No abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between guidelines and the medical practitioners’ perception of optimal care for patients attending with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat in five countries (Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK and USA).DesignInternational cross-sectional survey.SettingPrimary healthcare (PHC).ParticipantsMedical practitioners working in PHC.Main outcome measuresORs for: (A) perception of throat swabs as important, (B) perception of blood tests (C reactive protein, B-ESR and B-leucocytes) as important and (C) antibiotic prescriptions if no pathogenic bacteria isolated on throat swab.ResultsGuidelines differed significantly; those recommending throat swabs (Sweden and USA) were associated with practitioners perceiving them as important. The UK guideline was the only one actively discouraging the use of throat swabs. Hence, compared with the USA (reference), a throat swab showing no pathogenic bacteria increased the probability of antibiotic prescribing in the UK with OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.7 to 6.1) for adults, whereas it reduced the probability in Sweden for adults OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.96) and children 0.19 (95% CI 0.069 to 0.50).ConclusionsThe differences between practitioners’ perceptions of best management were associated with their guidelines. It remains unclear if guidelines influenced medical practitioners’ perception or if guidelines merely reflect the consensus of current practice. A larger effort should be made to reach an international consensus in high-income countries about the best management of patients attending for an uncomplicated acute sore throat.

SUMMARYAcute heart failure (AHF) is a growing public health concern with high inhospital mortality and costs. Clinical practice guidelines, underpinned by positive randomized controlled trials, recommend the early use of intravenous (IV) nitrates in the treatment of AHF. However, the "real-world" usage of IV nitrates has not been clearly defined. The objective of this study was to examine the use of IV nitrates in the treatment of AHF as recommended by clinical practice guidelines. A case-record analysis was conducted of all admissions with AHF at a large teaching hospital. Of the 81 AHF patients (mean age 77 AE 11, mean SBP 130 AE 27 mmHg) enrolled for this analysis, only 5 (6%) received IV nitrates at the time of AHF admission. Forty (49%, mean age 77 AE 11, mean SBP 131 AE 27 mmHg) of these 81 patients met the guideline criteria for suitability for IV nitrates and only 5 (12%) of these received them during this admission. Patients who received IV nitrates were more likely to have higher blood pressure and all had myocardial ischemia as a precipitant. Seventy-five (93%) of the total population received loop diuretics on admission. Overall, this study shows that loop diuretics remain the first-line therapy in AHF with little use of IV nitrates, despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.

Thioureas, often contained within neoprene to provide water resistance, are an important cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in those who use neoprene products. We wish to present three cases of thiourea-induced ACD from three different orthopaedic supports containing neoprene. The first case was a 67-year-old woman who developed an itchy rash on her heel three weeks after using a neoprene insole for plantar fasciitis. The second case was a 47-year-old man who developed an itchy rash on his wrist after wearing neoprene wrist splints for psoriatic arthropathy. The third case was a 77-year-old woman who experienced a severe erythematous rash with blistering from a neoprene elbow brace she received following a humeral fracture. All patients were patch tested to the British Society of Cutaneous Allergy Standard and rubber series and a cut piece from all the relevant supports. At 96 hours, all patients had a + reaction to mixed dialkylthiourea, diethylthiourea, and the supports' material. No other positive patch test reactions were identified. As neoprene is fast becoming one of the most popular materials used for orthopaedic supports, awareness of this reaction and close liaison between dermatologists and orthopaedic surgeons are therefore essential to allow for early recognition of this complication.