[Selft-test kits on the high street, really useful ?] / Autotests en vente libre, vraiment utiles ?

Today, there are more and more self-test kits available on the high street. With a few exceptions (HIV, FIT), it is currently unclear whether they are effective, neither beneficial for the consumer, nor useful for the Swiss healthcare system. Is there a favorable impact for the health system? This article tries to help doctors find their way among the many self-test available, providing them a reading grid and recommendations for their patients.

À l'heure actuelle, il existe de nombreux tests de dépistage que l'on peut acheter en vente libre et réaliser soi-même. Hormis quelques exceptions (VIH, FIT), il n'est actuellement pas clair si leur utilisation est réellement bénéfique pour le consommateur et si un impact favorable peut être attendu en termes de santé publique. Après avoir posé quelques éléments de définitions et de situations, cet article cherche à donner des pistes aux médecins quant à une telle offre, en leur proposant une grille de lecture critique et des recommandations possibles pour leurs patients.

Manejo del Síndrome de Hiperestimulación Ovárica / Management of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome

INTRODUCCIÓN: El síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica es una respuesta exagerada del ovario a los tratamientos hormonales para estimular la formación de óvulos. OBJETIVO: Describir el caso clínico de una mujer con síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica; revisar el abordaje, manejo, tratamiento y cómo prevenirlo. CASO CLÍNICO: Paciente femenina de 37 años, multigesta, en tratamiento con metformina por Síndrome de ovario poliquístico , que presenta infertilidad secundaria a factor tubárico, que desarrolló un cuadro moderado de síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica como consecuencia de la aplicación de las técnicas de fertilización in vitro (Folitropina alfa humana recombinante (GONAL-F®) y Cetrolerelix (CETROTIDE®); al cuarto día del procedimiento de aspiración folicular presenta dolor pélvico intenso, disuria, deposiciones diarreicas, ecografía abdominal y vaginal evidencia líquido libre en cavidad alrededor de 1000cc, además de ovarios tanto derecho e izquierdo con volumen de 102 mL y 189 mL respectivamente. Paciente es ingresada para realizar tratamiento hidratación parenteral, Enoxaparina 40mg subcutánea, Cabergolina 0.5mg vía oral, alta a las 72 horas. DISCUSIÓN: Las claves para la prevención del síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica son la experiencia con la terapia de inducción de la ovulación y el reconocimiento de los factores de riesgo para el síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica. Los regímenes de inducción de la ovulación deberían ser altamente individualizados, monitorizados cuidadosamente y usando dosis y duración mínimas del tratamiento con gonadotropinas para conseguir la meta terapéutica. CONCLUSIONES: El síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica constituye la complicación más temida durante el uso de inductores de la ovulación; el conocimiento de factores de riesgo, puede prevenir o evitar que llegue a ser de un caso severo, lo cual puede causar mayor morbilidad o hasta mortalidad. La vitrificación se convierte en la técnica que permite prevenir el síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica, junto con esta técnica hay 2 alternativas: la inducción con análogo de la hormona liberadora de gonadotropina o el uso de agonistas dopaminérgicos.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an exaggerated response of the ovary to hormonal treatments to stimulate egg formation. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical case of a woman with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; to review the approach, management, treatment and how to prevent it. CLINICAL CASE: 37-year-old female patient, multigestation, under treatment with metformin for polycystic ovary syndrome, presenting infertility secondary to tubal factor, who developed a moderate picture of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as a consequence of the application of in vitro fertilization techniques (recombinant human follitropin alfa (GONAL-F®) and Cetrolerelix (CETROTIDE®); On the fourth day of the follicular aspiration procedure she presents intense pelvic pain, dysuria, diarrheic stools, abdominal and vaginal ultrasound shows free fluid in the cavity of about 1000cc, in addition to right and left ovaries with a volume of 102 mL and 189 mL respectively. Patient was admitted for parenteral hydration treatment, Enoxaparin 40mg subcutaneous, Cabergoline 0.5mg orally, discharged after 72 hours. DISCUSSION: The keys to prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome are experience with ovulation induction therapy and recognition of risk factors for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Ovulation induction regimens should be highly individualized, carefully monitored, and using minimal doses and duration of gonadotropin therapy to achieve the therapeutic goal. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome constitutes the most feared complication during the use of ovulation inducers; knowledge of risk factors, may prevent or avoid it from becoming a severe case, which may cause increased morbidity or even mortality. Vitrification becomes the technique that allows preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, along with this technique there are 2 alternatives: induction with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog or the use of dopaminergic agonists.

Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the Procore™ 25 gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue core biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Scanty data on the performance of the new 25-gauge Procore™ biopsy needle are available. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) using the 25G Procore™ were retrospectively retrieved. All samples were independently reviewed by 3 pathologists for the following: histological, cytological or no specimen, neoplasia, diagnostic or non-diagnostic. Diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater concordance among pathologists were calculated. RESULTS: 94 patients underwent EUS-FNB of 101 sites (69 solid masses, 25 lymph nodes, 5 wall thickening). Forty-one biopsies (40.5%) were classified as histological samples by at least two pathologists, 29 as cytological (28.7%), 31 had no sample (30.7%). Good and almost perfect agreements among pathologists in defining cytological vs. histological samples (k 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90), diagnostic vs. non-diagnostic (k 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85-1.00) and neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic (k 0.94; 95% CI: 0.83-1.00). According to consensus rating, 61 cases were diagnostic samples (60.4%). Histological samples were more likely to lead to a correct diagnosis (OR, 4.1; 95% P=0.027), while neoplastic lesions were less likely to be correctly classified than benign (OR, 0.11; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB with the Procore™ 25G needle provided samples for histological examination in only 40% of the cases, with 31% of inadequate specimens, despite excellent results in term of inter-observer variability.