A multifaceted approach to improving motor vehicle restraint complicance.

OBJECTIVES: To increase proper use of seat belts and car seats, thereby reducing morbidity and mortality from motor vehicle collisions. SETTING: The Vehicle Injury Prevention program community intervention was implemented in Houston, Texas. Effectiveness data are limited to "target area one", an impoverished neighborhood in northeast Harris County. METHODS: This multifaceted public health education campaign brought together six segments of the community: education, health, government, law enforcement, private industry, and the media, to improve restraint use. It was evaluated by observation of proper restraint use before and nine months after implementation. Trained, independent observers made observations of occupants in the target area and at two comparison sites. Pre-post differences in restraint compliance were calculated by a standard binomial proportion test. RESULTS: Motorists in target area one significantly improved their restraint use by 15% (p<0.05) from 39% pre-intervention to 54% post-intervention, whereas use in the comparison neighborhoods remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a public health education program, combined with economic incentives to increase vehicle restraint use, can be successful with multifaceted community support.

Seroprevalence of antibody against poliovirus in inner-city preschool children. Implications for vaccination policy in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To assess susceptibility to poliomyelitis in selected inner-city preschool children in the United States and to estimate the contribution of secondary spread of live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine virus to type-specific immunity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional seroprevalence study. METHODS: Serum neutralizing antibody levels against poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed according to vaccination status, age, and other sociodemographic variables. SETTING: Hospital and satellite clinics serving inner-city populations in Houston, Tex, and Detroit, Mich, 1990 to 1991. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 526 children aged 12 to 47 months seeking medical care were enrolled in the seroprevalence study; 144 children aged 12 to 35 months without a history of previous oral poliovirus vaccination were enrolled in the secondary spread study. RESULTS: Seropositive rates were similar in children in both cities, ranging from about 80% for types 1 and 3 in 12- to 23-month-old children to more than 90% in those aged 36 to 47 months. The most important predictor of seropositivity was the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received (P < .01), with levels approximately 90% for all 3 serotypes among children who had received 3 or more doses. In children likely to have been unvaccinated, seropositive rates ranged from 9% to 18% for poliovirus types 1 and 3 and from 29% to 42% for type 2; secondary spread of vaccine virus appeared to have occurred among children who had previously received 1 dose or less but not those with 2 or more doses. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of immunity to poliovirus among inner-city preschoolers are high and may be predicted by the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received. Secondary spread of the vaccine virus plays a modest role in increasing polio immunity in inner-city populations, especially against types 1 and 3. This role will decrease in importance if the recently attained high levels of immunization coverage in the United States are sustained and if the risk of importation of wild poliovirus continues to diminish.

Loracarbef (LY163892) vs. penicillin VK in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis.

A double blind, randomized clinical trial compared loracarbef (LY163892) with penicillin VK. Two hundred thirty-three pediatric patients (less than or equal to 12 years) with a diagnosis of pharyngitis or tonsillitis resulting from Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci were randomized to treatment. Patients in the loracarbef group (n = 120) received loracarbef as a 15-mg/kg/day oral suspension or 200-mg capsule taken twice daily for 10 days. Patients in the penicillin group (n = 113) received penicillin VK as a 20-mg/kg/day oral suspension or 250-mg capsule taken four times daily for 10 days. Successful clinical responses were demonstrated in 101 of the 104 (97.1%) evaluable patients treated with loracarbef compared with 83 of 88 (94.3%) of evaluable patients treated with penicillin. The clinical relapse rate for the loracarbef group was 2.9% vs. 5.7% for the penicillin group. Bacteriologic response data approximated the clinical response data, as eradication of Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci was found in 86.5 and 81.8% of the loracarbef group and the penicillin group, respectively. No statistically significant difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse reactions was noted between the two groups. The results indicate that loracarbef taken twice daily was comparable in safety and efficacy to penicillin VK taken four times daily in the treatment of Group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus-associated pharyngitis and tonsillitis in children.

Loracarbef vs. cefaclor in pediatric skin and skin structure infections.

A double blind, randomized clinical trial involving 214 children, ages 6 months to 12 years, compared the safety and effectiveness of the new carbacephem loracarbef and the cephalosporin cefaclor for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. The two agents were given primarily as oral suspensions. Dosages were 15 mg/kg/day in two divided doses for loracarbef and 20 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for cefaclor. Assessment 72 hours after completion of the 7-day course of treatment indicated a favorable clinical response plus eradication of the pretherapy pathogen in 97.3% of the 74 loracarbef-treated patients eligible for evaluation and 92.3% of 78 evaluable cefaclor-treated patients. Favorable response rates at a second posttreatment visit 10 to 14 days after the end of therapy were 95.6% in 68 evaluable loracarbef-treated patients and 86.2% in 65 treated with cefaclor. The incidence of adverse reactions, including gastrointestinal effects, was low in both groups. No statistical difference in clinical or bacteriologic efficacy or safety was detected between patients treated with loracarbef and cefaclor.