Articles

Read the latest articles relevant to your clinical practice, including exclusive insights from Healthed surveys and polls.

By reading selected clinical articles, you earn CPD in the Educational Activities (EA) category whenever you click the “Claim CPD” button and follow the prompts. 

Dr Vivienne Miller

From February this year, changes to privacy laws have been put in place that are likely to significantly affect doctors and their practice. Many doctors will not be aware of their new obligations leaving them vulnerable to inadvertently breaching the Privacy Amendment Act, 2017. “Ignorance is no excuse as a legal argument,” Dr Peter Walker, GP and senior risk manager at Avant explained. This latest amendment to the privacy laws demands that doctors must have an updated protocol on how breaches of a patient’s privacy should be handled. Both the patient and the relevant authority must be notified if a breach occurs that is thought to potentially cause the patient harm. If something goes wrong and the patient’s privacy is breached, doctors must now conduct a risk assessment, including an assessment of the risk of harm resulting from the breach. If harm is possible (physical, emotional, psychological, financial, or harm to reputation), the doctor is then obliged to alert the patient/s concerned and write a statement for the Office of the Australian Information Commission via their online form. Fines may be incurred if the action to reduce the risk of possible breaches has not been made, or if it is insufficient, especially if serious harm results. Fines are also possible for doctors who fail to comply with the amended Privacy Act (for example, if they do not notify the Australian Information Commission of a breach or if they do not have an updated privacy plan). The obligation to notify a patient of a privacy breach does enable that patient to take further action if they perceive they have been harmed. They may then escalate the issue themselves, perhaps in Court. In serious circumstances, the Commission will also refer to other entities, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency or if the matter is criminal, to the Police. If no harm is likely to result, doctors do not have to notify the patient or the Commission, but this is likely to be difficult for a clinician to assess without legal advice. “Prevention really is better than cure, but many doctors are unaware of this new legislation.” Dr Walker said. The following examples are given to illustrate to GPs considerations about privacy in the light of the amended Act. “Sorry, Mr B, I need your consent before I fax that referral letter to the specialist for you because this is not a form of communication that is absolutely safe regarding your privacy. For example, a wrong number may be typed in by accident or the specialist may not receive the fax. For your interest, the fax has a hard drive that will store information and so for this reason we remove this before we dispose of the fax machine. If any of this is of concern to you regarding your privacy you can pass the letter over yourself on the day of your consultation…” “Sorry, Mr B, we don’t email information either to you or the specialist, as email may be hacked; this is less likely to happen to medical email systems, but it is still possible and our practice policy has decided not to use email…” “Mr B, I can text the information from the referral letter to the specialist’s mobile phone with your permission to do so. However, please understand that someone who is holding his phone for him may see the message. This is quite possible, as he is operating now…” “Sorry, Mr B, I understand your concern about needing an urgent appointment, and that the post is slow and the referral may not get to the specialist in time, but this is considered to be a legally safe way of sending correspondence if you don’t take the referral with you now. I know the specialist wants to see the referral before offering you an urgent appointment …” Other possible scenarios in which privacy breaches may occur include the theft of documents (e.g. laptop, briefcase), conversations about a patient’s condition being overheard where the patient can be identified, the incorrect disposal of paperwork that identifies a patient, and discussions about a patient with a third party (who is not part of the health team managing them) without that patient’s consent. The Privacy Amendment Act 2017 builds upon the Privacy Act, amended in March 2014, that instructed all medical practices to have a Privacy Policy. The Australian Information Commission is able to audit any medical practice regarding this to see if that practice complies. This legislation is aimed at promoting the security of a patient’s personal details in all communications between themselves and health professionals, and among health professionals generally. To this end, doctors will need to look carefully for any potential breaches of these new privacy laws resulting from their current means of communication with colleagues and the patients themselves. Reference Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Notifiable Data Breaches. Available at: oaic.gov.au/engage-with-us/consultations/notifiable-data-breaches This article is based on Dr Peter Walker’s video interview conducted at the Sydney Women’s and Children’s Health Update on Saturday February 17th 2018.

Dr Linda Calabresi

We know night shift work is not good for your health. Evidence shows night shift work is associated with an increased risk of sleep loss, occupational accidents, obesity and weight gain, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and breast, prostate and colorectal cancers, according to a review in the BMJ by two intensive care specialists. But what of strategies to help night shift workers mitigate these risks? What does the research say we should be advising these patients to do to optimise their health, remembering that many health professionals will be involved in this type of shift work? According to the review, there is a ‘paucity of adequately powered, well designed, randomised controlled trials’ on the subject however from what there was and with the addition of expert opinion the review authors recommended the following.
  • Try and make sure you’re not sleep-deprived before a night shift. Try and wake the morning before naturally (without an alarm) and, if possible have a daytime nap maybe taking advantage of that ‘circadian dip’ between 2 and 6pm the afternoon before you front up for night duty.
  • If you get the opportunity to nap during the night shift, try to limit the duration of these to less than 30 minutes, “to avoid slow wave sleep followed by grogginess on waking, known as ‘sleep inertia’”, the authors advise.
  • Caffeine reduces sleepiness and improves performance 20-45 minutes after taking it, with the effect lasting up to five hours.
  • There is evidence that drugs such as modafinil are effective in reducing sleepiness in night shift workers compared with placebo but these drugs have been associated with skin reactions and their long-term safety is yet to be established. Similarly, exposure to bright light has been proposed as a possible means of inhibiting melatonin, reducing sleepiness and perhaps reducing the cancer risk associated with shift work but neither these drugs nor bright light exposure is supported by sufficient evidence to be conclusively recommended.
  • Hunger and digestion are both affected by circadian rhythm. There is some evidence to suggest if you don’t eat you’ll perform better over the duration of the night shift than if you eat, however it is likely you will experience hunger and will be more likely to get GI symptoms leading the authors to recommend a main meal immediately before the shift and then small snacks as required to stave off hunger overnight.
  • And the big one. How to optimise sleep between night shifts? Well- the recommendations are fairly predictable – avoid bright light on the way home (wear sunglasses), employ blue screens on your computer and phone, use eye masks and ear plugs and develop a predictable pre-bed routine. Avoid caffeine for at least six hours before sleep time and perhaps consider taking melatonin the morning after a night shift –some evidence suggests that this increases sleep duration by up to 24 minutes.
“A meta-analysis of 66 studies concluded that regular exercise leads to improvement in sleep quantity and quality, but the optimum timing, duration, and type of exercise for sleep promotion have yet to be determined,” they said. In addition, the review authors didn’t recommend any other sleeping tablets due to a lack of quality evidence of their effectiveness and the risk of dependency. Finally, the researchers advised night shift workers to be aware their performance is likely to be reduced especially in that particularly vulnerable time between 3 and 5am and therefore they should seek support when required to do critical tasks at this time. They also warned workers to be aware of their vulnerability when driving home after night shift and referred to a patient, the inspiration for this review, who experienced the life-changing consequences of being involved in a road traffic accident while on a set of night shifts in 2005. Ref: BMJ 2018; 360:j5637 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5637

Dr Linda Calabresi

Opioids have really fallen out of favour as a chronic pain relief option. Even for patients with severe chronic back pain, or severe pain from their osteoarthritis in their hip or knee, opioids will not offer any better relief in terms of pain-restricted function that non-opioid medication, a recent study published in JAMA has shown. The US clinical trial involved 240 US adults with moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic.  Researchers compared whether treatment with opioids such as morphine, oxycodone or hydrocodone/paracetamol improved pain-related function over a 12-month period over treatment with nonopioid such as paracetamol or an NSAID. Surprisingly, the results showed no significant difference in terms of pain related function over the course of the study. In fact, the pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over the 12-month period, however the study authors said the clinical importance of this finding was unclear. As was perhaps more expected, the group that took opioids had more side effects. “Overall, opioids did not demonstrate any advantage over nonopioid medication that could potentially outweigh their greater risk of harms,” the researchers said. When looking at all the results – even including secondary outcomes,  the only area where opioids were found to be superior to nonopioids in this study of chronic pain patients was in the area of anxiety. The opioid group had fewer anxiety symptoms – so they had just as little function, and even more intense pain but they worried about it less. The study authors said their findings added to the growing body of evidence that opioids offer little benefit over other medications and even placebo in the management of chronic pain conditions, especially when their side effect profile is taken into consideration. “Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain”, they concluded. Ref: JAMA 2018;319(9) 872-882. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0899

Dr Janet Cheung

Phenibut was initially developed in the 1960s in Russia as an anti-anxiety (anxiolytic) drug with cognitive enhancing properties. It has since attracted a strong following of users in the “smart drug” market, with claims of boosting memory recall and exam performance. Originally given to Soviet cosmonauts to combat anxiety and insomnia, the powdered drug is suspected to have played a role in the recent overdose of seven teenagers at a Queensland private school.

How it works

Phenibut – also known as pbut, noofen, party powder (or its scientific name β-phenyl-γ-aminobutyric acid and brand name Bifren) – is a psychotropic drug, which means it affects the user’s mental state. The drug is similar in structure to a type of neurotransmitter known as neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which plays a role in reducing excitability and anxiety, as well as enhancing euphoria and cognitive function. Phenibut binds to a specific subtype of the GABA receptor, activating a similar reaction as GABA. Animal studies have shown that phenibut is able to penetrate the blood brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier is is an important mechanism that stops harmful toxins and bugs travelling through the blood stream and entering the brain.
Read more: Explainer: what is the blood-brain barrier and how can we overcome it?
Once phenibut reaches the brain the result is reduced anxiety and social inhibition. Because it depresses the central nervous system (like GABA), it is also used as a mood elevator and tranquiliser. Phenibut is structurally similar to the widely prescribed drug baclofen (Lioresal), which is available in Australia. Baclofen is prescribed as a muscle relaxant for patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

What is it used for?

Phenibut can be used to treat anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol withdrawal syndrome and vestibular (balance) disorders such as vertigo. It is also used recreationally in many countries including the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to reduce social anxiety and induce feelings of euphoria. Animal studies also show it has potential to improve brain function after a stroke. Phenibut is not licenced for use in the European Union, Australia or the United States due to safety concerns. In Australia specifically, the drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has rejected 11 public submissions for registration and states that phenibut “represents a significant risk of harm, including overdose”. Although phenibut is commercially available in few countries around the world, aside from Russia, a recent study showed that 48 unrelated internet suppliers sold phenibut from the United Kingdom, United States, China, Australia and Canada. In Russia and the Ukraine, it is commercially available as БИФРЕН® (Bifren) and daily doses range from 500 to 2000 mg. Phenibut was available as a powder in amounts ranging from 5 g to 1,000  kg and as capsules containing 200–500 mg in packs of between six and 360.

How was was it developed?

Phenibut was first synthesised in Russia in the 1960s by Vsevolod Vasilievich Perekalin and his associates at the Department of Organic Chemistry of the Herzen Pedagogical Institute in St Petersburg, Russia. In initial publications, phenibut was known as phenigamma. The drug used to be included in medical kits for cosmonauts on Russian space flights due to the reports of enhanced cognition and high tranquilising properties.

Side effects

Side effects of phenibut are generally linked to its central nervous system depressant effects, such as sedation and problems with breathing. There is currently limited information about phenibut. But because it has similar pharmacological properties to baclofen it’s likely to have similar side effects.
Read more: Explainer: how do drugs work?
These include gastrointesinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea), central nervous system symptoms (insomnia, confusion, euphoria, depression, hallucinations), and visual disturbances and musculoskeletal symptoms (such as tremors). Users of phenibut can also develop tolerance within days, needing more of the drug to feel the same effects. This can increase the risk of adverse effects. Users may develop withdrawal effects, such as severe rebound anxiety and insomnia, when they stop taking the drug. Despite phenibut not being registered or legally available in Australia, the TGA has received three reports of problems related to phenibut use in the past five years. These cases range from isolated symptoms of headaches, to a cluster of symptoms such as visual impairment, muscle spasms, palpitations and nausea/vomiting. Signs of overdose include: shallow irregular breathing; drowsiness and lethargy; increased sweating; decreasing blood pressure; nausea and vomiting; and lowering body temperature. The ConversationThe reported adverse events of phenibut are just scratching surface of a largely unregulated online drug market with no standards of quality assurance. So for those students seeking the competitive edge, it looks like those extra marks are not worth it after all. Janet Cheung, Lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Sydney and Jonathan Penm, Lecturer (Pharmacy), University of Sydney This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Dr Daman Langguth

Paraproteins are abnormal monoclonal immunoglobulins produced in plasma cell disorders (eg multiple myeloma), lymphoproliferative disorders (eg CLL, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia) and in some infections (hepatitis C). The introduction of the assay, serum free light chains (FLC) has meant the initial investigation of paraproteinaemia has become much simpler. Previously, serum tests had great difficulty in detecting immunoglobulin light chains for two reasons: 1. Light chains are rapidly cleared by the kidneys, up until a certain point where they ‘spilled’ over into the blood. 2. Assays had poor sensitivity in detecting ‘free’ light chains ie light chains not bound to heavy chains as in normal immunoglobulin. The FLC assay (a propriety product) when combined with serum protein electrophoresis (EPP) and immunofixation allows detection of the vast majority (>99%) of paraproteins, virtually eliminating the need for urine collection and analysis, thus giving a greater degree of patient satisfaction. With nearly all very sensitive assays, there are some costs to specificity. In renal failure and in polyclonal gammopathy (such as in chronic inflammation, liver disease or infection), the FLC assay may suggest the presence of a monoclonal light chain when non is present, in up to 10% in some series. Tis also occurs in chronic renal failure with EPP and immunofixation testing. This must be kept in mind when investigating patients for paraproteins. The FLC assay only detects free (unbound) immunoglobulin light chains, so traditional serum EPP plus immunofixation must also be done on initial investigation. It has been shown that the vast majority of ‘non-secretory’ myelomas actually produce free light chains, detectable by this new assay. The serum FLC assay can be used to guide chemotherapy in myeloma, and has already been incorporated into some international response criteria for myeloma. Summary The FLC assay, when combined with serum EPP and immunofixation, allows the detection and evaluation of paraproteins.
General Practice Pathology is a new regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial, free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.

Dr Linda Calabresi

Skin abscesses are best treated with incision and drainage plus antibiotics, rather than just incision and drainage alone, recommends an international guideline panel in the BMJ. After critically appraising all the current evidence, the panel found adjuvant antibiotic therapy in addition to incision and drainage of uncomplicated skin abscesses reduced the risk of treatment failure and abscess recurrence by approximately 13% compared to treatment without additional antibiotics. In particular the randomised controlled trials included in the review, were evaluating the use of clindamycin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) in addition to incision and drainage. “TMP-SMX or clindamycin modestly reduces pain and treatment failure and probably reduces abscess recurrence, but increases the risk of adverse effects including nausea and diarrhoea,” they said. TMP-SMX is the more preferable option over clindamycin as it is less likely to cause diarrhoea, they added. The recommendation is in contrast to most of the current guidelines that generally advise uncomplicated skin abscesses be treated with incision and drainage alone except in cases where there is systemic illness, extensive tissue damage, immunocompromising conditions, an artificial joint or a high risk of endocarditis. And while the panel concedes that the benefit of adjuvant antibiotic therapy is modest, they anticipate that most fully informed patients would consider it large enough to choose it over incision and drainage alone. Of course, the major counter argument against increasing antibiotic use would be the possible increased risk of antimicrobial resistance. “From a societal perspective, it is possible that the modest benefits from adjuvant antibiotics in this scenario would not outweigh the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the community,” they said. However, the impact of a single course of antibiotics on this public health problem remains unknown, so any conclusion about net benefit versus net harm can only be speculative, they concluded, even though the issues are worth considering as part of the shared decision making. The panel also considered evidence for using cephalosporins for adjuvant treatment of skin abscesses, however they concluded that this class of antibiotics was unlikely to provide any benefit over incision and drainage in the majority of cases of skin abscesses, and therefore could not be recommended. Ref: BMJ 2018; 360: k243 doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k243

Prof Allen Cheng

In an attempt to avoid a repeat of last year’s horror flu season, Health Minister Greg Hunt yesterday announced the government would fund two new flu vaccines in 2018 to try to better protect the elderly. While influenza affects people of all ages, infections among the elderly are more likely to require hospitalisation or cause serious complications such as pneumonia and heart attacks. Of the 1,100 Australians who died last year from flu-related causes, 90% were aged 65 and over. The two free vaccines for over-65s work in different ways: FluZone High Dose is a high-dose version; Fluad adds an additional ingredient to boost its effectiveness. Both are recommended for use only in people aged 65 and over. But neither is perfect. And it’s important to remember flu vaccines are, at best, only partially protective.

Why do we need new vaccines for flu?

Australia’s National Immunisation Program provides free influenza vaccine for the elderly, as well as other high-risk groups including pregnant women, those with chronic diseases and Indigenous Australians.
Read more: Flu vaccine won't definitely stop you from getting the flu, but it's more important than you think
Older people’s immune systems don’t respond to flu vaccines as well as younger people’s. Recent studies have also shown that flu vaccines don’t appear to be as effective in the elderly at protecting against flu and its complications. Compounding this problem is that the flu subtype that tends to affect older people (A/H3N2) is different to that which affects younger people (A/H1N1). Although the seasonal flu vaccine now contains four strains to cover all the relevant subtypes present, the protection against H3N2 infection appears to be poorer than against other strains. Two strategies are attempting to improve the effectiveness of flu vaccines. One is to increase the dose of the flu strains in the vaccine. This is the basis for Sanofi’s High Dose FluZone vaccine, which contains four times the amount of flu antigen than the standard dose. Another way is to add a substance that improves the immune response, known as an adjuvant, in combination with the flu strains. This is the basis for Seqirus’ (CSL) Fluad vaccine, which contains the adjuvant MF59. This vaccine has been used overseas for many years, but has only been become available in Australia this year.

How much better are these vaccines than the current vaccine?

Compared to the standard flu vaccine, the high-dose version has been shown to better stimulate the immune system of older users to make protective antibodies. It has been shown to better reduce rates of flu infection in over-65s than the standard vaccine. And, interestingly, it also seems to protect against pneumonia. One common criticism of clinical trials is that they don’t include the types of people who are found in the “real world”. But population based observational studies suggest that the high-dose vaccine is more protective than the standard-dose vaccine where H3N2 is the predominant circulating strain – as it was last year.
Read more: Here's why the 2017 flu season was so bad
What about the Fluad (adjuvanated) vaccine? Compared to the standard vaccine, adjuvanted flu vaccine has been shown to better stimulate the immune system of older users to make protective antibodies. Unlike the high-dose vaccine, there have not been clinical trials that show a difference in infection rates compared with the standard vaccine. But observational data suggests the adjuvanted vaccine is more protective against hospitalisation with influenza or pneumonia – to a similar degree as the high-dose vaccine. One problem with both these vaccines is that they only contain three strains, rather than the four strains in the current vaccine. The strain missing from the new vaccines is an influenza B type. But the benefits of better protection against the most common three strains in the new vaccine appear to outweigh the potential loss of protection against the missing B strain.

Are the new vaccines safe?

Both vaccines are safe, but commonly cause mild side effects, and very rarely can cause serious side effects. However, these risks from the vaccine are less than from getting influenza infection. The main side effect of vaccines relates to their effect in stimulating the immune system. In many people they cause a sore arm and, less commonly, a fever. The side effects of these new flu vaccines are slightly more common than with standard vaccines. Generally, these side effects are mild and don’t last long. None of the flu vaccines used in Australia contains live virus and therefore can’t cause flu infection. However, the vaccination season (April to June) usually occurs around the same time as when another respiratory virus (RSV) circulates, so this respiratory infection is commonly misattributed to vaccination.
Read more: Health Check: when is 'the flu' really a cold?
Rare but serious side effects, such as Guillain Barre Syndrome (where the immune system attacks nerves), have been described after flu vaccination. Studies suggest that the risk of these side effects are less common after the flu vaccine than after flu infection. People with allergies should discuss flu vaccines with their doctor. In the past, there has been concern that the flu vaccines, which are manufactured in eggs, may elicit allergic reactions in people with egg allergy. However, it is now thought that people with egg allergies can receive flu vaccines safely under appropriate supervision. In 2009, an adjuvanted vaccine (Pandemrix) was thought to be implicated in cases of narcolepsy (a disease associated with excessive sleepiness) in Europe. However, this primarily occurred in children (rather than the elderly), and with a different adjuvant (ASO3) than is being used in Fluad (MF59)

Which vaccine should I get?

The two vaccines have not been compared head to head, so it isn’t known which one is better. The available data suggest they are similar to each other. In practice, what vaccine you’ll receive will depend on what’s available at your GP or pharmacy. It is important to note that these vaccines are only recommended for use in people 65 years of age or older, and are not recommended for use in people under this age. The standard vaccine will still be available for younger people. There are no data to support the use of multiple doses of vaccines of the same or different types.
Read more: Flu is a tragic illness. How can we get more people to vaccinate?
Neither of the new vaccines is perfect – they simply reduce your risk of getting flu to a slightly greater effect than the standard vaccine. Like other flu vaccines, there is still the chance that the vaccine strains don’t match what’s circulating. The ConversationDespite the common perception that the flu is mild illness, it causes a significant number of deaths worldwide. To make an impact on this, we need better vaccines, better access to vaccines worldwide and new strategies, such as increasing the rate of vaccination in childhood. Allen Cheng, Professor in Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Monash University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Dr Jenny Robson

Once specimens are received in the laboratory, microscopy is performed. An interim report is then released. Specimens are then set up on specialised agar containing antibiotics and cycloheximide to inhibit the growth of bacteria and saprophytic fungi. Cultures are incubated at 28°C for three weeks. If microscopy is positive (M+) and no pathogen (C-) has grown in the interim, specimens are held an extra week. Infrequently, where microscopy and culture of nail scrapings is negative and the diagnosis is still suspected, nails can be examined for fungal elements using special stains.

Results:

Specimen types have been subdivided into three anatomical categories (nails, hair and skin) based broadly on the three clinical presentations of onychomycosis, tinea capitis, and tinea corporis/ cruris/pedis. Onychomycosis refers to fungal infections of the nails and includes tinea unguium caused by dermatophytes but also non-dermatophyte fungi and yeasts, predominantly Candida spp.

Negative laboratory report:

A common reason for negative microscopy and /or culture is an incorrect clinical diagnosis. More than 50% of dystrophic nails do not have a fungal cause, so it is important to establish a correct laboratory diagnosis before treating a patient with an antifungal agent. Other reasons for false negative results include sampling variation associated with an inadequate specimen and/or splitting the sample to perform microscopy and culture; the presence of nonviable hyphae in the distal portion of the nail; uneven colonisation of the nail by fungus; and overgrowth by contaminant saprophytic fungi. Careful re-collection to obtain sufficient material may be necessary to confirm negative results.

Nails:

The analysis of nail specimens from the hands and feet. Fingernails: Of 1202 specimens processed, 59% were negative by both microscopy and culture; 11% had hyphae seen on microscopy but were negative by culture; 27% of all finger and thumbnail cultures grew a yeast, predominantly Candida albicans (88% of all positive nail/hand cultures). Only 3% of all fingernail specimens grew a dermatophyte.

Toenails:

57% of 5097 toenail cultures were negative by both microscopy and culture. 22% were positive by microscopy but culture negative for reasons stated previously. As the literature would suggest, yeast infection of toenails is rare. Dermatophytes (20%) predominate as the main cause of onychomycosis of the lower limbs. Transmission of these dermatophytes is usually via the feet and toe web spaces, which are the major reservoir on the human body. Onychomycosis can be regarded as the end stage of tinea pedis. Desquamated skin scales containing hyphae are shed and survive for months to years on floors and carpets. Infrequently non-dermatophyte moulds are implicated in toenail infections such as Aspergillus. There is some uncertainty as to the significance of these cultures, and repeat culture may be indicated.

Treatment options:

With tinea unguium, topical treatment is successful only with surgical removal of the nail combined with oral therapy. First-line treatment for all types of nail tinea consists of: 1. terbinafine (child < 20 kg: 62.5 mg; 20 to 40 kg: 125 mg) 250 mg orally, daily for six weeks for fingernails and 12 weeks for toenails or (if terbinafine is not tolerated) 2. itraconazole 200 mg orally, twice daily for seven days every month for 2-4 months or 3. fluconazole 150 to 450 mg orally, once weekly for 12 to 52 weeks. Successful management of candidiasis of the nail requires removal of risk factors e.g. water immersion.

Tinea capitis:

Of 414 hair samples submitted over this period, 329 (80%) were negative by both microscopy and culture. Dermatophytes isolated include M. canis (46%); T. tonsurans (42%); M. gypseum (5%); T. mentagrophytes (5%) and T. rubrum (2.5%). This condition afflicts predominantly prepubertal children. Clinically it can present as alopecia or a more inflammatory lesion (kerion). It is noteworthy that T. tonsurans, an anthropophilic fungus, is emerging as a common cause of tinea capitis in children and spreads easily from child to child.

Treatment options:

Tinea capitis often requires oral therapy to eradicate the infection. Treatment options include 1. griseofulvin fine particle (child: 20 mg/kg up to) 500 mg orally, daily for 4-8 weeks, or 2. terbinafine (child< 20 kg: 62.5 mg; 20 to 40 kg: 125 mg) 250 mg orally, daily for four weeks.

Tinea corporis/cruris/pedis:

Of the 7406 specimens received from skin sites, 73% were both microscopy and culture negative; 5% were positive only by microscopy. Of the 22% culture positive specimens, 19% grew a dermatophyte and 3% a yeast.

Treatment options:

When topical treatments have failed, recommended oral therapy includes: 1. griseofulvin fine particle (child: 10 to 20 mg/kg up to) 500 mg orally, daily for at least four weeks or 2. terbinafine (child <20 kg: 62.5 mg; 20 to 40 kg: 125mg) 250 mg orally, daily for at least two weeks, depending on the response or 3. itraconazole capsules 200 mg orally, twice daily for one week for tinea of the feet or hands or 4. itraconazole capsules 200 mg orally, once daily for one week for tinea elsewhere.
General Practice Pathology is a new regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial, free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.
Dr Linda Calabresi

The increasing BMI of first-time pregnant women is behind a rise in adverse perinatal outcomes over a 25 year time period, a new retrospective Australian study suggests. Analysing data from one major Sydney teaching hospital, researchers found that the prevalence of overweight among women having their first baby increased from 12.7% in 1990-94 to 16.4% in 2010-14, and that of obesity rose from 4.8% to 7.3%. More importantly they found this increase in BMI was associated with a range of adverse perinatal outcomes particularly pre-eclampsia, macrosomia and gestational diabetes. Other complications believed to have increased as a result of the maternal weight gain included caesarean deliveries, post partum haemorrhage, prematurity, admission to the special care nursery and fetal abnormalities. “We found that a substantial proportion of the burden of adverse perinatal outcomes for Australian women is linked to maternal overweight and obesity, and that this proportion has steadily increased over the past 25 years,” the Sydney researchers said. The study involved the analysis of the data recorded on over 42000 singleton births delivered to previously nulliparous women at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney between 1990 and 2014. Interestingly over the course of the study period, the mean age for first time mothers rose from 28.7 to 31.6 years, however having adjusted for this as well as other possible confounders such as changing smoking rates, socioeconomic status, and country of birth of the mother the findings confirmed the relative risks of adverse perinatal outcomes had increased in association with rising prevalence of overweight and obesity. Researchers calculated that should overweight or obese women move down one BMI category (for example from obese to overweight) 19% of pre-eclampsia, 15.9% of macrosomia and 14.2% of gestational diabetes could be averted. “Our results indicate that the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes could be reduced by shifting the distribution of overweight and obesity among first-time mothers by a single BMI class. Investing in obesity prevention strategies that target women prior to their becoming pregnant is likely to provide the greatest benefit,” they concluded. Ref: MJA doi:10.5694/mja17.00344

Dr Linda Calabresi

There is no debate – postpartum depression can be a devastating disease for a new mother. However, what is probably less well-recognised is the long-term consequences of that illness on the child. The latest findings from an ongoing longitudinal UK study of parents and infants shows that children whose mother was assessed as having moderate to severe depression at both two and eight months after delivery had a substantially increased risk of adverse outcomes across a number of child measures from behaviour and learning to mental health up to 18 years later. The observational study known as the British Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children(ALSPAC) has followed over 9800 women who were pregnant in the early 1990s. In the latest findings, published in JAMA psychiatry, the researchers noted that women who still had moderate to severe depression at eight months postpartum, were likely to still have depression 11 years later. And the children of these women had a four- fold increased risk of behaviour problems as a pre-schooler, twice the risk of being poor at maths in high school and a seven fold increased risk of depression as an adult. Conversely, if the postpartum depression was not persistent at either the moderate or severe level there appeared to be no increased risk of behaviour and learning problems or depression in the offspring, which is reassuring. The study findings published in JAMA psychiatry raise a number of interesting questions. “Having established a highly vulnerable group of mothers still does not answer the question of what to do about interventions, or who, when, or how to treat,” the author of an accompanying editorial says. The design of the study meant the researchers were unable to determine the effects of maternal treatment on reducing postpartum depression and improving child outcomes. As the editorial author also points out, there is also considerable debate whether treatment should focus mainly on the mother and her illness or be directed at the mother-infant relationship. Nonetheless, it is clear that, as a first step at least, these mothers with persistent severe depression need to be identified. Screening for depression which now focuses on pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period needs to be extended to a year after delivery. “Screening both early and late in the first postpartum year will enable the identification of women with persistent [postnatal depression] and thus the offer of appropriate treatment,” the study authors concluded. Ref: JAMA Psychiatry doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4363 doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4265

Dr Daman Langguth

Coeliac disease is a common disorder affecting the gastrointestinal tract, secondary to an immunologic reaction to gluten. At present it can only be managed by lifelong avoidance of gluten, and thus presents a challenge for patients and their health care professionals.

Epidemiology

Coeliac disease was first characterised in the late 1940s with diarrhoea and failure to thrive in young children. The wartime shortage of wheat, and adoption of a gluten-free surrogate diet, allowed their symptoms to improve. When wheat was re-introduced into their diets their condition worsened again. Initially thought to be a rare disease of children, we now recognise coeliac disease to be prevalent in adults, including the elderly. Data from the UK reveal that the most common age group diagnosed is between 30 and 45, with more people over 60 than those under 16 years (Coeliac UK: www.coeliac.co.uk). The illness occurs in people of European, Turkish, Middle Eastern, Egyptian and Indian backgrounds. It appears to be rare in sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. There is debate over mass screening in populations such as in the UK and Scandinavia, where the disease incidence approaches 1%. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia (GESA) recommends screening in persons with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficiency, or a family history of coeliac disease, where the condition may be as common as 1 in 10.

Immunopathology

The pathologic understanding of coeliac disease has advanced considerably over the past 10 years, although our understanding is still incomplete. In some individuals, when gluten is digested the peptides cross the intestinal mucosa where they are recognised by the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. Those individuals with HLA-DQ2 or -DQ8 are able to process the gluten peptides, resulting in presentation of gliadin/gluten peptides on the surface of antigen-presenting cells. Over 99% of coeliac patients have HLA-DQ2 or -DQ8, and homozygotes for DQ2/8 are more likely than heterozygotes to develop the disease, and more severely. For the peptides to be presented to T cells, they must first be deamidated by a ubiquitous enzyme, tissue transglutaminase (tTG). Tissue transglutaminase alters the gluten-derived peptide so that it remains in the binding site of the HLA molecule, and allows an immune response to occur against the enterocytes that carry the HLADQ2/8-gluten peptide complex. Tissue transglutaminase is present in an active form outside cells; its usual role is to help maintain the extra-cellular matrix. Several isoenzymes of tTG exist throughout the body, tTG2 being present in the GI tract. It is the presence of IgA antibodies to this enzyme— anti-tTG2 antibodies (hereafter ‘tTG antibodies’)—that have become the gold standard serologic marker for coeliac disease. It remains uncertain why antibodies to tTG develop in coeliac patients, although research suggests that tTG can become cross-linked to the gluten peptide and cause specific tTG antibodies to develop, through a process termed ‘epitope spreading’. Tissue transglutaminase antibodies have been shown to pre-date the development of the histologic changes of coeliac disease. It is clear that antibodies to tTG are not pathogenic in most patients, as many cells in the body contain similar tTG. However, in dermatitis herpetiformis, a disease long associated with coeliac disease, these antibodies develop against tTG3 (whereas in coeliac disease they are directed against tTG2). In dermatitis herpetiformis, these tTG3 antibodies may well be pathogenic, leading to classic cutaneous lesions.

Serologic testing

IgA tTG antibodies are now considered the gold standard in the detection of coeliac disease, giving a sensitivity of around 95%, and a specificity of around 90%. IgA tTG antibodies become negative 9–12 months after the introduction of a gluten-free diet. In children less than 2 years of age, IgA production is not mature and may result in false negative IgA tTG. This is especially true for those less than one year of age. At present, all serologic diagnoses should be confirmed by histologic diagnosis, as false positives can occur. Although several studies in children have indicated that very high IgA anti-tTG results may not need to be confirmed by biopsy, Australian guidelines indicate the need for histologic confirmation. IgG tTG antibodies may also be detected in coeliac patients, though they have similar problems to IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA, discussed below), with a poor sensitivity and specificity, despite initial enthusiasm for their utility. Older serologic tests for coeliac disease were based on antibodies directed against gliadin—anti-gliadin antibodies (IgA AGA and IgG AGA). Like all food antibodies, they have relatively poor sensitivity (false negatives) and particularly poor specificity (false positives), especially given that they are a group of antibodies (polyclonal), rather than being directed against a single epitope. The indication for IgA AGA is very limited and should largely be consigned to history. However, these antibodies can be used to monitor early adherence to a gluten-free diet as they become negative 6–9 months after the diet is introduced. IgG AGA, however, remains of use in IgA-deficient patients in whom IgA tTG and IgA AGA are not produced. IgG against deamidated gliadin is of use in IgA-deficient patients in whom IgA tTG and IgA AGA are not produced. This is a modified test, using a gliadin peptide (small piece of protein) that had been altered to more closely resemble the natural peptide found in wheat. IgA deficiency is defined as ‘undetectable or barely detectable’ serum IgA. IgG AGA are also of use in children less than two years of age (and especially children under one), in whom the ability to produce IgA antibodies has not fully developed. All patients with IgA deficiency in whom coeliac disease is suspected should undergo a small bowel biopsy, regardless of the IgG AGA and other testing conducted. It is suggested they be referred to a gastroenterologist, as other diseases such as chronic giardia and autoimmune enteritis may occur. One theory to explain why IgA deficiency is associated with the development of coeliac disease is that IgA is involved in the neutralisation of foreign antigens at mucosal surfaces, and these deficient individuals have greater transmucosal passage of gliadin fragments. Another type of antibody, IgA endomysial antibodies, has also been used to test for the disease in the past. These antibodies were first detected in monkey oesophagus; it is now recognised that the antigen being detected by this method was tTG. These antibodies are highly specific (~ 100%) but have a slightly lower sensitivity (~ 90%) than IgA tTG. Endomysial antibodies are sometimes used in children under two years of age.

Tissue typing

In selected cases, HLA-DQ typing may be of benefit. In patients who are predisposed to the development of coeliac disease, a negative test would essentially rule out the diagnosis. A positive result, on the other hand, would not significantly alter the chance of the person having coeliac disease. In Down syndrome and Turner syndrome patients, this would alleviate the need for life-long screening. Tissue typing may be of value in infants (less than two years), to exclude disease, as serologic markers are less reliable. HLA-DQ typing in relatives of coeliac patients may also be of use, although they are highly likely to have DQ2/8 present, whether or not they also have the disease. As DQ2 is independently associated with IgA deficiency and Type 1 diabetes, tissue typing would be less beneficial in such cases.
General Practice Pathology is a new regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial, free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.
Dr Linda Calabresi

Taking fish oil supplements to prevent a heart attack has always been somewhat controversial. However, a new meta-analysis, involving almost 78,000 high risk individuals has provided the best evidence to date that the practice is not worthwhile. (1) The UK researchers analysed the data from 10 trials which had investigated whether taking omega-3 fatty acid supplementation reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease as well as other vascular events including stroke. According to the study findings, published in JAMA Cardiology, those individuals randomised to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for a mean of 4.4 years experienced no significant benefit in terms of preventing adverse vascular outcomes compared with those who did not receive supplementation. “Importantly, this meta-analysis also demonstrated no significant effect on major vascular events in any particular sub-groups, including prior vascular disease, diabetes, lipid levels, or statin use,” the study authors wrote. They suggest that the results of this study provide no support for the recommendations to use approximately 1g/d of omega-3 fatty acids in patients with a history of coronary heart disease to prevent heart attacks or any other vascular disease, which is the current advice from American Heart Association. Our own Australian Heart Foundation guidelines have been a little more circumspect with regard omega-3 fatty acids. While they do suggest supplementation for people whose diet is lacking in fish sources of EPA and DHA, they do say the cardioprotective benefit may be only for some high-risk groups. “There is evidence omega-3 supplements can play a beneficial role in the treatment of patients with high triglyceride levels and patients with existing heart disease, specifically heart failure,” according to their website. (2) Whether this advice is set to change remains to be seen. However, while this latest study might seem like the nail in the coffin for the fish oil business there is an important caveat to consider. The trials included in the meta-analysis involved various doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. All but one trial included combinations of EPA and DHA, with the one exception being a trial of EPA supplementation alone. Daily doses of EPA ranged from 226 to 1800 mg/day and DHA doses varied from 0 to 1700mg/day. Several large randomised controlled trials, involving over 50,000 participants are currently underway investigating whether much higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids will reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events. Even the authors of this latest meta-analysis concede “The results of the ongoing trials are needed to assess if higher doses of omega-3 fatty acids (3-4g/d) may have significant effects on risk of major vascular events.” Ref: 1. JAMA Cardiol. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.5205 2. https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/main/Programs/Health_Professional_QA_Fish_Omega3_Cardiovascular_Health.pdf