“
“We read with interest the results of the study by Dr Mills and colleagues regarding the use of a modified intradermal (ID) preexposure rabies vaccination schedule [two ID doses on each of days 0 and 7 and a single ID dose with serology on days 21 to 28 (TRID2 schedule)].1 Their results suggest that this approach “works” in seroconverting to an acceptable antibody level almost all participants using the TRID2 schedule. We acknowledge that the TRID2 schedule could afford some advantage where time is short and the typical approach (single ID doses on days 0, 7, and 28 followed by Maraviroc molecular weight serology

2 to 3 weeks after the last ID dose) is not feasible. However, we suggest that the utility of the study could have been substantially enhanced if additional schedules had been Fulvestrant datasheet evaluated, in particular, a parallel schedule wherein only single ID doses are provided on days 0 and 7. There is evidence that even a single ID dose on day 0 will seroconvert to an acceptable antibody level, at 1 month post-vaccination, most [97/101 (96%)] vaccinees,2 similar to the TRID2 schedule; it is suspected that giving a single ID dose at 0 and at 7 days would enhance the seroconversion rate and antibody level even further. Also, in a small study, single ID doses at 0, 3, and 7 days

were associated with an acceptable antibody level at 1 year post-vaccination in 15/16 (94%) of vaccinees.3 Using single ID doses vice the TRID2 dosing may well achieve similar seroconversion rates but reduce the cost (the TRID2 dosing entails five doses of vaccine while the usual ID dosing schedule only uses three doses of vaccine, ie, 60% of the vaccine cost) and avoids having to use an “off-label” approach as

in the TRID2 schedule. Martin Tepper 1 and Steven Schofield Inositol monophosphatase 1 1 The views expressed in this letter are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of National Defence of Canada. “
“Menner and colleagues reported on an interesting case of the development of symptomatic Plasmodium falciparum malaria following treatment for Plasmodium ovale malaria.[1] Another instance of sequential disease, in which clinical Plasmodium malariae infection followed acute P falciparum malaria, has also been published recently.[2] The origin of subsequent malarial manifestations in situations such as these (not involving Plasmodium vivax) is unknown and a matter for speculation. One possibility is that the phenomenon could be associated with therapy for the first bout of malaria, as has been suggested.[1, 2] In this regard, new drug-related and life-cycle research findings are pertinent. It has been discovered that particular drugs can under some circumstances cause arrested development of hepatic plasmodial forms. Consequently, the question arises as to whether the latter are occasionally able to become active again in an immunological milieu which does not prevent invasion of red blood cells and multiplication of parasites therein.