INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON GRAIN DUST AND HEALTH University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada November 7-9, 1977 CALL FOR ABSTRACTS This symposium will be held at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada from November 7-9, 1977. Its purpose is to summarize current information related to the effects of grain dust on health, and to provide a framework to discuss future research in this area. Sessions will be devoted to 1) the pathophysiological mechanisms of grain dustinduced pulmonary disease; 2) the epidemiology of occupational pulmonary disease; 3) physiological changes with emphasis on early identification; and 4) the physical and biological characteristics of grain dust including methods of environmental monitoring. Both original and previously published material will be considered. Abstracts should be in English: 1. Approximately 150 words in length, typed and double spaced. Please provide an original and 6 copies. 2. Presentations will be limited to 10 minutes with 5 minutes for discussion. 3. Include the title of the paper, the authors, the full address and institution of the person presenting the paper. 4. Mail abstracts to: The International Symposium on Grain Dust and Health, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, University Hospital, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 57N OWS. 5. DeadlIne for Abstracts is July 15, 1977. If accepted, a full text of the presentation will be required for publication in the Proceedings of the Symposium. Financial assistance to help defray the cost of air fare and lodging is available. An estimate of air fare costs should be submitted with abstract. For non-participants, there will be a registration fee of $100.00. This symposium is sponsored by the University of Saskatchewan, Heal. and Welfare Canada, The Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board, The Saskatchewan Anti-TuberculosIs League and the Western Grain Elevators AssocIation. Chairman - J. A. DOSMAN Co-Chalmian - D. J. COtTON
Therapeutics Bulletin and France, La Lettre Mt.dicale d'Information, for example, but none has such a well organized network of consultants. There are now two Canadian physicians on the advisory board. According to marketing departments in the drug industry, The Medical Letter is a nuisance. Yet there have been of late some "favourable" assessments of new drugs. For example, dopamine (Desberger's Intropin) was approved with little restriction and labelled "an important new drug" in the treatment of shock, having "the advantage over previously available catecholamines of a direct beneficial effect on renal blood flow".2 Who can ask for a better rating? The new nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs were labelled as "useful in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis" in the last September issue.3 The new antiseptic chlorhexidine (Hibitane-Ayerst) was also well rated last October.4 The scope of the Letter is no longer restricted to providing information just on drugs. There have recently been articles on colonoscopy, aortocoronary bypass, food additives, surgery for obesity, cardiac pacemakers, frostbite, surgery for colitis, influenza vaccination, water fluoridation, elastic stockings, high-fibre diet, ultrasound, radiographic therapy, mammography, cyclamates, allergy tests, poison ivy, intravenous fluid filters, intrauterine devices, pregnancy tests, treatment of hemorrhoids and mineral supplements. There is something for everyone. The Medical Letter covers areas of medical practice where decisions about whether to use a procedure are difficult to make. The Medical Letter on Medical Procedures might be a more appropriate name. New information on old and new drugs is now produced at such a rate that textbooks become obsolete, and the only alternative to reading the Letter would be to read all drug reviews appearing in the major medical journals. The Medical Letter requires 1 minute a day (15 minutes to read the few pages issued every other week). The presentation is tailored to the busy practitioner; it is usually limited to 4 pages, short paragraphs, concise sentences and few references. There is no equivalent in other areas of medical literature. A practitioner who does not have the time to read The Medical Letter does not have the time to read - in that case, may God help his patients. PIERRE BIRON, MD Department of pharmacology Faculty of medicine University of Montreal Montreal, PQ
References 1. GOODMAN LS, GILMAN A (eds): Pharmaco-
724 CMA JOURNAL/APRIL 9, 1977/VOL. 116
logical Basis of Therapeutics, 5th ed, Riverside, NJ, Macmillan, 1975 2. Dopamine for treatment of shock. Med Leit Drugs Ther 17: 13, 1975 3. New drugs for arthritis. Med Lea Drugs Ther 18: 77, 1976 4. Chiorhexidine and other antiseptics. Ibid, p 85
Tribute to AD. Kelly To the editor: Among the many tributes to the late A.D. Kelly that must be reaching your desk, the undersigned wish to include a record of the modest obsequies celebrated in Vancouver in memory of this charming doyen of contemporary Canadian medical literature. The ceremonies were conducted with decorous good humour, as Art himself would have arranged them, and with a sense of gratitude for the good fortune of knowing him through his pen and in person. ERNEST J. BOWMER, MD, MB, CH B, rRCP[c] KENNETH G. CAMBON, MD KENNETH M. LEIGHTON, MD, FRCP[C] University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
Urticarial rash, periorbital edema following influenza (bivalent) vaccination To the editor: I report a case of urticanal rash and periorbital edema following influenza vaccination in a nonallergic young adult. A 23-year-old man, previously healthy, received 0.5 ml of bivalent influenza virus vaccine in each deltoid area on Oct. 26, 1976. The next day he noted puffiness around his eyes and a generalized itchy, red rash. The itching was relieved by the administration of oral and parenteral diphenhydramine hydrochloride (Benadryl). Because of persisting symptoms and signs he attended hospital on Dec. 6, 1976. He gave no history of allergies to egg, and no family history of allergic disorders. He was afebrile. Findings included urticarial lesions over the entire body, peniorbital edema, small, discrete lymph nodes in the cervical area, liver enlargement to 2 cm below the right costal margin and splenk enlargement to 2 cm below the left costal margin. Total leukocyte count was 5.6 x 10'! 1 (56% segmented forms and 33% lymphocytes); no eosinophils were seen. Results of blood chemistry studies, chest radiography and urinalysis were normal. VDRL testing and the differential slide test for infectious mononucleosis gave negative results. The patient was treated with hydroxyzine hydrochloride (Atarax) orally. The skin lesions and periorbital edema disappeared in about 7 days. Hepatosplenomegaly persists and follow-up is being continued in the outpatient clinic. U. NANDA KUMBAR, MD, FRCP[C] BASIL VARKEY, MD, FRcP[c] Department of medicine Veterans Administration Centre 5000 West National Ave. Wood (Milwaukee), WI
Therapeutics Bulletin and France, La Lettre Mt.dicale d'Information, for example, but none has such a well organized network of consultants. There are now two Canadian physicians on the advisory board. According to marketing departments in the drug industry, The Medical Letter is a nuisance. Yet there have been of late some "favourable" assessments of new drugs. For example, dopamine (Desberger's Intropin) was approved with little restriction and labelled "an important new drug" in the treatment of shock, having "the advantage over previously available catecholamines of a direct beneficial effect on renal blood flow".2 Who can ask for a better rating? The new nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs were labelled as "useful in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis" in the last September issue.3 The new antiseptic chlorhexidine (Hibitane-Ayerst) was also well rated last October.4 The scope of the Letter is no longer restricted to providing information just on drugs. There have recently been articles on colonoscopy, aortocoronary bypass, food additives, surgery for obesity, cardiac pacemakers, frostbite, surgery for colitis, influenza vaccination, water fluoridation, elastic stockings, high-fibre diet, ultrasound, radiographic therapy, mammography, cyclamates, allergy tests, poison ivy, intravenous fluid filters, intrauterine devices, pregnancy tests, treatment of hemorrhoids and mineral supplements. There is something for everyone. The Medical Letter covers areas of medical practice where decisions about whether to use a procedure are difficult to make. The Medical Letter on Medical Procedures might be a more appropriate name. New information on old and new drugs is now produced at such a rate that textbooks become obsolete, and the only alternative to reading the Letter would be to read all drug reviews appearing in the major medical journals. The Medical Letter requires 1 minute a day (15 minutes to read the few pages issued every other week). The presentation is tailored to the busy practitioner; it is usually limited to 4 pages, short paragraphs, concise sentences and few references. There is no equivalent in other areas of medical literature. A practitioner who does not have the time to read The Medical Letter does not have the time to read - in that case, may God help his patients. PIERRE BIRON, MD Department of pharmacology Faculty of medicine University of Montreal Montreal, PQ
References 1. GOODMAN LS, GILMAN A (eds): Pharmaco-
724 CMA JOURNAL/APRIL 9, 1977/VOL. 116
logical Basis of Therapeutics, 5th ed, Riverside, NJ, Macmillan, 1975 2. Dopamine for treatment of shock. Med Leit Drugs Ther 17: 13, 1975 3. New drugs for arthritis. Med Lea Drugs Ther 18: 77, 1976 4. Chiorhexidine and other antiseptics. Ibid, p 85
Tribute to AD. Kelly To the editor: Among the many tributes to the late A.D. Kelly that must be reaching your desk, the undersigned wish to include a record of the modest obsequies celebrated in Vancouver in memory of this charming doyen of contemporary Canadian medical literature. The ceremonies were conducted with decorous good humour, as Art himself would have arranged them, and with a sense of gratitude for the good fortune of knowing him through his pen and in person. ERNEST J. BOWMER, MD, MB, CH B, rRCP[c] KENNETH G. CAMBON, MD KENNETH M. LEIGHTON, MD, FRCP[C] University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
Urticarial rash, periorbital edema following influenza (bivalent) vaccination To the editor: I report a case of urticanal rash and periorbital edema following influenza vaccination in a nonallergic young adult. A 23-year-old man, previously healthy, received 0.5 ml of bivalent influenza virus vaccine in each deltoid area on Oct. 26, 1976. The next day he noted puffiness around his eyes and a generalized itchy, red rash. The itching was relieved by the administration of oral and parenteral diphenhydramine hydrochloride (Benadryl). Because of persisting symptoms and signs he attended hospital on Dec. 6, 1976. He gave no history of allergies to egg, and no family history of allergic disorders. He was afebrile. Findings included urticarial lesions over the entire body, peniorbital edema, small, discrete lymph nodes in the cervical area, liver enlargement to 2 cm below the right costal margin and splenk enlargement to 2 cm below the left costal margin. Total leukocyte count was 5.6 x 10'! 1 (56% segmented forms and 33% lymphocytes); no eosinophils were seen. Results of blood chemistry studies, chest radiography and urinalysis were normal. VDRL testing and the differential slide test for infectious mononucleosis gave negative results. The patient was treated with hydroxyzine hydrochloride (Atarax) orally. The skin lesions and periorbital edema disappeared in about 7 days. Hepatosplenomegaly persists and follow-up is being continued in the outpatient clinic. U. NANDA KUMBAR, MD, FRCP[C] BASIL VARKEY, MD, FRcP[c] Department of medicine Veterans Administration Centre 5000 West National Ave. Wood (Milwaukee), WI
