Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care

Le "Chest wall syndrome" (CWS) est défini comme étant une source bénigne de douleurs thoraciques, localisées sur la paroi thoracique antérieure et provoquées par une affection musculosquelettique. Le CWS représente la cause la plus fréquente de douleurs thoraciques en médecine de premier recours. Le but de cette étude est de développer et valider un score de prédiction clinique pour le CWS. Une revue de la littérature a d'abord été effectuée, d'une part pour savoir si un tel score existait déjà, et d'autre part pour retrouver les variables décrites comme étant prédictives d'un CWS. Le travail d'analyse statistique a été effectué avec les données issues d'une cohorte clinique multicentrique de patients qui avaient consulté en médecine de premier recours en Suisse romande avec une douleur thoracique (59 cabinets, 672 patients). Un diagnostic définitif avait été posé à 12 mois de suivi. Les variables pertinentes ont été sélectionnées par analyses bivariées, et le score de prédiction clinique a été développé par régression logistique multivariée. Une validation externe de ce score a été faite en utilisant les données d'une cohorte allemande (n= 1212). Les analyses bivariées ont permis d'identifier 6 variables caractérisant le CWS : douleur thoracique (ni rétrosternale ni oppressive), douleur en lancées, douleur bien localisée, absence d'antécédent de maladie coronarienne, absence d'inquiétude du médecin et douleur reproductible à la palpation. Cette dernière variable compte pour 2 points dans le score, les autres comptent pour 1 point chacune; le score total s'étend donc de 0 à 7 points. Dans la cohorte de dérivation, l'aire sous la courbe sensibilité/spécificité (courbe ROC) est de 0.80 (95% de l'intervalle de confiance : 0.76-0.83). Avec un seuil diagnostic de > 6 points, le score présente 89% de spécificité et 45% de sensibilité. Parmi tous les patients qui présentaient un CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) avaient une douleur reproductible à la palpation et 45% (n= 127) sont correctement diagnostiqués par le score. Pour une partie (n = 43) de ces patients souffrant de CWS et correctement classifiés, 65 investigations complémentaires (30 électrocardiogrammes, 16 radiographies du thorax, 10 analyses de laboratoire, 8 consultations spécialisées, et une tomodensitométrie thoracique) avaient été réalisées pour parvenir au diagnostic. Parmi les faux positifs (n = 41), on compte trois angors stables (1.8% de tous les positifs). Les résultats de la validation externe sont les suivants : une aire sous la courbe ROC de 0.76 (95% de l'intervalle de confiance : 0.73-0.79) avec une sensibilité de 22% et une spécificité de 93%. Ce score de prédiction clinique pour le CWS constitue un complément utile à son diagnostic, habituellement obtenu par exclusion. En effet, pour les 127 patients présentant un CWS et correctement classifiés par notre score, 65 investigations complémentaires auraient pu être évitées. Par ailleurs, la présence d'une douleur thoracique reproductible à la palpation, bien qu'étant sa plus importante caractéristique, n'est pas pathognomonique du CWS.

Prise en charge de l'asthme en médecine de premier recours [Management of asthma in primary care medicine].

The international recommendations issued by GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) have undergone considerable adaptations over the last years. This article proposes the local adaptation of those guidelines bearing on the practical aspects of the treatment for the general practitioner's use. One of the fundamental changes in these new guidelines on good practice relates to the permanent adaptation of the treatment on the basis of symptom control rather than on the severity of the asthma. Another change from the old recommendations concerns the manner in which the asthma is categorised into different phases.

Validation of a clinical prediction score for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain.

Background: A patient's chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease (CHD). An easy to use clinical prediction rule has been derived from the TOPIC study in Lausanne. Our objective is to validate this clinical score for ruling out CHD in primary care patients with chest pain. Methods: This secondary analysis used data collected from a oneyear follow-up cohort study attending 76 GPs in Germany. Patients attending their GP with chest pain were questioned on their age, gender, duration of chest pain (1-60 min), sternal pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the curve (ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Lausanne CHD score were calculated for patients with full data. Results: 1190 patients were included. Full data was available for 509 patients (42.8%). Missing data was not related to having CHD (p = 0.397) or having a cardiovascular risk factor (p = 0.275). 76 (14.9%) were diagnosed with a CHD. Prevalence of CHD were respectively of 68/344 (19.8%), 2/62 (3.2%), 6/103 (5.8%) in the high, intermediate and low risk category. ROC was of 72.9 (CI95% 66.8; 78.9). Ruling out patients with low risk has a sensitivity of 92.1% (CI95% 83.0; 96.7) and a specificity of 22.4% (CI95% 18.6%; 26.7%). Conclusion: The Lausanne CHD score shows reasonably good sensitivity and can be used to rule out coronary events in patients with chest pain. Patients at risk of CHD for other rarer reasons should nevertheless also be investigated.

What factors influence long-term antidepressant use in primary care? Findings from the Australian diamond cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in primary care. The rise in use is mostly due to an increasing number of long-term users of antidepressants (LTU AD). Little is known about the factors driving increased long-term use. We examined the socio-demographic, clinical factors and health service use characteristics associated with LTU AD to extend our understanding of the factors that may be driving the increase in antidepressant use. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 789 participants with probable depression (CES-D≥16) recruited from 30 randomly selected Australian general practices to take part in a ten-year cohort study about depression were surveyed about their antidepressant use. RESULTS: 165 (21.0%) participants reported <2 years of antidepressant use and 145 (18.4%) reported ≥2 years of antidepressant use. After adjusting for depression severity, LTU AD was associated with: single (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.05-2.32) or recurrent episode of depression (3.44, 2.06-5.74); using SSRIs (3.85, 2.03-7.33), sedatives (2.04, 1.29-3.22), or antipsychotics (4.51, 1.67-12.17); functional limitations due to long-term illness (2.81, 1.55-5.08), poor/fair self-rated health (1.57, 1.14-2.15), inability to work (2.49, 1.37-4.53), benefits as main source of income (2.15, 1.33-3.49), GP visits longer than 20min (1.79, 1.17-2.73); rating GP visits as moderately to extremely helpful (2.71, 1.79-4.11), and more self-help practices (1.16, 1.09-1.23). LIMITATIONS: All measures were self-report. Sample may not be representative of culturally different or adolescent populations. Cross-sectional design raises possibility of "confounding by indication". CONCLUSIONS: Long-term antidepressant use is relatively common in primary care. It occurs within the context of complex mental, physical and social morbidities. Whilst most long-term use is associated with a history of recurrent depression there remains a significant opportunity for treatment re-evaluation and timely discontinuation.

Troubles de la mémoire chez la personne agée: que faire au cabinet [Cognitive impairment in elderly patients: what to do in primary care?].

In Switzerland, each year there are about 25000 new patients suffering from dementia (one new case every 20 minutes!). Currently, recognition of cognitive impairment and dementia diagnoses remain essentially based on clinical features. For the primary care provider, a 4-step approach based on a) history, b) collateral information provided by a knowledgeable relative, c) a standardized brief cognitive screening instrument, and d) simple laboratory tests will identify most older persons suffering from dementia. Unclear situations benefit from an assessment in a memory clinic.

Impact of electronic monitoring of drug adherence on blood pressure control in primary care: a cluster 12-month randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Poor long-term adherence is an important cause of uncontrolled hypertension. We examined whether monitoring drug adherence with an electronic system improves long-term blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients followed by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled study was conducted over one year in community pharmacists/GPs' networks randomly assigned either to usual care (UC) where drugs were dispensed as usual, or to intervention (INT) group where drug adherence could be monitored with an electronic system (Medication Event Monitoring System). No therapy change was allowed during the first 2 months in both groups. Thereafter, GPs could modify therapy and use electronic monitors freely in the INT group. The primary outcome was a target office BP<140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Sixty-eight treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients (UC: 34; INT: 34) were enrolled. Over the 12-month period, the likelihood of reaching the target BP was higher in the INT group compared to the UC group (p<0.05). At 4 months, 38% in the INT group reached the target BP vs. 12% in the UC group (p<0.05), and 21% vs. 9% at 12 months (p: ns). Multivariate analyses, taking account of baseline characteristics, therapy modification during follow-up, and clustering effects by network, indicate that being allocated to the INT group was associated with a greater odds of reaching the target BP at 4 months (p<0.01) and at 12 months (p=0.051). CONCLUSION: GPs monitoring drug adherence in collaboration with pharmacists achieved a better BP control in hypertensive patients, although the impact of monitoring decreased with time.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) aims to assist GPs in safely ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain, and to guide management decisions. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS in an independent sample and to evaluate the generalisability to new patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard in general practice in Hesse, Germany. METHOD: Fifty-six German GPs recruited 844 males and females aged ≥ 35 years, presenting between July 2009 and February 2010 with chest pain. Baseline data included the items of the MHS. Data on the subsequent course of chest pain, investigations, hospitalisations, and medication were collected over 6 months and were reviewed by an independent expert panel. CHD was the reference condition. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.88). For a cut-off value of 3, the MHS showed a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI = 81.1% to 94.0%), a specificity of 63.5% (95% CI = 60.0% to 66.9%), a positive predictive value of 23.3% (95% CI = 19.2% to 28.0%), and a negative predictive value of 97.9% (95% CI = 96.2% to 98.9%). CONCLUSION: Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS, its generalisability, and ease of application, its use in clinical practice is recommended.

Creating a list of low-value health care activities in Swiss primary care.

Trisomy 21 is the most frequent genetic cause of cognitive impairment. To assess the perturbations of gene expression in trisomy 21, and to eliminate the noise of genomic variability, we studied the transcriptome of fetal fibroblasts from a pair of monozygotic twins discordant for trisomy 21. Here we show that the differential expression between the twins is organized in domains along all chromosomes that are either upregulated or downregulated. These gene expression dysregulation domains (GEDDs) can be defined by the expression level of their gene content, and are well conserved in induced pluripotent stem cells derived from the twins' fibroblasts. Comparison of the transcriptome of the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down's syndrome and normal littermate mouse fibroblasts also showed GEDDs along the mouse chromosomes that were syntenic in human. The GEDDs correlate with the lamina-associated (LADs) and replication domains of mammalian cells. The overall position of LADs was not altered in trisomic cells; however, the H3K4me3 profile of the trisomic fibroblasts was modified and accurately followed the GEDD pattern. These results indicate that the nuclear compartments of trisomic cells undergo modifications of the chromatin environment influencing the overall transcriptome, and that GEDDs may therefore contribute to some trisomy 21 phenotypes.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chest wall syndrome (CWS), the main cause of chest pain in primary care practice, is most often an exclusion diagnosis. We developed and evaluated a clinical prediction rule for CWS. METHODS: Data from a multicenter clinical cohort of consecutive primary care patients with chest pain were used (59 general practitioners, 672 patients). A final diagnosis was determined after 12 months of follow-up. We used the literature and bivariate analyses to identify candidate predictors, and multivariate logistic regression was used to develop a clinical prediction rule for CWS. We used data from a German cohort (n = 1212) for external validation. RESULTS: From bivariate analyses, we identified six variables characterizing CWS: thoracic pain (neither retrosternal nor oppressive), stabbing, well localized pain, no history of coronary heart disease, absence of general practitioner's concern, and pain reproducible by palpation. This last variable accounted for 2 points in the clinical prediction rule, the others for 1 point each; the total score ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83) in the derivation cohort (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 45%; cut-off set at 6 points). Among all patients presenting CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) had a pain reproducible by palpation and 45% (n = 127) were correctly diagnosed. For a subset (n = 43) of these correctly classified CWS patients, 65 additional investigations (30 electrocardiograms, 16 thoracic radiographies, 10 laboratory tests, eight specialist referrals, one thoracic computed tomography) had been performed to achieve diagnosis. False positives (n = 41) included three patients with stable angina (1.8% of all positives). External validation revealed the ROC curve to be 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.79) with a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 93%. CONCLUSIONS: This CWS score offers a useful complement to the usual CWS exclusion diagnosing process. Indeed, for the 127 patients presenting CWS and correctly classified by our clinical prediction rule, 65 additional tests and exams could have been avoided. However, the reproduction of chest pain by palpation, the most important characteristic to diagnose CWS, is not pathognomonic.

A simple score for estimating ischemic heart disease in patients with non-traumatic chest pain in primary care

Background: Modelling epidemiological knowledge in validated clinical scores is a practical mean of integrating EBM to usual care. Existing scores about cardiovascular disease have been largely developed in emergency settings, but few in primary care. Such a toll is needed for general practitioners (GP) to evaluate the probability of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in patients with non-traumatic chest pain. Objective: To develop a predictive model to use as a clinical score for detecting IHD in patients with non-traumatic chest-pain in primary care. Methods: A post-hoc secondary analysis on data from an observational study including 672 patients with chest pain of which 85 had IHD diagnosed by their GP during the year following their inclusion. Best subset method was used to select 8 predictive variables from univariate analysis and fitted in a multivariate logistic regression model to define the score. Reliability of the model was assessed using split-group method. Results: Significant predictors were: age (0-3 points), gender (1 point), having at least one cardiovascular risks factor (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, family history of CVD; 3 points), personal history of cardiovascular disease (1 point), duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes (2 points), substernal chest pain (1 point), pain increasing with exertion (1 point) and absence of tenderness at palpation (1 point). Area under the ROC curve for the score was of 0.95 (IC95% 0.93; 0.97). Patients were categorised in three groups, low risk of IHD (score under 6; n = 360), moderate risk of IHD (score from 6 to 8; n = 187) and high risk of IHD (score from 9-13; n = 125). Prevalence of IHD in each group was respectively of 0%, 6.7%, 58.5%. Reliability of the model seems satisfactory as the model developed from the derivation set predicted perfectly (p = 0.948) the number of patients in each group in the validation set. Conclusion: This clinical score based only on history and physical exams can be an important tool in the practice of the general physician for the prediction of ischemic heart disease in patients complaining of chest pain. The score below 6 points (in more than half of our population) can avoid demanding complementary exams for selected patients (ECG, laboratory tests) because of the very low risk of IHD. Score above 6 points needs investigation to detect or rule out IHD. Further external validation is required in ambulatory settings.

Renoncement aux soins: comment appréhender cette réalité en médecine de premier recours [Patients forgoing health care for economic reasons: how to identify this in a primary care setting?].

Although the performance of the Swiss health system is high, one out of ten patients in general practitioner's (GP) office declares having foregone care in the previous twelve months for economic reasons. Reasons for foregoing care are several and include a lack of knowledge of existing social aids in getting health insurance, unavailability of GPs and long waiting lists for various types of care. Although long term knowledge of patients or a psychosocial history of deprivation or poverty may help identify individuals at risk of foregoing care, many may remain undetected. We propose then a few instruments to help GPs to identify, in a simple and structured approach, patients at risk of forgoing care for economic reasons; these patients are frequently deprived and sometimes poor.