A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients' scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions' cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was -1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.).

Interventions for ingrowing toenails.

BACKGROUND: Ingrowing toenails are a common problem in which part of the nail penetrates the skinfold alongside the nail, creating a painful area. Different non-surgical and surgical interventions for ingrowing toenails are available, but there is no consensus about a standard first-choice treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of non-surgical and surgical interventions in a medical setting for ingrowing toenails, with the aim of relieving symptoms and preventing regrowth of the nail edge or recurrence of the ingrowing toenail. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also updated our searches of CINAHL, WEB of SCIENCE, ongoing trials databases, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of non-surgical and surgical interventions for ingrowing toenails, which are also known by the terms 'unguis incarnatus' and 'onychocryptosis', and those comparing postoperative treatment options. Studies must have had a follow-up period of at least one month. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data from selected studies. We analysed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Surgical treatments for ingrowing toenails'. In this update we included 24 studies, with a total of 2826 participants (of which 7 were also included in the previous review). Five studies were on non-surgical interventions, and 19 were on surgical interventions.The risk of bias of each included study was assessed; this is a measure of the methodological quality of several characteristics in these studies. It was found to be unclear for several items, due to incomplete reporting. Participants were not blinded to the treatment they received because of the nature of the interventions, e.g. surgery or wearing a brace on the toe. Outcome assessors were reported to be blinded in only 9 of the 24 studies.None of the included studies addressed our primary outcomes of 'relief of symptoms' or 'regrowth', but 16 did address 'recurrence'. Not all of the included studies addressed all of our secondary outcomes (healing time, postoperative complications - infection and haemorrhage, pain of operation/postoperative pain, participant satisfaction), and two studies did not address any of the secondary outcomes.Surgical interventions were better at preventing recurrence than non-surgical interventions with gutter treatment (or gutter removal), and they were probably better than non-surgical treatments with orthonyxia (brace treatment).In 4 of the 12 studies in which a surgical intervention with chemical ablation (e.g. phenol) was compared with a surgical intervention without chemical ablation, a significant reduction of recurrence was found. The surgical interventions on both sides in these comparisons were not equal, so it is not clear if the reduction was caused by the addition of the chemical ablation.In only one study, a comparison was made of a surgical intervention known as partial nail avulsion with matrix excision compared to the same surgical intervention with phenol. In this study of 117 participants, the surgical intervention with phenol was significantly more effective in preventing recurrence than the surgical intervention alone (14% compared to 41% respectively, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.69).None of the postoperative interventions described, such as the use of antibiotics or manuka honey; povidone-iodine with paraffin; hydrogel with paraffin; or paraffin gauze, showed any significant difference when looking at infection rates, pain, or healing time. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgical interventions are more effective than non-surgical interventions in preventing the recurrence of an ingrowing toenail.In the studies comparing a surgical intervention to a surgical intervention with the application of phenol, the addition of phenol is probably more effective in preventing recurrence and regrowth of the ingrowing toenail. Because there is only one study in which the surgical interventions in both study arms were equal, more studies have to be done to confirm these outcomes.Postoperative interventions do not decrease the risk of postoperative infection, postoperative pain, or healing time.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis. RESULTS: For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine. CONCLUSION: In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine.

[The NHG guideline 'Sleep problems and sleeping pills']. / De NHG-standaard 'Slaapproblemen en slaapmiddelen'.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners' (NHG) guideline 'Sleep problems and sleeping pills' provides recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of the most prevalent sleep problems and for the management of chronic users of sleeping pills. The preferred approach for sleeplessness is not to prescribe medication but to give information and behavioural advice. Practice assistants of the Dutch Association of Mental Health and Addiction Care are also expected to be able to undertake this management. The GP may consider prescribing sleeping pills for a short period only in cases of severe insomnia with considerable distress. Chronic users of sleeping pills should be advised by the GP to stop using them or to reduce the dose gradually (controlled dose reduction). The GP may refer patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) to a pulmonary or ear, nose and throat specialist or neurologist for further diagnosis depending on the regional arrangements. The GP may then consider the cardiovascular risk factors commonly present with OSA. In patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS) who continue to experience major distress despite being given advice without the prescription of medication, the GP may consider prescribing a dopamine agonist.

A diagnostic rule for the aetiology of lower respiratory tract infections as guidance for antimicrobial treatment.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are treated with antibiotics; some of them are unnecessary because of a viral cause. Information on prediction of the aetiology, especially in a general practice setting, is missing. AIM: To differentiate between viral and bacterial LRTI on simple clinical criteria, easily obtained at the bedside. DESIGN OF STUDY: Prospective observational study. SETTING: General practices in the Leiden region of The Netherlands. METHOD: Adult patients with LRTI were included. Standard medical history and physical examination were performed. Sputum, blood and throat swabs were collected for diagnostic tests. According to microbiological findings, patients were classified as bacterial, viral, dual infection and unknown cause. In a logistic regression model independent predictors were determined. Scoring systems were developed. The accuracies of the diagnostic rules were tested by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-five patients were classified as having bacterial (n = 35), viral (n = 49), or dual infection (n = 8), or infection of unknown cause (n = 53), respectively. Independent predictors for bacterial infection were fever (odds ratio [OR] = 8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9 to 71.0), headache (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 1.0 to 19.1) cervical painful lymph nodes (OR = 8.7; 95% CI = 1.1 to 68.0), diarrhoea (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1 to 1.0) and rhinitis (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.9). As an additional independent predictor, an infiltrate on chest X-ray (OR = 5.0; 95% CI = 1.2 to 20.5) was found. The diagnostic rules developed from these variables classified the aetiology of LRTI with a ROC curve area of 0.79 (clinical score), 0.77 (simplified score) and 0.83 (extended score). CONCLUSIONS: A diagnostic rule was developed, based on information that is easy to obtain at the bedside, to predict a bacterial infection. This diagnostic rule may be a tool for general practitioners in their management of patients with LRTI.

Pathogens involved in lower respiratory tract infections in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are few investigations into the aetiology of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in general practice. AIM: To describe the aetiology of LRTI among adult patients in general practice in The Netherlands. DESIGN OF STUDY: Prospective observational study. SETTING: General practices in the Leiden region, The Netherlands. METHOD: Adult patients with a defined LRTI were included. Standard medical history and physical examination were performed. Sputum, blood and throat swabs were collected for diagnostic tests. Aetiological diagnosis, categorised as definite or possible, was based on the results of bacterial and viral cultures, serological techniques, and on polymerase chain reaction. Proportions of pathogens causing LRTI were assessed in relation to chest X-ray findings. RESULTS: A bacterial cause was established in 43 (30%), and a viral cause in 57 (39%) of the 145 patients with a LRTI. Influenza virus A was the most frequently diagnosed microorganism, followed by Haemophilus influenzae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Streptococcus pneumoniae was found in 6% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pathogens were found in two-thirds of the patients. In half of these patients there was a viral cause. Influenza virus A was the most frequently found pathogen. The treatment with antibiotics of at least one-third of the patients with LRTI was superfluous. This observation should result in changes in the prescription of antibiotics in LRTI.

[Wegener and Wegener's disease]. / Wegener en zijn ziekte.

This article describes the history and significance of the eponym 'Wegener'. After the American College of Chest Physicians awarded Wegener with the Master Clinician Award, discussion about his Nazi past arose. Should the eponym 'Wegener' be maintained?

[Childhood diseases with exanthema]. / Kinderziekten met vlekjes.

- Due to high vaccination coverage, measles and rubella (German measles) are now rarely seen in the Netherlands, which makes recognition of these diseases difficult. - Measles can also occur in people who have been immunized, as a result of vaccination failure. - Swift recognition of measles and rubella is necessary in order to manage them adequately and to prevent spreading of the disease. - Measles, rubella, and erythema infectiosum ('fifth disease') may result in complications during pregnancy. - Measles, rubella, scarlet fever, erythema infectiosum, and roseola ('sixth disease') can be difficult to differentiate. - In the Netherlands, diagnosis of a patient with measles or rubella, or of more than 1 patient with erythema infectiosum within one institution, must be reported to the local health authority within 1 working day. - Exclusion from school or a day-care facility is not required for any if the diseases discussed.