ACE inhibitors are important therapeutic agents in controlling hypertension, correcting some of its pathophysiological derangement and improving its prognosis. While there are many such agents, there may be some important differences between them. This placebo run-in, double blind, crossover study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compares the efficacy of perindopril 4-8 mg and enalapril 10-20 mg as once daily antihypertensive agents on 32 patients. For diastolic blood pressure (DBP), perindopril had a placebo-corrected peak (P) reduction of blood pressure (BP) of -6.4 +/- 1.3 mmHg vs its placebo-corrected trough (T) of -5.2 +/- 1.7 mmHg. Enalapril had a reduction in DBP of -8.5 +/- 1.3 mmHg (P) and -5.7 +/- 1.7 mmHg (T). For systolic blood pressure (SBP), perindopril had a reduction of -7.5 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -7.3 +/- 2.2 mmHg (T) compared to enalapril with -10.8 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -8.3 +/- 2.3 mmHg (T). Placebo-corrected trough-to-peak ratio (SBP/DBP) for perindopril was 0.97/0.81 vs 0.77/0.67 for enalapril. There was no difference noted in 24-hour mean BP, area under the curve or post-dose casual BP measurements. Both perindopril and enalapril were well tolerated and the two treatment groups had similar safety profiles. Perindopril thus had a predictable and sustained blood pressure effect giving a 24-hour cover for the patient without excessive peak effect or poor trough effect.
The objective of the study was to determine whether discriminant analysis of characteristics of dyspepsia can differentiate peptic ulcer from non-ulcer dyspepsia in a Malaysian population. Two hundred and twenty six patients with dyspepsia were interviewed using a standard history questionnaire before undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Forty seven patients had peptic ulcer while 149 others were classified as having non-ulcer dyspepsia. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was done on 25 variables. The study showed that only five of these variables could differentiate peptic ulcer from non-ulcer dyspepsia, namely, nocturnal pain, pain before meals or when hungry, absence of nausea, age and sex. A scoring system was devised based on these discriminant symptoms. At a sensitivity of 51%, the specificity for peptic ulcer was 83%, but only prospective studies will determine if this scoring system is of actual clinical value.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acne is a common skin disorder which can cause physical scaring and impact the quality of life. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence, severity and the risk factors for developing acne among medical students in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional study among UKM medical students from academic year 1 to 5 was conducted from July 2011 to May 2012. A total of 361 students were selected by stratified cluster sampling method. Baseline data of the students, risk factors, height and weight were recorded. Acne severity was graded using the Comprehensive Acne Severity Scale (CASS).
RESULTS: The prevalence of acne among medical students is 68.1% (n=246). Males and females were almost equally affected (1:1.1). Majority students with acne were graded as almost clear (55.7%, n=137), mild (35.0%, n=86), moderate (7.7%, n=19), and severe (1.6%, n=4). More than half of them had developed acne scars (59.0%, n= 213). Males were found to be at higher risk of developing acne compared to females (p<0.05, OR=4.734; 95%CL=2.726-8.222). They are also at higher risk of developing moderate and severe grades of acne compared to females (p=0.001). The odds for developing acne was higher when mother (p=0.029; OR=1.752; 95%CL=1.058-2.902) or father (p=0.027; OR=1.852; 95%CL=1.072-3.201) had acne. When both parents were affected by acne the odds of developing acne was 3 times. (p=0.025; OR=3.056; 95%CL=1.153-8.094).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the prevalence of acne among medical students is high. Hence, it is important to identify those at risk and provide optimal treatment to prevent scarring and possible low self esteem among these future doctors.
KEYWORDS: acne vulgaris; medical; prevalence; risk factors; severity; students