Loading...
(1/221) Use of SoloShot autodestruct syringes compared with disposable syringes, in a national immunization campaign in Indonesia.

Autodestruct syringes can reduce the improper reuse of syringes, which present a significant risk in the transmission of bloodborne pathogens in developing countries, especially during immunization campaigns owing to the high number of injections given per session. SoloShot is an autodestruct syringe, distributed by UNICEF, which has been shown to be safer and easier to use than standard syringes. This study analyses the accuracy and dose-efficiency of SoloShot, compared with disposable syringes, during a national tetanus toxoid immunization campaign on the Indonesian island of Lombok. Observation and dose measurements revealed that SoloShot syringes delivered more precise and consistent doses and 15% more doses per vial than disposable syringes. Vaccine savings may partially be offset by the higher price of SoloShot. Vaccinators preferred SoloShot, describing it as easier to use, faster, and more accurate than the disposable syringe. The study indicates that SoloShot is highly appropriate for use in immunization campaigns by reducing vaccine wastage and improving injection safety.  (+info)

(2/221) Allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates in disposable blue diathermy pads.

We report 2 cases of elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates from disposable blue diathermy pads used on patients who underwent routine surgery. Their reactions were severe, and took approximately 5 weeks to resolve. Both patients gave a prior history of finger tip dermatitis following the use of artificial sculptured acrylic nails, which is a common, but poorly reported, cause of acrylate allergy. Patch testing subsequently confirmed allergies to multiple acrylates present in both the conducting gel of disposable blue diathermy pads, and artificial sculptured acrylic nails. We advocate careful history taking prior to surgery to avoid unnecessary exposure to acrylates in patients already sensitized.  (+info)

(3/221) Sterilizable syringes: excessive risk or cost-effective option?

In recent years, many poorer countries have chosen to use disposable instead of sterilizable syringes. Unfortunately, the infrastructure and management systems that are vital if disposables are to be used safely do not exist. WHO estimates that up to 30% of injections administered are unsafe. The traditional sterilizable syringe had many disadvantages, some of which have been minimized through better design and the use of modern materials; others have been overcome because staff are able to demonstrate that they have performed safely. For example, the time-steam saturation-temperature (TST) indicator has enabled staff to demonstrate that a sterilizing cycle has been successfully completed. Health facility staff must be able to sterilize equipment, and the sterilizable syringe remains the least costly means of administering an injection. Data from countries that have acceptable systems for processing clinical waste indicate that safe and environmentally acceptable disposal, destruction and final containment cost nearly as much as the original cost of a disposable syringe. By careful supervision of staff behaviour and good management, some countries have demonstrated that they are able to administer safe injections with sterilizable syringes at a price they can afford.  (+info)

(4/221) Strategies for safe injections.

In 1998, faced with growing international concern, WHO set out an approach for achieving injection safety that encompassed all elements from patients' expectations and doctors' prescribing habits to waste disposal. This article follows that lead and describes the implications of the approach for two injection technologies: sterilizable and disposable. It argues that focusing on any single technology diverts attention from the more fundamental need for health services to develop their own comprehensive strategies for safe injections. National health authorities will only be able to ensure that injections are administered safely if they take an approach that encompasses the whole system, and choose injection technologies that fit their circumstances.  (+info)

(5/221) Auto-disable syringes for immunization: issues in technology transfer.

WHO and its partners recommend the use of auto-disable syringes, "bundled" with the supply of vaccines when donor dollars are used, in all mass immunization campaigns, and also strongly advocate their use in routine immunization programmes. Because of the relatively high price of auto-disable syringes, WHO's Technical Network for Logistics in Health recommends that activities be initiated to encourage the transfer of production technology for these syringes as a means of promoting their use and enhancing access to the technology. The present article examines factors influencing technology transfer, including feasibility, corporate interest, cost, quality assurance, intellectual property considerations, and probable time frames for implementation. Technology transfer activities are likely to be complex and difficult, and may not result in lower prices for syringes. Guidelines are offered on technology transfer initiatives for auto-disable syringes to ensure the quality of the product, the reliability of the supply, and the feasibility of the technology transfer activity itself.  (+info)

(6/221) Clothing for use in clean-air environments.

Disposable plastic two-piece suits were compared with conventional cotton suits, gowns, and plastic aprons by nurses in a burns unit. The plastic suits allowed fewer micro-organisms to be dispersed into the environment than the other garments but were less comfortable.  (+info)

(7/221) Quantitative and cost comparison of ultrasensitive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA viral load assays: Bayer bDNA quantiplex versions 3.0 and 2.0 and Roche PCR Amplicor monitor version 1.5.

Quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA as a measure of viral load has greatly improved the monitoring of therapies for infected individuals. With the significant reductions in viral load now observed in individuals treated with highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART), viral load assays have been adapted to achieve greater sensitivity. Two commercially available ultrasensitive assays, the Bayer Quantiplex HIV-1 bDNA version 3.0 (bDNA 3.0) assay and the Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Ultrasensitive version 1.5 (Amplicor 1.5) assay, are now being used to monitor HIV-1-infected individuals. Both of these ultrasensitive assays have a reported lower limit of 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml and were developed from corresponding older generation assays with lower limits of 400 to 500 copies/ml. However, the comparability of viral load data generated by these ultrasensitive assays and the relative costs of labor, disposables, and biohazardous wastes were not determined in most cases. In this study, we used matched clinical plasma samples to compare the quantification of the newer bDNA 3.0 assay with that of the older bDNA 2.0 assay and to compare the quantification and costs of the bDNA 3.0 assay and the Amplicor 1.5 assay. We found that quantification by the bDNA 3.0 assay was approximately twofold higher than that by the bDNA 2.0 assay and was highly correlated to that by the Amplicor 1.5 assay. Moreover, cost analysis based on labor, disposables, and biohazardous wastes showed significant savings with the bDNA 3.0 assay as compared to the costs of the Amplicor 1.5 assay.  (+info)

(8/221) Giant papillary conjunctivitis in frequent-replacement contact lens wearers: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: A retrospective study was done of 47 patients who wore frequent-replacement contact lenses on a daily basis and replaced them every 1 day to 12 weeks. The incidence of giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) was determined, and potential risk factors that may predispose frequent-replacement contact lens wearers to develop GPC were assessed. METHODS: The records of patients who were fitted with frequent-replacement contact lenses with no prior contact lens experience (September 1993 to February 1997) were reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 260 patients met the requirement for inclusion in this study. Ten (21.27%) of the patients developed GPC. The incidence varied according to how often the contact lenses were replaced. Incidence was 36% in patients who replaced their lenses at 4 weeks or longer and 4.5% in patients who replaced their lenses at less than 4 weeks. Lenses were coated more often in patients who replaced their lenses at 4 weeks or longer (pi = .23). A significantly greater number of patients in the GPC group incorporated enzyme into their contact lens care system (pi = .0004). A history of allergy was present, significantly more often in patients who developed GPC (pi = .012). There was no significant difference between the groups for age, sex, average daily wearing time, Food and Drug Administration classification of contact lens material, time in contact lenses from fitting to diagnosis or last follow-up period, or the parameters and fitting characteristics of the contact lenses. CONCLUSION: The frequency of contact lens replacement appears to be an important variable in development of GPC. Although frequent-replacement contact lenses do not eliminate GPC, patients on a 1-day to 3-week replacement cycle had a significantly lower risk of developing GPC than patients who replaced their lenses at longer intervals. Coating was present less often on lenses replaced every 1 day to 3 weeks. In patients who are at high risk for GPC, replacing lenses at intervals of 1 day to 2 weeks appears to offer a better strategy in avoiding GPC than incorporating enzymatic cleaning into their care system.  (+info)