) populations. Adverse events and serious adverse events were summarised by treatment group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. Findings: Between Aug 24, 2011, and March 19, 2012, 636 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (324 to efavirenz 400 mg and 312 to efavirenz 600 mg). The intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study drug comprised 630 patients: 321 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group. 585 patients (93%; 299 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 286 in the 600 mg group) completed 96 weeks of follow-up. At 96 weeks, 289 (90·0%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 280 (90·6%) of 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group had a plasma HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies per mL (difference -0·6, 95% CI -5·2 to 4·0; p=0·72), which suggests continued non-inferiority of the lower efavirenz dose. Non-inferiority was recorded for thresholds of less than 50 and less than 400 copies per mL, irrespective of baseline plasma viral load. Adverse events were reported by 291 (91%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and by 285 (92%) of 309 in the 600 mg group (p=0·48). The proportions of patients reporting an adverse event that was definitely or probably related to efavirenz were 126 (39%) for efavirenz 400 mg and 148 (48%) for efavirenz 600 mg (p=0·03). The number of patients who reported serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (p=0·20). Interpretation: Our findings confirm that efavirenz 400 mg is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as initial HIV therapy over 96 weeks. Fewer efavirenz-related adverse events were reported with the 400 mg efavirenz dose than with the 600 mg dose. These findings support the routine use of efavirenz 400 mg. The coadministration of rifampicin and efavirenz 400 mg needs further investigation. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNSW Australia

Efficacy of 400 mg efavirenz versus standard 600 mg dose in HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive adults (ENCORE1): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: The optimum dose of key antiretroviral drugs is often overlooked during product development. The ENCORE1 study compared the efficacy and safety of reduced dose efavirenz with standard dose efavirenz in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as first-line treatment for HIV infection. An effective and safe reduced dose could yield meaningful cost savings. Methods: ENCORE1 is a continuing non-inferiority trial in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-naive adults in 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. Participants (plasma HIV-RNA >1000 log10 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell count 50-500 cells per μL) were randomly assigned by a computer-generated sequence with a blocking factor of four (stratified by clinical site and by screening viral load) to receive tenofovir plus emtricitabine with either a reduced daily dose (400 mg) or a standard dose (600 mg) of efavirenz. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staffwere masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the difference in proportions of participants with plasma HIV-RNA of less than 200 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Treatment groups were regarded as non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was less than-10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Adverse events were summarised by treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. Findings: The modified intention-to-treat analysis consisted of 630 patients (efavirenz 400=321; efavirenz 600=309). 32% were women; 37% were African, 33% were Asian, and 30% were white. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 273 cells per μL (SD 99) and median plasma HIV-RNA was 4.75 log 10 copies per mL (IQR 0.88). The proportion of participants with a viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 48 was 94.1% for efavirenz 400 mg and 92.2% for 600 mg (difference 1.85%, 95% CI-2.1 to 5.79). CD4 T-cell counts at week 48 were significantly higher for the 400 mg group than for the 600 mg group (mean difference 25 cells per μL, 95% CI 6-44; p=0.01). We recorded no difference in grade or number of patients reporting adverse events (efavirenz 400=89.1%, efavirenz 600=88.4%; difference 0.75%, 95% CI-4.19 to 5.69; p=0.77). Study drug-related adverse events were significantly more frequent in the 600 mg group than in the 400 mg group (146% [47] vs 118 [37]), difference-10.5%, 95% CI-18.2 to-2.8; p=0.01) and significantly fewer patients with these events stopped treatment (400 mg=6 [2%], 600 mg=18 [6%], difference-3.96%, 95% CI-6.96 to -0.95; p=0.01). Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a reduced dose of 400 mg efavirenz is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg, when combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine during 48 weeks in ART-naive adults with HIV-1 infection. Adverse events related to the study drug were more frequent with 600 mg efavirenz than with 400 mg. Lower dose efavirenz should be recommended as part of routine care