[Allergy assessment: when and how?] / Allergieabklärung: wann und wie?

Allergy assessment: when and how? Abstract. Allergies are common in the clinical practice. The most important allergens are pollen, house dust mites, animal dander, mold and allergens attributable to a particular work environment. The medical history is a very important part for diagnosing an allergy, because sensitizations detected by skin prick tests and laboratory tests are common but not always symptomatic and therefore without clinical relevance. There are 3 options to manage allergic diseases: avoidance of allergens, symptomatic treatment and - in selected cases - a causal treatment like allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Primary care in Switzerland gains strength.

BACKGROUND: Although there is widespread agreement on health- and cost-related benefits of strong primary care in health systems, little is known about the development of the primary care status over time in specific countries, especially in countries with a traditionally weak primary care sector such as Switzerland. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the current strength of primary care in the Swiss health care system and to compare it with published results of earlier primary care assessments in Switzerland and other countries. METHODS: A survey of experts and stakeholders with insights into the Swiss health care system was carried out between February and March 2014. The study was designed as mixed-modes survey with a self-administered questionnaire based on a set of 15 indicators for the assessment of primary care strength. Forty representatives of Swiss primary and secondary care, patient associations, funders, health care authority, policy makers and experts in health services research were addressed. Concordance between the indicators of a strong primary care system and the real situation in Swiss primary care was rated with 0-2 points (low-high concordance). RESULTS: A response rate of 62.5% was achieved. Participants rated concordance with five indicators as 0 (low), with seven indicators as 1 (medium) and with three indicators as 2 (high). In sum, Switzerland achieved 13 of 30 possible points. Low scores were assigned because of the following characteristics of Swiss primary care: inequitable local distribution of medical resources, relatively low earnings of primary care practitioners compared to specialists, low priority of primary care in medical education and training, lack of formal guidelines for information transfer between primary care practitioners and specialists and disregard of clinical routine data in the context of medical service planning. CONCLUSION: Compared to results of an earlier assessment in Switzerland, an improvement of seven indicators could be stated since 1995. As a result, Switzerland previously classified as a country with low primary care strength was reclassified as country with intermediate primary care strength compared to 14 other countries. Low scored characteristics represent possible targets of future health care reforms.

Acceptance of interventions to promote primary care: What do physicians prioritize?

BACKGROUND: Switzerland is facing a shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs); government organizations therefore suggested a broad variety of interventions to promote primary care. The aim of the study was to prioritize these interventions according to the acceptance and perceived barriers of most relevant groups of physicians in this context (hospital physicians and PCPs). METHODS: The study was conducted during summer 2014. An online-based questionnaire assessed demographic data, working conditions and future plans. Participants were asked to rank the usefulness of 22 interventions to promote primary care. Interventions to promote primary care that received ratings of 4 or 5 on the Likert scale (corresponding to "useful" or "very useful") by at least 80 % of the participants were categorized as interventions with very high acceptance. We analyzed whether the groups (PCPs, hospital physicians) ranked the interventions differently using the Mann-Whitney U test. We assumed a two tailed p < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing as statistically significant. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty physicians (response rate 58.4 %) completed the survey. Among those 69 PCPs and 66 hospital physicians were included in the analysis. Among those 14 PCPs were planning to leave clinical practice due to retirement, whereas only 8 hospital physicians planned a career as PCPs. Among PCPs the intervention with the highest acceptance was the increase of reimbursement, whereas family friendly measures achieved highest acceptance among hospital physicians. Financial support for primary care traineeships was considered to be very useful by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions on PCPs close to retirement or on PCPs considering an early retirement will not adequately prevent shortage of primary care providers. Governmental interventions should therefore also aim at encouraging hospital physicians to start a career in primary care by governmental support for traineeships in primary care and investments in family friendly measures.

75% negative skin test results in patients with suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Influencing factors and interpretation of test results.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic approach for beta-lactam (BL) drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) is based on the history, clinical signs, skin tests (ST), in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests (DPT). The aim of this study was to assess the performance of an allergy workup with ST in a real-world use. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study the rate of positive ST in subjects with suspected DHR to penicillins and cephalosporins was investigated. Of special interest were correlations of ST positivity: 1) to the time intervals between index reaction and the allergic work-up, 2) time interval from drug exposure to the onset of signs, 3) pattern of manifestation in delayed DHR and involvement of test area in the index reaction, and 4) potential advantage of patch testing in delayed DHR. RESULTS: 175 patients were included between January 2018 and April 2019 (63.4% female), 45 (25.7%) with immediate DHR manifestation and 130 with delayed DHR manifestation (74.3%). A total of 44 patients (25.1%) had a positive ST (immediate DHR 37.8% versus 20.0% in delayed DHR). ST positivity decreased in both groups after 3 years from 47.8% [95%CI 29.2-67] to 23.5% [95%CI 9.6-47.3] in immediate DHR and 23.0% [95%CI 15-4-32.9] to 12.9% [95%CI 5.1-28.9] in delayed DHR. The proportion of positive ST was higher in patients with more severe forms of delayed DHR, and in subjects with a shorter latency period of onset of symptoms after drug exposure: 0-3d: 29.5% [95%CI 19.6-41.9] vs. >3d: 11.6% [95%CI 6.0-21.2]). No sensitization was shown in delayed urticaria or angioedema. ST done outside the skin area involved during the index reaction were negative in all cases (0/38 vs. 26/84 in cases with involved area). The combination of patch test and intradermal test (IDT) revealed an additional positive result in 2/77 cases. Additional in vitro testing reduced the proportion of negative test results to 72%. CONCLUSION: In most patients with negative test results, we could not clarify the cause of the BL-associated adverse events even with further investigations (including DPT). How to prevent new drug-induced adverse events in such patients has hardly been investigated yet. Corresponding cohort studies could improve the data situation.

Datasets describing the introduction of the high-sensitive troponin in the emergency department.

Chest pain is a common clinical condition in the emergency department. A high sensitive (hs) troponin test assay may help to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome earlier compared to conventional tests but also entails the risk of a high proportion of positive test results in patients without cardiac disease. We assessed the impact of the introduction of the hs-troponin test in clinical practice in an emergency department. We compared December 1, 2009 until November 30, 2010 (standard test period) to December 1, 2010 - the date of the introduction of the hs-troponin assay - until December 31, 2011 (hs troponin test period) of patients presenting with chest pain to one of the ten largest hospitals in Switzerland. We identified electronic health records using the following ICD-10 codes: R06.4 (hyperventilation), R07.1 (chest pain when breathing), R07.2 (precordial pain), R07.3 (other chest pain), and R07.4 (chest pain not specified), I20 (angina pectoris), I21 (acute MI), I22 (recurrent MI), I23 (complications after acute MI), and I24 (other acute ischemic heart disease). Included were all medical records of adult patients (≥18 years) presenting to the ED with chest pain and with ≥1 troponin test. Excluded were records without troponin test, pregnancy, trauma patients/life-threatening conditions, malignant disease, current fracture, renal replacement therapy/severe kidney failure (creatinine clearance <30ml/min/1.73m2), patients with disability, or patients disagreeing that their data will be used for scientific purposes. Two researchers screened all records for in-/exclusion. The first presentation for chest pain to the ED and all presentations within the following three months extracted. Presentations after >3 months due to chest pain were defined as a new index visit of a second episode. The extraction form with predefined variables was pilot-tested in 20 records. Additional diagnostic tests were ECG, treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, echocardiography, chest X-ray, computer tomography (CT) of the chest or abdomen, sonography of the abdomen or pleura, gastroscopy, and lung function tests. We compared the number of non-invasive / invasive cardiac diagnostic tests in troponin positive and negative patients and the number of diagnostic tests after the exclusion of patients with STEMI diagnosis. Non-invasive / invasive cardiac tests included treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, and echocardiography. We calculated average monthly tests per patient and compared mean tests per patient between groups. We used a t-test to quantify the evidence for differential number of diagnostic tests per patient in each period. Between-group differences were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed with the statistical software R for windows [1]. Interpretation of this data can be found in a research article titled Impact of the introduction of high-sensitive troponin assay on the evaluation of chest pain patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study [2]).

Impact of the Introduction of High-Sensitive Troponin Assay in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with troponin T/I test, the introduction of a high-sensitive (hs) troponin test may result in a higher proportion of positive test results in patients with chest pain and over-testing in patients without acute coronary syndrome. We assessed the impact of the introduction of the hs-troponin assay on the discharge diagnoses and the number of diagnostic tests in patients presenting with chest pain in a real-life setting in an emergency department. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients presenting with chest pain to one of the largest hospitals in Switzerland. We compared the standard troponin period (December 2009 to November 2010) with the hs-troponin period (December 2010 to December 2011). RESULTS: Data from 1274 patients (standard 597 [46.9%], hs-troponin 677 [53.1%]) were analyzed. The proportion of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction increased (hs-troponin 14.9%, compared with 9.7%); the proportion in unstable angina (1.5% to 4.0%) and other cardiac illnesses (8.1% to 11.7%) decreased. Although the proportion of noncardiac chest pain illnesses (67%) remained unchanged, the proportion of positive hs-troponin was higher (6.1% vs 2.0%). The average number of additional tests/person decreased in troponin-positive patients (2.0 to 1.7 test per patient; P = .02) and troponin-negative patients (3.1 to 2.8 tests; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Although the introduction of the hs-troponin test resulted in a higher proportion of positive hs-troponin tests in patients with noncardiac chest pain, the average number of diagnostic tests decreased in patients with chest pain presenting to an emergency department, indicating an increased confidence of clinicians in their diagnosis.

Can the CalproQuest predict a positive Calprotectin test? A prospective diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in primary care (PC) is challenging and associated with a considerable diagnostic delay. Using a calprotectin test for any PC patient with abdominal complaints would cause significant costs. The 8-item-questionnaire CalproQuest was developed to increase the pre-test probability for a positive Calprotectin. It is a feasible instrument to assess IBD in PC, but has not yet been evaluated in clinical routine. This study, therefore, aimed to validate whether the CalproQuest increases pretest-probability for a positive fecal Calprotectin. METHODS: Prospective diagnostic trial. The CalproQuest consists of 4 major and 4 minor questions suggestive for IBD. It is considered positive if ≥ 2 major or 1 major and 2 minor criteria are positive. Primary outcome: Sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest for Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 µg/g and for positive IBD diagnosis among patients referred to endoscopic evaluation at secondary care level. Secondary finding: Patient-reported diagnostic delay. RESULTS: 156 patients from 7 study centers had a complete CalproQuest and fecal Calprotectin test. The sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for Calprotectin ≥ 50 µg/g was 36% and 57%. The sensitivity and specificity of the CalproQuest for positive IBD diagnosis was 37% and 67%. The diagnostic delay was 61 months (SD 125.2). CONCLUSION: In this prospective diagnostic study, the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for Calprotectin levels ≥ 50 µg/g and positive IBD diagnosis were poor. Additional prospective studies concerning the ideal cut-off values, validity and cost-effectiveness of a combined use with the Calprotectin test in the PC setting are necessary.

Non-cardiac chest pain patients in the emergency department: Do physicians have a plan how to diagnose and treat them? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Non-cardiac chest pain is common and there is no formal recommendation on what diagnostic tests to use to identify underlying diseases after an acute coronary syndrome has been ruled out. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic tests, treatment recommendations and initiated treatments in patients presenting with non-cardiac chest pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective medical chart review of patients presenting to the ED. Included were all medical records of patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED with chest pain and a non-cardiac discharge diagnosis between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Information on the diagnosis, diagnostic tests performed, treatment initiated and recommendation for further diagnostic testing or treatment were extracted. The primary outcomes of interest were the final diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment recommendations. A formal ACS rule out testing was defined as serial three troponin testing. RESULTS: In total, 1341 ED admissions for non-cardiac chest pain (4.2% of all ED admissions) were analyzed. Non-specific chest pain remained the discharge diagnosis in 44.7% (n = 599). Identified underlying diseases included musculoskeletal chest pain (n = 602, 44.9%), pulmonary (n = 30, 2.2%), GI-tract (n = 35, 2.6%), or psychiatric diseases (n = 75, 5.6%). In 81.4% at least one troponin test and in 89% one ECG were performed. A formal ACS rule out troponin testing was performed in 9.2% (GI-tract disease 14.3%, non-specific chest pain 14.0%, pulmonary disease 10.0%, musculoskeletal chest pain 4.7%, and psychiatric disease 4.0%). Most frequently analgesics were prescribed (51%). A diagnostic test with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was prescribed in 20% (mainly in gastrointestinal diseases). At discharge, over 72 different recommendations were given, ranging from no further measures to extensive cardiac evaluation. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, a formal work-up to rule out ACS was found in a minority of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain of non-cardiac origin. A wide variation in diagnostic processes and treatment recommendations reflect the uncertainty of clinicians on how to approach patients after a cardiac cause was considered unlikely. Panic and anxiety disorders were rarely considered and a useful PPI treatment trial to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease was infrequently recommended.

Feasibility of an 8-item questionnaire for early diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in primary care.

AIMS: Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often associated with a diagnostic delay. Although faecal calprotectin is a helpful screening tool, the widespread use in primary care (PC) may not be appropriate due to the low prevalence of IBD in this setting. To increase pretest probability for a positive calprotectin test, an 8-item questionnaire (CalproQuest) was tested for its feasibility and acceptability in PC. METHODS: Population: PC patients with unspecific gastrointestinal complaints for at least 2 weeks. The CalproQuest consists of four major and four minor questions specific for IBD. It is considered positive if greater than or equal to two major or one major and two minor criteria are positive. PRIMARY OUTCOME: feasibility of CalproQuest, secondary outcome: patient's acceptance of stool sampling. RESULTS: Of 95 patients with a complete CalproQuest 52 (54.7%) were positive, 39 (41.1%) fulfilled two major and 13 (13.7%) one major and greater than or equal to two minor criteria. Twenty-seven general practitioners completed 83 (87.4%) questionnaires on feasibility which was assessed positive. Eighty-two patients (86.3%) completed questionnaires on acceptance which was high. CONCLUSION: The CalproQuest is a feasible instrument for assessing IBD in PC. Further prospective studies concerning validity and cost effectiveness of a combined use with the calprotectin test in this setting are necessary.

Types of abuse and risk factors associated with elder abuse.

PRINCIPLES: Detecting elder abuse is challenging because it is a taboo, and many cases remain unreported. This study aimed to identify types of elder abuse and to investigate its associated risk factors. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of 903 dossiers created at an Independent Complaints Authority for Old Age in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, from January 1, 2008 to October 31, 2012. Characteristics of victims and perpetrators, types of abuse, and associated risk factors related to the victim or the perpetrator were assessed. Bi- and multivariate analysis were used to identify abuse and neglect determinants. RESULTS: A total of 150 cases reflected at least one form of elder abuse or neglect; 104 cases were categorised as abuse with at least one type of abuse (overall 135 mentions), 46 cases were categorised as neglect (active or passive). Psychological abuse was the most reported form (47%), followed by financial (35%), physical (30%) and anticonstitutional abuse (18%). In 81% of the 150 cases at least two risk factors existed. In 13% no associated risk factor could be identified. Compared with neglect, elders with abuse were less likely to be a nursing home resident than living at home (odds ratio [OR] 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.19). In addition, they were more likely to be cohabiting with their perpetrators (OR 18.01, 95% CI 4.43-73.19). CONCLUSION: For the majority of the reported elder abuse cases at least two associated risk factors could be identified. Knowledge about these red flags and a multifaceted strategy are needed to identify and prevent elder abuse.

Effect of a patient-centered drug review on polypharmacy in primary care patients: study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Managing patients with polypharmacy is a challenging issue in primary care. The aim of this study is to determine whether a patient-centered systematic review leads to more appropriate medication use in patients without negatively affecting quality of life and the course of the disease. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is a two-armed, double blinded cluster-randomized controlled trial. Primary care physicians (PCPs) will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Physicians in the intervention group undergo training with instruction of the algorithm. The control group is given a lecture on multimorbidity and instructions for collecting data in a usual care manner. PCPs will approach patients aged 60 years or older who are taking 5 or more drugs. The study period is 1 year. The primary outcome measure is the change in the number of drugs 12 months after the algorithm was applied by the PCP during consultation with the patient. Secondary outcomes are: change in the number of drugs immediately after the encounter and 6 months later, reason for a change of the medication, discrepancy in the decision to change between PCP and patient, number of drugs for which the patient is suggesting a change, number of drugs the patient is taking that are not known to the PCP, time consumption of the intervention, disease-specific variables to evaluate the course of the disease(s) for which the patient is being treated , quality of life, barriers against using the algorithm, numbers of drugs readopted due to an unfavorable course of the disease, and numbers of drugs which have been started. DISCUSSION: Answering the four questions of the algorithm requires a weighing-up of risks and benefits and contains a shared-decision-making approach: a prioritization of the treatment goals is necessary. This can only be done in collaboration with the patient. The majority of patients with multimorbidity are treated in the primary care setting. This underlines the significance of our study carried out in this setting: given the high prevalence of adverse drug events in patients with multimorbidity an intervention like ours has a large potential to reduce drug-related morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16560559 13 November 2014.

Performance Measures in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Primary Care--A Retrospective Analysis.

RATIONALE: Adherence to recommendations regarding quality of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) improves outcome of patients. Performance measures (PM) reflect the quality of care but information about documentation of PM in primary care, is scant. AIM: To investigate the documentation of COPD PM in primary care practices of the Canton Zurich. METHOD: Twelve months retrospective medical chart review with physician of patients diagnosed COPD. PM were assessed by calculating the percentages of documented performance parameters. In addition, PM were compared with a practice running a structured COPD program. RESULTS: Data from 14 practices, total 115 patients, 57% male, mean age 68 (44­93) years, 46% active smokers, median pack-years 56 (range 22­150) were analyzed. Comorbidities were documented in 73%, GOLD grading in 70% (GOLD I 11%, GOLD II 64%, GOLD III 21%, GOLD IV 4%). On average, patients were reported to have 1,4 exacerbations/year. Documentation of PM ranged between 16% (written action plan for exacerbations) and 95% (smoking status). Documentation was identified for smoking cessation advice (74%), influenza vaccination/recommendation (49%), adequate pharmacotherapy (65%), inhalation instruction (57%), pulmonary rehabilitation advice (27%), collaborative care (60%) and proactive follow up (51%). The practice running the COPD program showed significant better documentation for all PM (p<0,01) but for influenza vaccination. CONCLUSION: In Swiss primary care gaps in documentation and tracking of COPD performance exist. Identifying and bridging these gaps is central for health care quality.

VAlidation of an 8-item-questionnaire predictive for a positive caLprotectin tEst and Real-life implemenTation in primary care to reduce diagnostic delay in inflammatory bowel disease (ALERT): protocol for a prospective diagnostic study.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in primary healthcare is challenging and often associated with a considerable diagnostic delay. This delay is associated with worse disease progression and outcomes. Although testing for faecal calprotectin is a useful screening tool to identify patients who need endoscopy for IBD, the widespread use may not be appropriate due to the low prevalence of patients with IBD among all patients attending a general practitioner (GP) with gastrointestinal symptoms. To increase the appropriate application of the faecal calprotectin test, an 8-item questionnaire, the CalproQuest, has been developed to increase pretest probability for a positive test result. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective diagnostic trial. The study consists of two independent and consecutive parts A and B, conducted by gastroenterologists (A) and GPs (B), respectively. Patients included in part A are referred to the gastroenterologist for any endoscopic evaluation. Patients included in part B present at their GP because of ongoing unspecific gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating, stool irregularities, diarrhoea) for at least 2 weeks. CalproQuest consists of four main and four secondary questions specific for IBD; it is considered positive if ≥2 main criteria are answered positively or one main criterion and two secondary criteria are answered positively. In part A, the sensitivity and specificity of CalproQuest for stool calprotectin levels ≥50 µg/g faeces and for positive IBD diagnosis will be investigated. In part B, the feasibility of CalproQuest in daily primary healthcare practice will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Kanton Zurich (reference KEK-ZH-number 2013-0516). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with the worldwide medical community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66310845.

Safety of ondansetron loading doses in children with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.