Successful desensitization with human insulin in a patient with an insulin allergy and hypersensitivity to protamine: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Insulin allergy may occur in patients treated with subcutaneous applications of insulin preparations. Besides additives in the insulin preparation such as protamine, cresol, and phenol, the insulin molecule itself may be the cause of the allergy. In the latter case, therapeutic options are rare.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 68-year-old man with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus received different insulin preparations subcutaneously while on oral medication. Six to eight hours after each subcutaneous application, he developed pruritic plaques with a diameter of >15 cm at the injection sites that persisted for several days. Allergologic testing revealed positive reactions against every insulin preparation and against protamine. Investigation of serum samples demonstrated IgG antibodies against human and porcine insulin. We treated the patient with human insulin using an ultra-rush protocol beginning with 0.004 IU and a rapid augmentation in dose up to 5 IU. Therapy was accompanied by antihistamine therapy. Subsequent conversion to therapy with glargine insulin (6 IE twice daily) was well-tolerated.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As reported in this case, desensitization with subcutaneously administered human insulin using an ultra-rush protocol in patients with an insulin allergy may present an easy form of therapy that is successful within a few days.</p

A randomised controlled trial of the effects of a web-based PSA decision aid, Prosdex. Protocol

Contains fulltext : 51771.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Informed decision making is the theoretical basis in the UK for men's decisions about Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer testing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a web-based PSA decision-aid, Prosdex, on informed decision making in men. The objective is to assess the effect of Prosdex on six specific outcomes: (i) knowledge of PSA and prostate cancer-related issues - the principal outcome of the study; (ii) attitudes to testing; (iii) decision conflict; (iv) anxiety; (v) intention to undergo PSA testing; (vi) uptake of PSA testing. In addition, a mathematical simulation model of the effects of Prosdex will be developed. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial with four groups: two intervention groups, one viewing Prosdex and the other receiving a paper version of the site; two control groups, the second controlling for the potential Hawthorn effect of the questionnaire used with the first control group. Men between the ages of 50 and 75, who have not previously had a PSA test, will be recruited from General Practitioners (GPs) in Wales, UK. The principal outcome, knowledge, and four other outcome measures - attitudes to testing, decision conflict, anxiety and intention to undergo testing - will be measured with an online questionnaire, used by men in three of the study groups. Six months later, PSA test uptake will be ascertained from GP records; the online questionnaire will then be repeated. These outcomes, and particularly PSA test uptake, will be used to develop a mathematical simulation model, specifically to consider the impact on health service resources

Management of children's urinary tract infections in Dutch family practice: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Optimal clinical management of childhood urinary tract infections (UTI) potentiates long-term positive health effects. Insight into the quality of care in Dutch family practices for UTIs was limited, particularly regarding observation periods of more than a year. Our aim was to describe the clinical management of young children's UTIs in Dutch primary care and to compare this to the national guideline recommendations. METHODS: In this cohort study, all 0 to 6-year-old children with a diagnosed UTI in 2001 were identified within the Netherlands Information Network of General Practitioners (LINH), which comprises 120 practices. From the Dutch guideline on urinary tract infections, seven indicators were derived, on prescription, follow-up, and referral. RESULTS: Of the 284 children with UTI who could be followed for three years, 183 (64%) were registered to have had one cystitis episode, 52 (18%) had two episodes, and 43 (15%) had three or more episodes. Another six children were registered to have had one or two episodes of acute pyelonephritis. Overall, antibiotics were prescribed for 66% of the children having had ≤ 3 cystitis episodes, two-thirds of whom received the antibiotics of first choice. About 30% of all episodes were followed up in general practice. Thirty-eight children were referred (14%), mostly to a paediatrician (76%). Less than one-third of the children who should have been referred was actually referred. CONCLUSION: Treatment of childhood UTIs in Dutch family practice should be improved with respect to prescription, follow-up, and referral. Quality improvement should address the low incidence of urinary tract infections in children in family practice

Walk-ins seeking treatment at an emergency department or general practitioner out-of-hours service: a cross-sectional comparison

Background Emergency Departments (ED) in Switzerland are faced with increasing numbers of patients seeking non-urgent treatment. The high rate of walks-ins with conditions that may be treated in primary care has led to suggestions that those patients would best cared for in a community setting rather than in a hospital. Efficient reorganisation of emergency care tailored to patients needs requires information on the patient populations using the various emergency services currently available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences between the characteristics of walk-in patients seeking treatment at an ED and those of patients who use traditional out-of-hours GP (General Practitioner) services provided by a GP-Cooperative (GP-C). Methods In 2007 and 2009 data was collected covering all consecutive patient-doctor encounters at the ED of a hospital and all those occurring as a result of contacting a GP-C over two evaluation periods of one month each. Comparison was made between a GP-C and the ED of the Waid City Hospital in Zurich. Patient characteristics, time and source of referral, diagnostic interventions and mode of discharge were evaluated. Medical problems were classified according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2). Patient characteristics were compared using non-parametric tests and multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to investigate independent determinants for contacting a GP-C or an ED. Results Overall a total of 2974 patient encounters were recorded. 1901 encounters were walk-ins and underwent further analysis (ED 1133, GP-C 768). Patients consulting the GP-C were significantly older (58.9 vs. 43.8 years), more often female (63.5 vs. 46.9%) and presented with non-injury related medical problems (93 vs. 55.6%) in comparison with patients at the ED. Independent determining factors for ED consultation were injury, male gender and younger age. Walk-in distribution in both settings was equal over a period of 24 hours and most common during daytime hours (65%). Outpatient care was predominant in both settings but significantly more so at the GP-C (79.9 vs. 85.7%). Conclusions We observed substantial differences between the two emergency settings in a non gate-keeping health care system. Knowledge of the distribution of diagnoses, their therapy, of diagnostic measures and of the factors which determine the patients' choice of the ED or the GP-C is essential for the efficient allocation of resources and the reduction of costs

Why patients attend emergency departments for conditions potentially appropriate for primary care: Reasons given by patients and clinicians differ

Objectives: To compare reasons identified by clinical staff for potential primary care attendances to the ED with those previously identified by patients. Methods: Survey of staff and primary care patients in five ED in New South Wales, Australia using questionnaire based on reasons identified in published studies. Results: Clinicians in the survey identify a broader spectrum of reasons for potential primary care cases presenting to the ED than the patients themselves report. Doctors reported on average 4.1 very important reasons and nurses 4.8 compared with patients 2.4 very important reasons. The main reasons identified by both doctors and nurses were similar and quite different to those identified by patients. Clinicians were more likely to emphasize cost and access issues rather than acuity and complexity issues. There was no difference within the clinician group between doctors and nurses nor by varying levels of experience. Furthermore doctors with significant experience in both primary care and emergency medicine did not differ from the overall clinicians\u27 pattern. Conclusions: These data confirm that clinician perspectives on reasons for potential primary care patients\u27 use of ED differ quite markedly from the perspectives of patients themselves. Those differences do not necessarily represent a punitive or blaming philosophy but will stem from the very different paradigms from which the two protagonists approach the interactions, reflecting the standard tension in a provider - consumer relationship. If policy is to be developed to improve system use and access, it must take both perspectives into account with respect to redesign, expectations and education

Primary care patients in the emergency department: who are they? A review of the definition of the 'primary care patient' in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To review the definition of 'primary care' and 'inappropriate' patients in ED and develop a generally acceptable working definition of a 'primary care' presentation in ED. METHOD: A Medline review of articles on primary care in ED and the definitions used. RESULTS: A total of 34 reviewed papers contained a proposed definition or comment on the definition for potential 'primary care', 'general practice', or 'inappropriate' patients in ED. A representative definition was developed premised on the common factors in these papers: low urgency/acuity--triage categories four or five in the Australasian Triage Scale, self-referred--by definition, patients referred by general practitioner/community primary medical services are not primary care cases because a primary care service has referred them on, presenting for a new episode of care (i.e. not a planned return because planned returns are not self-referred), unlikely to be admitted (in the opinion of Emergency Nurse interviewers) or ultimately not admitted. DISCUSSION: This definition can be applied either prospectively or retrospectively, depending on the purpose. Appropriateness must be considered in light of a legitimate role for ED in primary care and the balance of resources between primary care and emergency medicine in local settings