BackgroundThe emergence of dengue throughout the tropical world is affecting an increasing proportion of adult cases. The clinical features of dengue in different age groups have not been well examined, especially in the context of early clinical diagnosis.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe structured a prospective study of adults (≥18 years of age) presenting with acute febrile illness within 72 hours from illness onset upon informed consent. Patients were followed up over a 3–4 week period to determine the clinical outcome. A total of 2,129 adults were enrolled in the study, of which 250 (11.7%) had dengue. Differences in the rates of dengue-associated symptoms resulted in high sensitivities when the WHO 1997 or 2009 classification schemes for probable dengue fever were applied to the cohort. However, when the cases were stratified into age groups, fewer older adults reported symptoms such as myalgia, arthralgia, retro-orbital pain and mucosal bleeding, resulting in reduced sensitivity of the WHO classification schemes. On the other hand, the risks of severe dengue and hospitalization were not diminshed in older adults, indicating that this group of patients can benefit from early diagnosis, especially when an antiviral drug becomes available. Our data also suggests that older adults who present with fever and leukopenia should be tested for dengue, even in the absence of other symptoms.ConclusionEarly clinical diagnosis based on previously defined symptoms that are associated with dengue, even when used in the schematics of both the WHO 1997 and 2009 classifications, is difficult in older adults.

Because healthcare facilities in many dengue endemic countries lack laboratory support, early dengue diagnosis must rely on either clinical recognition or a bedside diagnostic test. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the 1997 and 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) dengue classification schemes and the NS1 strip test in acute sera from 154 virologically confirmed dengue patients and 200 patients with other febrile illnesses. Both WHO classification schemes had high sensitivity but lacked specificity. The NS1 strip test had high specificity, but its sensitivity was significantly lower in secondary compared with primary dengue infections. Differences in viral serotypes did not affect the performance of any of the three diagnostic approaches. Taken collectively, our findings indicate that the 1997 WHO dengue case definition can be used to exclude dengue, and the NS1 strip test can be used to confirm dengue infection, although the latter should be interpreted with caution in regions where secondary dengue infection is prevalent.

Background Oral anticoagulant therapy use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains suboptimal in Singapore, despite the availability of both warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Primary care physicians’ (PCP) decision-making to initiate and select appropriate anticoagulant medication is pivotal in reducing complications among patients with AF. This study explored the factors influencing PCPs’ decision-making in anticoagulant initiation and anticoagulant switch for patients with non-valvular AF. Method The study design is qualitative research based on the theoretical framework of the Generalist Wheel of Knowledge, Understanding and Inquiry. In-depth interviews or focus group discussions were conducted with 27 PCPs in general practice in urban Singapore. The audio-recordings were transcribed and coded to identify themes, which are framed according to the “clinician”, “patient”, “medical condition and treatment” and “healthcare system and policy” domains. Results Personal training and experience with anticoagulant therapy; understanding patient risk-stratification; AF detection during clinical practice; medication cost; clinical support services for anticoagulation monitoring and constraints in existing care model influenced PCPs in their anticoagulant prescription. PCPs preferred to seek guidance from cardiologists in managing patients with newly diagnosed AF and attempted to engage their patients in decision-making regarding anticoagulant therapy. Some PCPs perceived sub-specialized primary care clinics focusing on AF co-management with cardiologists as an ideal setting for initiation and maintenance of anticoagulant therapy. Conclusions PCPs are influenced by multiple interrelated factors while making decisions on anticoagulant initiation and anticoagulant switch for patients with AF. Their proposed care model to address the barriers awaits feasibility and acceptance assessment in future research.

No abstract

Background: Oral anticoagulant therapy use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains suboptimal despite the availability of both warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Primary care physicians’ (PCP) decision-making to initiate and select appropriate anticoagulant medication is pivotal in reducing complications among patients with AF.Aim: This study explored the factors influencing PCPs’ decision-making in anticoagulant initiation and adjustment for patients with non-valvular AF. Design of study: Qualitative research based on the theoretical framework of the Generalist Wheel of Knowledge, Understanding and Inquiry. Method: In-depth interviews or focus group discussions were conducted with 27 PCPs in general practice in urban Singapore. The audio-recordings were transcribed, audited and coded to identify themes, which are framed according to the “clinician”, “patient”, “medical condition and treatment” and “healthcare system and policy” domains.Results: Personal training and experience with anticoagulant therapy; understanding patient risk-stratification; AF detection during clinical practice; medication cost; clinical support services for anticoagulation monitoring and constraints in existing care model influenced PCPs in their anticoagulant prescription. PCPs preferred to seek guidance from cardiologists in managing patients with newly diagnosed AF and attempted to engage their patients in decision-making regarding anticoagulant therapy. They perceived sub-specialized primary care clinics focusing on AF co-management with cardiologists as an ideal setting for initiation and maintenance of anticoagulant therapy.Conclusion: PCPs’ decisions on anticoagulant therapy is influenced by personal attributes, patients, clinical presentations, anticoagulant properties and healthcare system. Their proposed care model to address the barriers awaits feasibility and acceptance assessment in future research.