No abstract

Auricular acupuncture can be an effective treatment for acute anxiety, but there is a lack of direct comparisons of acupuncture to proven standard drug treatments. In this study we compared the efficacy of auricular acupuncture with intranasal midazolam, placebo acupuncture, and no treatment for reducing dental anxiety. Patients having dental extractions (n = 67) were randomized to (i) auricular acupuncture, (ii) placebo acupuncture, and (iii) intranasal midazolam and compared with a no treatment group. Anxiety was assessed before the interventions, at 30 min, and after the dental extraction. Physiological variables were assessed continuously. With the no treatment group as control, the auricular acupuncture group, and the midazolam group were significantly less anxious at 30 min as compared with patients in the placebo acupuncture group (Spielberger Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory X1, P = 0.012 and <0.001, respectively). In addition, patient compliance assessed by the dentist was significantly improved if auricular acupuncture or application of intranasal midazolam had been performed (P = 0.032 and 0.049, respectively). In conclusion, both, auricular acupuncture and intranasal midazolam were similarly effective for the treatment of dental anxiety.

Our findings do not support the hypothesis of NFP providing a substantial benefit in treating melasma when compared with the lone application of a broad-spectrum sunscreen.

BackgroundAzilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting.MethodsThe EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M.ResultsA total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03–1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73).ConclusionsThese data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin–angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0222-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PDL is an effective and safe method for treating sBCC. However, the occurrence of persistent dyspigmentation still limits the potential for excellent cosmetic outcomes.