Observed transition from Richtmyer-Meshkov jet formation through feedout oscillations to Rayleigh-Taylor instability in a laser target

Experimental study of hydrodynamic perturbation evolution triggered by a laser-driven shock wave breakout at the free rippled rear surface of a plastic target is reported. At sub-megabar shock pressure, planar jets manifesting the development of the Richtmyer-Meshkov-type instability in a non-accelerated target are observed. As the shock pressure exceeds 1 Mbar, an oscillatory rippled expansion wave is observed, followed by the "feedout" of the rear-surface perturbations to the ablation front and the development of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, which breaks up the accelerated target.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figure

Opioids Switching with Transdermal Systems in Chronic Cancer Pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to tolerance development and adverse side effects, chronic pain patients frequently need to be switched to alternative opioid therapy</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the efficacy and tolerability of an alternative transdermally applied (TDS) opioid in patients with chronic cancer pain receiving insufficient analgesia using their present treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 32 patients received alternative opioid therapy, 16 were switched from buprenorphine to fentanyl and 16 were switched from fentanyl to buprenorphine. The dosage used was 50% of that indicated in equipotency conversion tables. Pain relief was assessed at weekly intervals for the next 3 weeks</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pain relief as assessed by VAS, PPI, and PRI significantly improved (p < 0.0001) in all patients at all 3 follow up visits. After 3 weeks of treatment, the reduction in the mean VAS, PPI, and PRI scores in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups was 68, 77, 74, and 69, 79, and 62%, respectively. Over the same time period the use of oral morphine as rescue medication was reduced from 27.5 ± 20.5 (mean ± SD) to 3.75 ± 8.06, and 33.8 ± 18.9 to 3.75 ± 10.9 mg/day in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in either pain relief or rescue medication use between the two patient groups The number of patient with adverse events fell during the study. After the third week of the treatment the number of patients with constipation was reduced from 11 to 5, and 10 to 4 patients in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was a similar reduction in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No sedation was seen in any patient after one week of treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Opioid switching at 50% of the calculated equianalgesic dose produced a significant reduction in pain levels and rescue medication. The incidence of side effects decreased and no new side effects were noted. Further studies are required to provide individualized treatment for patients according to their different types of cancer.</p

A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS^®hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>200 patients with cancer pain (requiring ≤ 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2–9 days, sustained-release for 10–15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS^®hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; <it>p </it>= 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS^®hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS^®hydromorphone.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054</p

A study of young peoples' attitudes to opportunistic Chlamydia testing in UK general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The objective of this study was to assess young people's perceptions of being offered a chlamydia screening test in United Kingdom (UK) general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is qualitative study that uses focus groups and individual interviews with young adults (age 16 – 18) to assess their views.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>These young adults were a difficult group to gain access to. Two focus groups, one in a school, the other in a general practice (family practice), and 2 individual interviews were undertaken (total sample 18). Respondents were unfamiliar with Chlamydia, but broadly aware of sexually transmitted infections. General practice (family practice) was perceived as an acceptable place to deliver opportunistic screening, but participants felt that tests should not be initiated by GP receptionists. Novel delivery routes such as schools and "Pub"/Bar dispensing machines were discussed. Issues around stigma and confidentiality were also raised.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Opportunistic Chlamydia screening in UK general practice (family practic seems acceptable to young adults. While this is a difficult group to gain access to for research, attempts need to made to ensure acceptability to users of this programme.</p

Taking a Feminist Disability Studies Approach to Fundamental British Values: Do “Fundamental” “British” Values Encourage the Appreciation of Marginalized Identity Groups, or Lead to the Performance of Inclusion?

In this article, Fundamental British Values (FBV) are understood as a token attempt toward societal inclusion and empowerment of all citizens. Rather than providing meaningful routes for all individuals to be included in British citizenship, FBV are built on foundations of “inclusionism” — the inclusion of marginalized identity groups in society, on the premise that existing social structures are not threatened. Disabled women’s responses to sociocultural stereotypes surrounding disability and gender are interpreted through a feminist disability studies lens. Empirical data, gathered within a larger research project which examined disabled women’s responses to the representation of disabled women in Anglo-American advertising, are drawn on and connections are made between the growing trend of promoting diversity in advertising, and superficial approaches to diversity and empowerment of all citizens, enacted in FBV. Two key themes underpin this critical discussion: participant resistance to “pity” narratives surrounding the portrayal of disabled women in advertising and disabled women’s navigation of “belonging” in exclusionary environments

Interference with work in fibromyalgia - effect of treatment with pregabalin and relation to pain response

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in chronic pain often collect information about interference with work as answers to component questions of commonly used questionnaires but these data are not normally analysed separately. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from four large trials of pregabalin for fibromyalgia lasting 8-14 weeks. We analysed data on interference with work, inferred from answers to component questions of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Short Form 36 Health Survey, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, including "How many days in the past week did you miss work, including housework, because of fibromyalgia?" from FIQ. Analyses were performed according to randomised treatment group (pregabalin 150-600 mg daily or placebo), pain improvement (0-10 numerical pain rating scale scores at trial beginning vs. end), and end of trial pain state (100 mm visual analogue pain scale [VAS]). RESULTS: Comparing treatment group average outcomes revealed modest improvement over the duration of the trials, more so with active treatment than with placebo. For the 'work missed' question from FIQ the change for patients on placebo was from 2.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) days of work lost per week at trial beginning to 1.9 (SD 2.1) days lost at trial end (p &lt; 0.01). For patients on 600 mg pregabalin the change was from 2.1 (SD 2.2) days to 1.6 (SD 2.0) days (p &lt; 0.001). However, the change in days of work lost was substantial in patients with a good pain response: from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.97 (SD 1.6) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those experiencing &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and from 1.9 (SD 2.2) days to 0.73 (SD 1.4) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those achieving a low level of pain at trial end (&lt;30 mm on the VAS). Patients achieving both &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and a pain score &lt;30 mm on the VAS had the largest improvement, from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.60 (SD 1.3) days (p &lt; 0.0001). Analysing answers to the other questions yielded qualitatively similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Effective pain treatment goes along with benefit regarding work. A reduction in time off work &gt;1 day per week can be achieved in patients with good pain responses