High prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in a Swiss rheumatology outpatient population.

Vitamin D is important for bone metabolism and neuromuscular function. While a routine dosage is often proposed in osteoporotic patients, it is not so evident in rheumatology outpatients where it has been shown that the prevalence of hypovitaminosis D is high. The aim of the current study was to systematically evaluate the vitamin D status in our outpatient rheumatology population to define the severity of the problem according to rheumatologic diseases. During November 2009, all patients were offered a screening test for 25-OH vitamin D levels and categorised as deficient (<10 µg/l [ng/ml] [25 nmol/l]), insufficient (10 µg/l to 30 µg/l [25 to 75 nmol/l]) or normal (>30 µg/l [75 nmol/l]). A total of 272 patients were included. The mean 25-OH vitamin D level was 21 µg/l (range 1.5 to 45.9). A total of 20 patients had vitamin D deficiency, 215 patients had an insufficiency and 37 patients had normal results. In the group of patients with osteoporosis mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 25 µg/l and 31% had normal results. In patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (N = 219), the mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 20.5 µg/l, and only 12% had normal 25-OH vitamin D levels. In the small group of patients with degenerative disease (N = 33), the mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 21.8 µg/l, and 21% had normal results. Insufficiency and deficiency were even seen in 38% of the patients who were taking supplements. These results confirm that hypovitaminosis D is highly prevalent in an outpatient population of rheumatology patients, affecting 86% of subjects. Despite oral supplementation (taken in 38% of our population), only a quarter of those on oral supplementation attained normal values of 25-OH vitamin D.

Referrals of cancer versus non-cancer patients to palliative care consult team : do they differ ?

Depuis la fin du XXème siècle, les soins palliatifs se sont développés essentiellement autour de patients souffrant de cancer en phase terminale. Or depuis une dizaine d'années, un nombre croissant d'études rapporte que les patients souffrant de maladies non cancéreuses avancées expérimentent également une variété de problèmes, de dimension physique, psychosociale ou spirituelle. Ces problèmes peuvent avoir un fort impact sur leur qualité de vie. Malheureusement, seule une minorité de patients non cancéreux en phase terminale a accès à des soins palliatifs. Le but de cette étude est de mieux comprendre les similitudes et les différences entre les patients cancéreux et non cancéreux lorsqu'ils sont encore hospitalisés dans un hôpital universitaire de soins aigus et réferrés à une équipe mobile de soins palliatifs intrahospitalière. Méthodologie : Dans cette étude rétrospective, les dossiers des 100 premiers patients non cancéreux adressés à l'équipe mobile de soins palliatifs (EMSP) ont été comparés avec ceux de 506 patients cancéreux, durant la même période (2000-2001). Nous avons répertorié leurs profils démographiques, les types de demandes des professionnels de 1ère ligne s'adressant à l'EMSP, les symptômes ainsi que la médication des patients. Conclusions : Dans les deux groupes de patients, nous avons retrouvé de manière égale un haut taux de symptômes : 79% de patients non cancéreux et 71% de patients cancéreux expérimentent au moins 3 symptômes ou plus. Cependant, malgré cette similitude en termes d'inconfort, l'équipe de soins palliatifs est appelée plus tardivement pour les patients non cancéreux. Au vu des problèmes de communication verbale chez les patients non cancéreux, les demandes d'évaluation formulées auprès de l'EMSP sont plus orientées vers « une évaluation globale » au lieu d'une aide sur un problème spécifique. Nous retrouvons également une différence en termes d'analgésie entre les deux populations de patients, les patients non cancéreux sont plus fréquemment en surdosage. Selon nos données, un plus grand taux de décès survient à l'hôpital auprès des patients non cancéreux. Dans les limites de cette étude, les résultats permettent de confirmer que les patients non cancéreux hospitalisés dans un hôpital de soins aigus sont encore peu référés à une EMSP et très tardivement. Pour y rémédier, il serait nécessaire de contourner ces obstacles au vu des problèmes d'évaluation et d'identification exposés dans cette étude, d'améliorer la collaboration avec les professionnels de 1ère ligne et peut-être de mettre en place des guidelines institutionnels afin que tous les patients palliatifs puissent avoir la meilleure qualité de vie possible, et ce, jusqu'au bout de leur trajectoire hospitalière.

L'hystérie : une entité historique, un trouble psychiatrique ou une maladie neurologique? [Hysteria : an historical entity, a psychiatric condition or a neurological disease?]

Il a été suggéré que l'hystérie avait disparu et n'était qu'un concept ancien, stigmatisant et péjoratif, voire erroné, reflétant l'incapacité de la communauté médicale à établir parfois un diagnostic. Actuellement ces troubles, appelés troubles dissociatifs ou de conversion, restent pourtant une réalité clinique fréquente et invalidante pour les patients. Plusieurs études et revues ont tenté de mieux décrire la présentation clinique, mais également de mieux comprendre les mécanismes neurobiologiques impliqués dans ces troubles grâce au développement de certaines techniques d'imagerie cérébrale. Si les corrélats neurobiologiques sont mieux compris, des traitements efficaces manquent encore et seule une prise en charge multidisciplinaire (généralistes, neurologues et psychiatres) et individualisée peut apporter un bénéfice au patient. It has been suggested that hysteria had waned and was an old-fashioned, stigmatizing and false concept, reflecting the incapacity of the medical community to establish a diagnosis in certain situations. Nowadays, however, those disturbances, now referred to as conversion or dissociative disorders, still remain a frequent and incapacitating condition that every clinician faces. These past decades, several studies have tried to better describe their clinical presentation and their neurobiological mechanisms, with the help of the development of new neuroimaging techniques. If the neurobiological correlates are now better understood, efficient treatments are still lacking and only a multidisciplinary (general practitioners, neurologists and psychiatrists) and individually-tailored therapy might be beneficial to the patients.

THE HIGH DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF A GERIATRIC OUTPATIENT CLINIC

Objectives: To determine characteristics of older patients referred to a geriatric outpatient clinic; 2) to determine the prevalence of geriatric syndromes in this population; 3) to identify main recommendations made to referring primary care physicians. Design: Cross-sectional analysis Setting: Outpatient clinic of the service of geriatric medicine at the University of Lausanne Medical Center, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants: Community-dwelling patients aged 65 and over referred to the clinic. Measurements: Demographics, social, functional and health status data, main diagnoses identified and recommendations made for primary care physicians were collected prospectively. Results: Subjects (N=206, mean age 79.7±7.6 years, 57.3% women, 48.5% living alone, 36.9% receiving formal home care) were referred by primary care physicians (76%), hospitalists (18%), or family members (7%). Main reasons for referral were request for comprehensive assessment, cognitive evaluation, and mobility assessment (45.2%, 26.2%, and 15.5%, respectively). 21.4% of patients are independent in Lawton's Instrumental ADL and 47.1% are independent in Katz's Basic ADL, and 57.3% of patients reported having fallen once or more over the last year. Overall, 76.2% of patients had gait and balance impairment, 72.8% cognitive impairment, 57.3% polypharmacy (≥6 drugs; median 6.5±3.9, IQR 4-8), 54.4% affective disorder, 48.3% osteoporosis, 45.1% urinary incontinence and 33.8% orthostatic hypotension. Polymorbidity (≥6 geriatric syndromes) was present in 58.3% of referred patients. On average, patients received 10.6±4.0 recommendations, including fall prevention interventions (85.2 % of patients: walking aid adaptation in 48.1%, vitamin D prescription in 59.7%, home hazards assessment in 59.2%, and exercise prescription in 53.4%), referral to a memory clinic (45.6%), and treatment modifications (69.9 % of all patients and 81.6% of patients with polypharmacy, mostly psychotropic drugs discontinuation). Conclusions: Polymorbidity was frequent in these older outpatients, with polypharmacy, mobility and cognitive impairments being most prevalent. Outpatient geriatric consultation is a good opportunity to identify geriatric syndromes and propose interventions to prevent or delay functional decline.

Predictive models of syncope causes in an outpatient clinic

The investigation of unexplained syncope remains a challenging clinical problem. In the present study we sought to evaluate the diagnostic value of a standardized work-up focusing on non invasive tests in patients with unexplained syncope referred to a syncope clinic, and whether certain combinations of clinical parameters are characteristic of rhythmic and reflex causes of syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: 317 consecutive patients underwent a standardized work-up including a 12-lead ECG, physical examination, detailed history with screening for syncope-related symptoms using a structured questionnaire followed by carotid sinus massage (CSM), and head-up tilt test. Invasive testings including an electrophysiological study and implantation of a loop recorder were only performed in those with structural heart disease or traumatic syncope. Our work-up identified an etiology in 81% of the patients. Importantly, three quarters of the causes were established non invasively combining head-up tilt test, CSM and hyperventilation testing. Invasive tests yielded an additional 7% of diagnoses. Logistic analysis identified age and number of significant prodromes as the only predictive factors of rhythmic syncope. The same two factors, in addition to the duration of the ECG P-wave, were also predictive of vasovagal and psychogenic syncope. These factors, optimally combined in predictive models, showed a high negative and a modest positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: A standardized work-up focusing on non invasive tests allows to establish more than three quarters of syncope causes. Predictive models based on simple clinical parameters may help to distinguish between rhythmic and other causes of syncope

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is traditionally treated in hospital. Growing evidence from non randomized prospective studies suggests that a substantial proportion of patients with non-massive PE might be safely treated in the outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins. Based on this evidence, professional societies started to recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive PE. Despite these recommendations, outpatient treatment of non-massive PE appears to be uncommon in clinical practice. The major barriers to PE outpatient care are, firstly, the uncertainty as how to identify low risk patients with PE who are candidates for outpatient care and secondly the lack of high quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating the safety of PE outpatient care compared to traditional inpatient management. Also, although clinical prognostic models, echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers accurately identify low risk patients with PE in prospective studies, the benefit of risk stratification strategies based on these instruments should be demonstrated in prospective management studies and clinical trials before they can be implemented as decision aids to guide PE outpatient treatment. Before high quality evidence documenting the safety of an outpatient treatment approach is published, outpatient management of non-massive PE cannot be generally recommended.

Parents and primary care physicians have different views about copying medical letters to parents after paediatric outpatient visits.

AIM: We assessed how satisfied parents were when they received a copy of the letter sent to their primary care physician after their child attended a hospital outpatient clinic and compared their views with those of the primary care physician. METHODS: Anonymised questionnaires were sent to parents, and their primary care physician, after their child had visited a paediatric nephrology unit. RESULTS: We received responses from 112 parents (46%) and 69 primary care physicians (93%). Most parents (97%) were satisfied with the process, 94% thought that the letter was a true reflection of the outpatient consultation and easy to understand, and 55% read it to their child. However, 21% would have preferred a simpler letter. More than a third (37%) of the primary care physicians did not approve of the parents being sent the letter, and 30% felt that the letter was difficult for the parents to understand and should be replaced with a simpler letter. CONCLUSION: Most parents (97%) appreciated receiving a copy of the letter following their child's outpatient clinic visit, and 95% understood its contents. More than half (55%) read the letter to their child. However, 37% of primary care physicians did not approve of the practice.