ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of gatifloxacin versus cefixime in the treatment of uncomplicated culture positive enteric fever.DesignA randomized, open-label, active control trial with two parallel arms.SettingEmergency Room and Outpatient Clinics in Patan Hospital, Lagankhel, Lalitpur, Nepal.ParticipantsPatients with clinically diagnosed uncomplicated enteric fever meeting the inclusion criteria.InterventionsPatients were allocated to receive one of two drugs, Gatifloxacin or Cefixime. The dosages used were Gatifloxacin 10 mg/kg, given once daily for 7 days, or Cefixime 20 mg/kg/day given in two divided doses for 7 days.Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was fever clearance time. The secondary outcome measure was overall treatment failure (acute treatment failure and relapse).ResultsRandomization was carried out in 390 patients before enrollment was suspended on the advice of the independent data safety monitoring board due to significant differences in both primary and secondary outcome measures in the two arms and the attainment of a priori defined endpoints. Median (95% confidence interval) fever clearance times were 92 hours (84–114 hours) for gatifloxacin recipients and 138 hours (105–164 hours) for cefixime-treated patients (Hazard Ratio[95%CI] = 2.171 [1.545–3.051], p<0.0001). 19 out of 70 (27%) patients who completed the 7 day trial had acute clinical failure in the cefixime group as compared to 1 out of 88 patients (1%) in gatifloxacin group(Odds Ratio [95%CI] = 0.031 [0.004 – 0.237], p<0.001). Overall treatment failure patients (relapsed patients plus acute treatment failure patients plus death) numbered 29. They were determined to be (95% confidence interval) 37.6 % (27.14%–50.2%) in the cefixime group and 3.5% (2.2%–11.5%) in the gatifloxacin group (HR[95%CI] = 0.084 [0.025–0.280], p<0.0001). There was one death in the cefixime group.ConclusionsBased on this study, gatifloxacin is a better treatment for uncomplicated enteric fever as compared to cefixime.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN75784880

Acute poisoning by organophosphorus (OP) compounds is a major global clinical problem, withthousands of deaths occurring every year. Most of these pesticide poisoning and subsequentdeaths occur in developing countries following a deliberate self ingestion of the poison. Metacid(Methyl parathion) and Nuvan (Dichlorovos) are commonly ingested OP pesticides; Dimethoate,Profenofos, and Chlorpyrifos are other less frequently ingested compounds in Nepal. The toxicityof these OP pesticides is due to the irreversible inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) enzymeleading to accumulation of acetylcholine and subsequent over-activation of cholinergic receptorsin various parts of the body. Acutely, these patients present with cholinergic crisis; intermediatesyndrome and delayed polyneuropathy are other sequel of this form of poisoning. The diagnosisdepends on the history of exposure to these pesticides, characteristic manifestations of toxicityand improvements of the signs and symptoms after administration of atropine. The supportivetreatment of OP poisoning includes the same basic principles of management of any acutelypoisoned patient i.e., rapid initial management of airways, breathing, and circulation. Gastriclavage and activated charcoal are routinely used decontamination procedures, but their valuehas not been conclusively proven in this poisoning. Atropine is the mainstay of therapy, andcan reverse the life threatening features of this acute poisoning. However, there are no clearcut guidelines on the dose and duration of atropine therapy in OP poisoning. Cholinesterasereactivators, by regenerating AChE, can reverse both the nicotinic and muscarinic effects;however, this benefit has not been translated well in clinical trials. All these facts highlight thatthere are many unanswered questions and controversies in the management of OP poisoningand there is an urgent need for research on this aspect of this common and deadly poisoning.Key Words: poisoning, organophosphorus insecticides, decontamination, antidotes

Introduction: Clinical features of Systemic lupus erythematosus vary between different parts of the World; however, this information on Nepalese Sytemic lupus erythematosus does not exist. Methods: Patients with Systemic lupus erythematosus fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria treated in Patan Hospital were studied by means of retrospective review of their case records. The results were compared with various regional and international studies. Results: The female to male ratio was 36:1 with a mean age at diagnosis 28.67 years. Cutaneous manifestations were the most common 72 (96%) presentations followed by musculoskeletal involvement 70 (93%). Haematological and renal involvements each were present in 33 (44%) of patients. Pulmonary and neuropsychiatric involvements were present in 15 (20%) and 8 (11%) patients respectively. Antinuclear antibody and anti-double stranded deoxyribonucleic acid antibodies were positive in 70 (93%) and 66 (88%) of patients respectively. A quarter of patients had some form of co-morbid conditions. At the time of last follow up, 70 (93%), 66 (90%), and 6 (9%) of patients were taking antimalarials, steroids and immunosuppressive agentsrespectively, mostly in combinations. Eighty seven percent of patients had their disease activity under control at the time of last follow up whereas four percent still had an active disease. In another four percent died during the course of therapy and the outcome was unknown in another four percent of patients who lost to follow up. Conclusions: Clinical characteristics and antinuclear antibody pattern of Nepalese lupus patients is more or less similar to those with patients from other countries in the region and in the World. Keywords: clinical profile; Nepal; systemic lupus erythematosus.

We report two cases which highlight the fact how poor communication leads to dangerously poor health outcome. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman recently diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from Southern Nepal presented to Patan hospital with multiple episodes of vomiting and oral ulcers following the intake of methotrexate every day for 11 days, who was managed in the intensive care unit. Similarly, we present a 40-year-old man with ileo-caecal tuberculosis who was prescribed with anti-tubercular therapy (ATT) and prednisolone, who failed to take ATT due to poor communication and presented to Patan Hospital with features of disseminated tuberculosis following intake of 2 weeks of prednisolone alone. These were events that could have been easily prevented with proper communication skills. Improvement of communication between doctors and patients is paramount so that life-threatening events like these could be avoided.