Failure of oral penicillin as secondary prophylaxis for rheumatic heart disease: a lesson from a low-prevalence rheumatic fever region.

Our patient is an 18-year-old Caucasian woman from the UK who developed severe mitral stenosis on a history of childhood acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). She had been reporting of her oral penicillin secondary prophylaxis regimen since diagnosis. At the age of 15 years, a new murmur was discovered during routine cardiac follow-up. An echocardiogram confirmed moderate-severe mitral stenosis. One year later, her exercise tolerance significantly deteriorated and she subsequently underwent balloon valvuloplasty of her mitral valve to good effect. Our case emphasises the evidence base supporting the use of monthly intramuscular penicillin injection to prevent ARF recurrence and RHD progression; it also emphasises the reduced efficacy of oral penicillin prophylaxis in this context. It particularly resonates with regions of low rheumatic fever endemicity. The long-term cardiac sequelae of ARF can be devastating; prescribing the most effective secondary prophylaxis regimen is essential.

Primary care management of early stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is safe and effective.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the commonest leukaemia in western society. Most patients are detected incidentally at an early stage and require 'watch and wait' follow-up. In the UK, management of Stage A0 CLL varies with some centres advising regular outpatient haematology follow-up, whereas others recommend management within primary care. The safety and effectiveness of these two management options are currently unknown. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study in outpatient Haematology clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEH) and Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (BHH) and primary care practices in West Midlands, UK. All patients diagnosed with stable stage A0 CLL since 2002 at BHH or QEH were identified. At BHH, patients were discharged to primary care follow-up, whilst QEH patients remained under haematology for follow-up. Evidence of disease progression, need for treatment and overall mortality was documented. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six Stage A0 CLL patients were identified. One hundred and five (43%) patients were discharged to primary care, whilst 141 (57%) patients were followed up in haematology outpatient clinics. No difference in mortality or need for treatment was found between the two groups. Of those discharged, 93 (66%) remained in primary care. CONCLUSION: The management of stable-stage A0 CLL within primary or secondary care leads to equivalent clinical outcomes. The prevalence of early-stage CLL is expected to increase with the ageing population and management within primary care should be considered as a potentially effective approach.

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: an update for nephrologists.

Screening for a monoclonal protein is a common part of the assessment of patients presenting with a renal injury. While in the settings of acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease and proteinuria monoclonal proteins can be associated with significant pathologies such as cast nephropathy, amyloidosis, and light chain deposition disease, they can also be an unrelated finding. The purpose of this review is to provide the nephrologist with an update to the diagnostic assessment and risk stratification of monoclonal proteins to avoid unnecessary investigation and monitoring of those patients with low-risk monoclonal gammopathies.

Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 in a critical care and theatre setting: beliefs and attitudes towards staff vaccination.

West Midlands was particularly affected by the 2009 H1N1 influenza A (pH1N1) pandemic. Vaccination of frontline healthcare professionals (HCPs) aimed to prevent spread to vulnerable patients, minimise service disruption and protect staff. HCPs involved in upper airway management are particularly at risk of aerosol exposure. We assessed the attitudes of these HCPs towards pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccination uptake: primary reasons for acceptance, barriers to vaccination, and knowledge surrounding pH1N1 influenza. We performed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire survey based in two West Midlands National Health Service Trusts, one month after introduction of the vaccine. In all, 187 useable responses were received (60.5% response rate); 43.8% (N=82) had/intended to receive vaccination. Concern over long term side-effects was the main deterrent (37.4%, N=70). Primary reasons for potentially accepting vaccination were: to protect themselves (36.9%, N=69), to protect family (35.3%, N=66), and to protect patients (10.2%, N=19). Of responders, 76.5% were unsure that the vaccines had undergone suitably rigorous clinical trials to ensure safety; 20.9% correctly identified reported vaccine efficacy. We conclude that pH1N1 vaccination uptake among high risk HCPs remained low, although twice that of peak seasonal influenza vaccination rates. HCPs' knowledge of vaccine efficacy is poor. Barriers to vaccination include concerns over safety profile given the short chronological time-span between the pandemic being declared and vaccine introduction. Side-effects, both acute and chronic, are a significant barrier to vaccination. Further reassurance/education surrounding vaccine safety/efficacy at the time of any future pandemic may improve uptake rates.