On the Treatment of Rayons with Synthetic Resins by Means of an Improved Method (XIX) The Stepwise Study on the “Presiton Process" in the Tow Form on a Semi Industrial Scale (11) From 'Presiton S' to' Presiton SW'

In continuation of the foregoing paper，the present one deals with the next step of treatments in the “Presiton Process" on a semi industrial scale for the present sample， ‘Presiton S'. which is to bring about a thin outer layer of the second resin on the surface of the sample，and also to set the reactive dye at the same time on the peeled and disc10sed surface of the cellulosic fiber. The meaning and the theory of preparing ‘Presiton SW' are herewith given in the introduction. And the optimum conditions of preparing a good ‘Presiton SW' with respect to the used resin and dye are determined. and given as in the followings; The reactive dye ; Procion Brill. Orange GS The dye concentration in the 1st bath; 1 % The dip time 15 minutes The resin COnc. in the 2nd bath ; 4 % Catalyser ;D.A.P.，5 %， o. w. of resin Cure temp. and time ; 130℃ x 5 min

A multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nelfinavir in patients with mild COVID-19

Nelfinavir, an orally administered inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus protease, inhibits the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of nelfinavir in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included unvaccinated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic adult patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 3 days before enrollment. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral nelfinavir (750 mg; thrice daily for 14 days) combined with standard-of-care or standard-of-care alone. The primary endpoint was the time to viral clearance, confirmed using quantitative reverse-transcription PCR by assessors blinded to the assigned treatment. A total of 123 patients (63 in the nelfinavir group and 60 in the control group) were included. The median time to viral clearance was 8.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 12.0) days in the nelfinavir group and 8.0 (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.0) days in the control group, with no significant difference between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.815; 95% CI, 0.563 to 1.182; P = 0.1870). Adverse events were reported in 47 (74.6%) and 20 (33.3%) patients in the nelfinavir and control groups, respectively. The most common adverse event in the nelfinavir group was diarrhea (49.2%). Nelfinavir did not reduce the time to viral clearance in this setting. Our findings indicate that nelfinavir should not be recommended in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The study is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT2071200023). IMPORTANCE The anti-HIV drug nelfinavir suppresses the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro. However, its efficacy in patients with COVID-19 has not been studied. We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered nelfinavir in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19. Compared to standard-of-care alone, nelfinavir (750 mg, thrice daily) did not reduce the time to viral clearance, viral load, or the time to resolution of symptoms. More patients had adverse events in the nelfinavir group than in the control group (74.6% [47/63 patients] versus 33.3% [20/60 patients]). Our clinical study provides evidence that nelfinavir, despite its antiviral effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, should not be recommended for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 having no or mild symptoms

Effectiveness of Bystander-Initiated Cardiac-Only Resuscitation for Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

[Background] Previous animal and clinical studies suggest that bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation may be superior to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Our hypothesis was that both cardiac-only bystander resuscitation and conventional bystander CPR would improve outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of ≤15 minutes' duration, whereas the addition of rescue breathing would improve outcomes for cardiac arrests lasting >15 minutes. [Methods and Results] We carried out a prospective, population-based, observational study involving consecutive patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from May 1, 1998, through April 30, 2003. The primary outcome measure was 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between type of CPR and outcomes. Among the 4902 witnessed cardiac arrests, 783 received conventional CPR, and 544 received cardiac-only resuscitation. Excluding very-long-duration cardiac arrests (>15 minutes), the cardiac-only resuscitation yielded a higher rate of 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome than no bystander CPR (4.3% versus 2.5%; odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.95), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (4.1%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.60). For the very-long-duration arrests, neurologically favorable 1-year survival was greater in the conventional CPR group, but there were few survivors regardless of the type of bystander CPR (0.3% [2 of 624], 0% [0 of 92], and 2.2% [3 of 139] in the no bystander CPR, cardiac-only CPR, and conventional CPR groups, respectively; P<0.05). [Conclusions] Bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation and conventional CPR are similarly effective for most adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. For very prolonged cardiac arrests, the addition of rescue breathing may be of some help