Management of acute food allergic reactions by general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Food is one of the leading causes of anaphylaxis. In the Netherlands, patients visit a general practitioner (GP) as often as an emergency department (ED) in case of an acute food allergic reaction. So far, the management of food allergic reactions by GPs has not been investigated. Therefore, we explored the management of acute food allergic reactions by GPs regarding specific treatment, observation period, prescription of emergency medication to treat new episodes, diet advices and referral to a specialist. METHODS: A questionnaire containing three hypothetical cases (two anaphylactic and one mild case) with questions about their management was sent to 571 GPs. RESULTS: Overall, treatment choice was dependent on the severity of the reaction (mild vs. anaphylaxis, P < .001). However, epinephrine was used for treatment of anaphylaxis with mainly respiratory symptoms in only 27% and for anaphylaxis with mainly cardiovascular symptoms in 73%. At discharge, the percentages for prescription of self-injectable epinephrine were 53% and 77%, respectively. A short observation period of <2 hours was advised by 42% of general practitioners in case of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of food induced anaphylaxis by GPs appears to be suboptimal: a considerable number of patients would not be treated with epinephrine for the acute reaction (especially anaphylactic cases with respiratory symptoms), the observation period chosen by GPs was often too short and self-injectable epinephrine was not always prescribed at discharge to treat possible new episodes. Education programs are needed to increase the awareness of GPs to recognize and treat anaphylactic reactions.

Risk of diabetes in siblings of index cases with Type 2 diabetes: implications for genetic studies.

AIMS: The goal was to estimate the sibling recurrence-risk ratio for Type 2 diabetes in families with diabetes occurring in middle age. Because diabetes aetiology involves environmental exposures and genetic susceptibility, we sought to identify determinants of the recurrence risk. METHODS: We surveyed patients diagnosed at ages 35-59 years (n = 563) to obtain information on the occurrence of diabetes in their relatives, particularly siblings (n = 1675). Age-specific prevalences of diabetes in the US population were used for comparison. RESULTS: The overall sibling recurrence-risk ratio for diabetes was low, about 1.8 in the Joslin families and even lower in three other studies that were reanalysed for comparison. In all studies, the diabetes risk in siblings of index cases without a history of diabetes in a parent was similar to that in the general population, suggesting that genetic factors contributed to the occurrence of diabetes in only a minority of these siblings. The fact that recurrence-risk ratios were elevated only in families with one or two diabetic parents indicates that susceptibility to Type 2 diabetes is transmitted primarily through an affected parent. In addition, the sibling recurrence-risk ratios were elevated even further in families with diabetes in both a parent and grandparent of the index case, and in siblings of non-obese index cases (percent ideal body weight < 120%). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of families with non-obese index cases and vertical transmission of diabetes through three generations may improve the success of efforts to map susceptibility genes for Type 2 diabetes.

Dyspepsia management in primary care in The Netherlands: to what extent is Helicobacter pylori diagnosis and treatment incorporated? Results from a survey among general practitioners in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines on the management of Helicobacter pylori (HP)-related dyspepsia have been launched over the past decade. The suggested policies in these guidelines are often more consensus- than evidence-based (test-and-treat policy, test and endoscope), which may cause confusion among primary-care physicians. AIM: To determine the current management of HP-related dyspepsia by Dutch general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A random sample of 5% of all Dutch GPs (n = 355) were sent a questionnaire on the diagnosis and treatment of HP infections in dyspepsia management. RESULTS: The response rate was 66.2% (n = 235). Almost 80% of the responding GPs stated they had conducted HP testing (via endoscopy or serology) during the previous 12 months. In the same time period, more than 94% had actually prescribed a HP eradication therapy. A total of 70% of the GPs stated that they used endoscopy to test for HP infection, 54% used serology (ELISA); whole-blood tests and carbon urea breath tests were not used. Patients with a history of peptic ulcer disease, those on chronic acid-suppressive drugs and patients with recurrent ulcer-like complaints were most frequently tested for HP infection. CONCLUSIONS: Given the frequency of consultations for dyspepsia in primary care in the Netherlands (150 new dyspeptic patients per average practice per year), and the reported average number of HP tests performed (1-5 per GP per year), HP diagnosis plays a modest role in the management of dyspepsia in Dutch general practices. Neither the 'test-and-treat' policy recommended in the Maastricht guidelines, nor its advice regarding the choice of diagnostic tests (carbon urea breath test or serology), is being followed. The majority of GPs uses endoscopy for the detection of HP infection.

New immunoassay for the detection of Helicobacter pylori infection compared with urease test, 13C breath test and histology: validation in the primary care setting.

Helicobacter pylori plays a major role in peptic ulcer disease and, as a result, testing for H. pylori infection among patients with dyspepsia has often been advocated. The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy, the analytical performance, and optimal cut-off point of a new serological assay, the Pyloriset EIA-G III for the detection of H. pylori infection in the primary care setting. For 113 primary care patients with dyspepsia urea breath test, CLO test, histology and serology tests were performed. Diagnostic accuracy of the Pyloriset EIA-G III was evaluated against a reference standard of a carbon urea breath test (CUBT), CLO test and histology (from gastric biopsies). Precision, linearity and correlation of the serological assay with the CUBT and former Pyloriset were also determined. At the optimal cut-off level of 40 U/ml, the positive predictive value was 92.1%, negative predictive value 96.3%, sensitivity 87.5%, and specificity 93.9%. The within-run precision was high. The recovery data were good. The correlation of both CUBT and the former Pyloriset EIA-G and the Pyloriset EIA-G III was high. At the cut-off level of 40 U/ml, the new Pyloriset EIA-G III is a reliable method to detect H. pylori infection in the primary care setting.

Testing for Helicobacter pylori in dyspeptic patients suspected of peptic ulcer disease in primary care: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an easily applicable diagnostic scoring method to determine the presence of peptic ulcers in dyspeptic patients in a primary care setting; to evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori testing adds value to history taking. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: General practitioners' offices in the Utrecht area of the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 565 patients consulting a general practitioner about dyspeptic symptoms of at least two weeks' duration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence or absence of peptic ulcer; independent predictors of the presence of peptic ulcer as obtained from history taking and the added value of H pylori testing were quantified by using multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A history of peptic ulcer, pain on an empty stomach, and smoking were strong and independent diagnostic determinants of peptic ulcer disease, with odds ratios of 5.5 (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 11.8), 2.8 (1.0 to 4.0), and 2.0 (1.4 to 6.0) respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area) of these determinants together was 0.71. Adding the H pylori test increased the ROC area only to 0.75. However, in a group of patients at high risk, identified by means of a simple scoring rule based on history taking, the predictive value for the presence of peptic ulcer increased from 16% to 26% after a positive H pylori test. CONCLUSIONS: In the total group of dyspeptic patients in primary care, H pylori testing has no value in addition to history taking for diagnosing peptic ulcer disease. In a subgroup of patients at high risk of having peptic ulcer disease, however, it might be useful to test for and treat H pylori infections.

Helicobacter pylori testing in the primary care setting: which diagnostic test should be used?

AIM: To identify the most accurate and efficient test for diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection in primary care patients. STUDY DESIGN: A whole blood test, an ELISA, and carbon13 urea breath test (CUBT) were evaluated in a primary care setting and validated against two different gold standards that used gastric biopsies. POPULATION: Primary care patients who had dyspeptic complaints lasting at least 2 weeks and were referred for endoscopy. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity and specificity were determined for all three noninvasive H. pylori tests. RESULTS: Data from the three non-invasive H. pylori tests were available for 136 primary care dyspeptic patients referred for endoscopy. They were compared with data from the gold standards. The positive predictive value of the whole blood test was in the range 71-75%, the ELISA 83-86%, and the CUBT 88-92%, while the negative predictive values were in the ranges 72-77%, 96-100%, and 95-98%, respectively. The sensitivity of the whole blood test was in the range 36-42%, the ELISA 93-100%, and the CUBT 92-97%, while the specificities were in the ranges 92-93%, 90-91% and 93-95%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the ELISA dropped significantly at lower H. pylori infection rates. DISCUSSION: Both the ELISA and CUBT are effective in the primary care setting, while the whole blood tests produces inferior results. ELISA might, however, be less suitable for detecting H. pylori infection in a population with a low rate of infection.