PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

James McCormack

Publications and source records attributed to James McCormack.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Polymorphisms at codons 108 and 189 in murine PrP play distinct roles in the control of scrapie incubation time.

Susceptibility to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) is associated strongly with PrP polymorphisms in humans, sheep and rodents. In mice, scrapie incubation time is controlled by polymorphisms at PrP codons 108 (leucine or phenylalanine) and 189 (threonine or valine), but the precise role of each polymorphism in the control of disease is unknown. The L108F and T189V polymorphisms are present in distinct structural regions of PrP and thus provide an excellent model with which to investigate the role of PrP structure and gene variation in TSEs. Two unique lines of transgenic mice, in which 108F and 189V have been targeted separately into the endogenous murine Prnp(a) gene, have been produced. TSE inoculation of inbred lines of mice expressing all allelic combinations at codons 108 and 189 has revealed a complex relationship between PrP allele and incubation time. It has been established that both codons 108 and 189 control TSE incubation time, and that each polymorphism plays a distinct role in the disease process. Comparison of ME7 incubation times in mouse lines that are heterozygous at both codons has also identified a previously unrecognized intramolecular interaction between PrP codons 108 and 189.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Controlled trial of oronasal versus nasal mask ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive positive pressure techniques such as continuous and bilevel positive airway pressure avoid intubation and its attendant complications in selected patients with acute respiratory failure. However, mask intolerance remains a common cause for failure of noninvasive ventilatory techniques. The aim of our study was to assess patient tolerance of oronasal vs. nasal mask ventilation in acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Emergency department or intensive care units at a university hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy patients with acute respiratory failure as evidenced by clinical or blood gas criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomly received either a disposable nasal or an oronasal mask (Respironics, Pittsburgh, PA) when they met study criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were randomized into each arm of the study; most of the patients had acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (48.6% of the nasal mask group and 42.8% of the facial mask group) or chronic obstructive airway disease (34.3% of the nasal mask group and 31.4% of the facial mask group). Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients were similar. Heart and respiratory rates and blood gases improved similarly for patients in both mask groups. Rates of intubation were also similar (eight in each group). However, mask intolerance was significantly higher in the nasal than the oronasal mask group (12 vs. 4, respectively, p=.023). Four patients in the nasal (11.4%) and two in the oronasal mask group (5.7%) died later during the hospitalization. The overall success rate tended to be greater in the oronasal (65.7%) than the nasal group (48.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although both masks performed similarly with regard to improving vital signs and gas exchange and avoiding intubation, the nasal mask was less well tolerated than the oronasal mask in patients with acute respiratory failure.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

What patients want to know about their medications. Focus group study of patient and clinician perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To describe what patients want to know about their medications and how they currently access information. To describe how physicians and pharmacists respond to patients' information needs. To use patients', physicians', and pharmacists' feedback to develop evidence-based treatment information sheets. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and a grounded-theory approach. SETTING: Three regions of Canada (British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario). PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight patients, 27 physicians, and 35 pharmacists each took part in one of 19 focus groups. METHOD: Purposeful and convenience sampling was used. A trained facilitator used a semistructured interview guide to conduct the focus groups. Analysis was completed by at least two research-team members. MAIN FINDINGS: Patients wanted both general and specific information when considering medication treatments. They wanted basic information about the medical condition being treated and specific information about side effects, duration of treatment, and range of available treatment options. Physicians and pharmacists questioned the amount of side-effect and safety information patients wanted and thought that too much information might deter patients from taking their medications. Patients, physicians, and pharmacists supported the use of evidence-based treatment information sheets. CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians each appear to have a different understanding of what and how much information patients should receive about medications. Feedback from patients can be used to develop patient-oriented treatment information.

Drug Therapy↗