A comparative randomized controlled parallel group study of efficacy and tolerability of labetalol versus methyldopa in the treatment of mild preeclampsia

Background: The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of labetalol versus methyldopa in the treatment of mild preeclampsia.Methods: We carried out a prospective randomized controlled parallel group study on 100 outpatients of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of Government Medical College, Patiala, a tertiary care teaching hospital. Pregnant patients (20-40 weeks gestational age) newly diagnosed with blood pressure (BP) of ≥140/90 mm Hg were included in the study. All patients with systolic BP (SBP) ≥160 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥110 mm Hg after 20 weeks of gestation, history of hypertension, renal diseases, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, and thyroid diseases were excluded from the study. After taking the informed consent, 50 patients each were randomized to either of the two treatment arm-oral labetalol or oral methyldopa. Difference in the BP measurements at the time of admission and at the time of delivery were analyzed by applying paired t-test. For intergroup analysis, we applied independent t-test using SPSS version 16. A p<0.05 was regarded as significant.Results: Both methyldopa and labetalol cause significant fall in SBP, DBP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in their groups (p<0.001). However, when we compared both groups it was labetalol, which causes significant fall in MAP as compared to methyldopa (p<0.001). The incidence of adverse effects like hypotension, headache, and sedation were also less in labetalol group.Conclusion: Labetalol has an upper edge over methyldopa in control of BP during pregnancy with minimal adverse effects

Language as the Working Model of Human Mind

The Human Mind, functional aspect of Human Brain, has been envisaged to be working on the tenets of Chaos, a seeming order within a disorder, the premise of Universe. The armamentarium of Human Mind makes use of distributed neuronal networks sub-serving Sensorial Mechanisms, Mirror Neurone System (MNS) and Motor Mechanisms etching a stochastic trajectory on the virtual phase-space of Human Mind, obeying the ethos of Chaos. The informational sensorial mechanisms recruit attentional mechanisms channelising through the window of chaotic neural dynamics onto MNS that providing algorithmic image information flow along virtual phase- space coordinates concluding onto motor mechanisms that generates and mirrors a stimulus- specific and stimulus-adequate response. The singularity of self-iterating fractal architectonics of Event-Related Synchrony (ERS), a Power Spectral Density (PSD) precept of electroencephalographic (EEG) time-series denotes preferential and categorical inhibition gateway and an Event-Related Desynchrony (ERD) represents event related and locked gateway to stimulatory/excitatory neuronal architectonics leading to stimulus-locked and adequate neural response. The contextual inference in relation to stochastic phase-space trajectory of self- iterating fractal of Off-Center α ERS (Central)-On-Surround α ERD-On Surround θ ERS document efficient neural dynamics of working memory., across patterned modulation and flow of the neurally coded information

Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: Many causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older. Findings: Global crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change −0·2% [95% UI −1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by −15·4% [–16·8 to −14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [–0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7–18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8–4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8–2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3–2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59–1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2–101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2–91·4]). Interpretation: Results suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached. Funding: Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg

Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health: all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 has targeted elimination of preventable child mortality, reduction of neonatal death to less than 12 per 1000 livebirths, and reduction of death of children younger than 5 years to less than 25 per 1000 livebirths, for each country by 2030. To understand current rates, recent trends, and potential trajectories of child mortality for the next decade, we present the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 findings for all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in children younger than 5 years of age, with multiple scenarios for child mortality in 2030 that include the consideration of potential effects of COVID-19, and a novel framework for quantifying optimal child survival. Methods We completed all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality analyses from 204 countries and territories for detailed age groups separately, with aggregated mortality probabilities per 1000 livebirths computed for neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and under-5 mortality rate (USMR). Scenarios for 2030 represent different potential trajectories, notably including potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of improvements preferentially targeting neonatal survival. Optimal child survival metrics were developed by age, sex, and cause of death across all GBD location-years. The first metric is a global optimum and is based on the lowest observed mortality, and the second is a survival potential frontier that is based on stochastic frontier analysis of observed mortality and Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Findings Global U5MR decreased from 71.2 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% uncertainty interval WI] 68.3-74-0) in 2000 to 37.1 (33.2-41.7) in 2019 while global NMR correspondingly declined more slowly from 28.0 deaths per 1000 live births (26.8-29-5) in 2000 to 17.9 (16.3-19-8) in 2019. In 2019,136 (67%) of 204 countries had a USMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold and 133 (65%) had an NMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold, and the reference scenario suggests that by 2030,154 (75%) of all countries could meet the U5MR targets, and 139 (68%) could meet the NMR targets. Deaths of children younger than 5 years totalled 9.65 million (95% UI 9.05-10.30) in 2000 and 5.05 million (4.27-6.02) in 2019, with the neonatal fraction of these deaths increasing from 39% (3.76 million 95% UI 3.53-4.021) in 2000 to 48% (2.42 million; 2.06-2.86) in 2019. NMR and U5MR were generally higher in males than in females, although there was no statistically significant difference at the global level. Neonatal disorders remained the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years in 2019, followed by lower respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, congenital birth defects, and malaria. The global optimum analysis suggests NMR could be reduced to as low as 0.80 (95% UI 0.71-0.86) deaths per 1000 livebirths and U5MR to 1.44 (95% UI 1-27-1.58) deaths per 1000 livebirths, and in 2019, there were as many as 1.87 million (95% UI 1-35-2.58; 37% 95% UI 32-43]) of 5.05 million more deaths of children younger than 5 years than the survival potential frontier. Interpretation Global child mortality declined by almost half between 2000 and 2019, but progress remains slower in neonates and 65 (32%) of 204 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, are not on track to meet either SDG 3.2 target by 2030. Focused improvements in perinatal and newborn care, continued and expanded delivery of essential interventions such as vaccination and infection prevention, an enhanced focus on equity, continued focus on poverty reduction and education, and investment in strengthening health systems across the development spectrum have the potential to substantially improve USMR. Given the widespread effects of COVID-19, considerable effort will be required to maintain and accelerate progress. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

A critical evaluation of contents, labeling, and cost of hand sanitizers marketed in India during COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Antiseptics were introduced a long time ago, but their significance was noteworthy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hand sanitizer plays a pivotal role as a preventive measure. Multiple national authorities have advocated for the application of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers (ABHS). During the pandemic, a surge in demand and limited supply prompted numerous manufacturers to ramp up production. Consequently, it is imperative to scrutinize the composition, labeling, and price of hand sanitizers. Aims and Objective: To assess the contents, labeling, and price of hand sanitizers available in the Indian market. Methodology: Hand sanitizers, both online and offline, marketed in India between May 2019 and May 2022 were included. Hand sanitizers by local manufacturers without labeling were excluded. Contents and labeling of hand sanitizers were evaluated as per World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Price was assessed as a percentage cost variation. Result: Out of 79, the majority (98.73%) were ABHS, and 28.20% of them met the recommended criteria for “Adequate” alcohol concentration. Ethyl alcohol emerged as the most prevalent (69.23%), often accompanied by emollients, humectants, fragrances, and color additives. Notably, 69.62% of the hand sanitizers featured comprehensive labeling, while incomplete labels lacked essential details under “Warning and Cautions.” The average price of hand sanitizers was Rs 505.11 ± 255.36. Conclusion: Choosing ABHS with appropriate alcohol concentrations in line with recommendations is crucial. To ensure the proper and safe use of hand sanitizers, individuals should follow the instructions provided on the product labels; both manufacturers and regulators are responsible for adhering to standards for hand sanitizers made available to the public

Are we providing complete drug information to its users? Status of information adequacy of package insert in India

Background: Package inserts (PIs) serve detailed information on drug products to the users and primary care physicians, so information should be accurate, reliable, and as per the regulatory guidelines. The study aims to analyze the information adequacy of the PIs available in the Indian market as per Drug and Cosmetic Rule 1945 and US Food and Drug Administration criteria. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on PIs collected from accessible pharmacy stores. Information provided was recorded as per criteria, and total information adequacy score (IAS) and information deficiency (IDS) score were calculated. The association of factors like single-drug/FDCs, a company of origin Indian/multinational, and route of administration (ROA) with IDS was statistically analyzed. Results: Of 120 PIs, 60%, 86.66%, and 73% were single-drug, prescription-drug, and drugs by Indian manufacturers, respectively. Most PIs provided generic names, ROA, and indications for use. 85%, 12%, 29.16%, and 3.33% provided information on PIs on the ability to drive, drug–food interactions, drug–drug interactions, and addiction potential, respectively. Lacking area was information on use in pediatrics–geriatrics (30%), excipients (28.3%), preclinical (15.83%), post-surveillance data (18.33%), and approval date (2.5%). There was a statistically significant difference between pharmaceutical score (3.22 vs 4.12), therapeutic score (11.5 vs 13.18), and total IAS (14.78 ± 3.39 vs 17.31 ± 2.33) of Indian and multinational companies. IDS was statistically significantly different in both pharmaceutical and therapeutic categories for single-drug vs FDCs (P = 0.00001), OTC vs prescription drugs (P < 0.05), and Indian vs multinational companies' PIs (P = 0.00001). Conclusion: Numerous facets of information are lacking in PIs, and they do not impart whole information, especially of Indian origin, as per objective IDS

Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health : all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 has targeted elimination of preventable child mortality, reduction of neonatal death to less than 12 per 1000 livebirths, and reduction of death of children younger than 5 years to less than 25 per 1000 livebirths, for each country by 2030. To understand current rates, recent trends, and potential trajectories of child mortality for the next decade, we present the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 findings for all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in children younger than 5 years of age, with multiple scenarios for child mortality in 2030 that include the consideration of potential effects of COVID-19, and a novel framework for quantifying optimal child survival. Methods We completed all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality analyses from 204 countries and territories for detailed age groups separately, with aggregated mortality probabilities per 1000 livebirths computed for neonatal mortality rate (NMR) and under-5 mortality rate (USMR). Scenarios for 2030 represent different potential trajectories, notably including potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of improvements preferentially targeting neonatal survival. Optimal child survival metrics were developed by age, sex, and cause of death across all GBD location-years. The first metric is a global optimum and is based on the lowest observed mortality, and the second is a survival potential frontier that is based on stochastic frontier analysis of observed mortality and Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Findings Global U5MR decreased from 71.2 deaths per 1000 livebirths (95% uncertainty interval WI] 68.3-74-0) in 2000 to 37.1 (33.2-41.7) in 2019 while global NMR correspondingly declined more slowly from 28.0 deaths per 1000 live births (26.8-29-5) in 2000 to 17.9 (16.3-19-8) in 2019. In 2019,136 (67%) of 204 countries had a USMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold and 133 (65%) had an NMR at or below the SDG 3.2 threshold, and the reference scenario suggests that by 2030,154 (75%) of all countries could meet the U5MR targets, and 139 (68%) could meet the NMR targets. Deaths of children younger than 5 years totalled 9.65 million (95% UI 9.05-10.30) in 2000 and 5.05 million (4.27-6.02) in 2019, with the neonatal fraction of these deaths increasing from 39% (3.76 million [95% UI 3.53-4.021) in 2000 to 48% (2.42 million; 2.06-2.86) in 2019. NMR and U5MR were generally higher in males than in females, although there was no statistically significant difference at the global level. Neonatal disorders remained the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years in 2019, followed by lower respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, congenital birth defects, and malaria. The global optimum analysis suggests NMR could be reduced to as low as 0.80 (95% UI 0.71-0.86) deaths per 1000 livebirths and U5MR to 1.44 (95% UI 1-27-1.58) deaths per 1000 livebirths, and in 2019, there were as many as 1.87 million (95% UI 1-35-2.58; 37% [95% UI 32-43]) of 5.05 million more deaths of children younger than 5 years than the survival potential frontier. Interpretation Global child mortality declined by almost half between 2000 and 2019, but progress remains slower in neonates and 65 (32%) of 204 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, are not on track to meet either SDG 3.2 target by 2030. Focused improvements in perinatal and newborn care, continued and expanded delivery of essential interventions such as vaccination and infection prevention, an enhanced focus on equity, continued focus on poverty reduction and education, and investment in strengthening health systems across the development spectrum have the potential to substantially improve USMR. Given the widespread effects of COVID-19, considerable effort will be required to maintain and accelerate progress. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe