Post-exposure prophylaxis after occupational and non-occupational exposures to HIV: an overview of the policies implemented in 27 European countries

The aim of this survey, which was part of an English-French project supported by the Commission of the European Communities, was to compare access to HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in the occupational and non-occupational contexts in 27 European countries. A protocol was designed in May 1998 in collaboration with all country consultants. Data were collected at country level by each consultant through interviews, review of local and national recommendations and results of national or local surveys. The final comparative analysis was carried out from the individual country reports and a review of the literature. The large majority of European countries have detailed procedures regarding occupational PEP: 20/27 have produced national guidelines, three have adopted the US CDC recommendations and only four have no official recommendations. Although no standard protocol exists, the more common one is a four-week implementation of a triple combination therapy. In the context of non-occupational exposure to HIV, only five countries have guidelines with specific recommendations and one country has adopted the CDC recommendations. In the majority of cases (13 countries), PEP is never recommended but is only available in a few circumstances, sometimes with major limitations. In the last eight countries, such PEP is not currently available. Although the estimations of HIV transmission risks in occupational and non-occupational contexts are really comparables, easy access to PEP after accidental sexual or blood exposures is not guaranteed for the general population in the majority of European countries.     

The diagnosis and management of allergic reactions in patients sensitized to non-specific lipid transfer proteins

Sensitization to one or more non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs), initially thought to exist mainly in southern Europe, is becoming accepted as a cause of allergic reactions to plant foods across Europe and beyond. The peach nsLTP allergen Pru p 3 is a dominant sensitizing allergen and peaches a common food trigger, although multiple foods can be involved. A frequent feature of reactions is the requirement for a cofactor (exercise, alcohol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Cannabis sativa) to be present for a food to elicit a reaction. The variability in the food and cofactor triggers makes it essential to include an allergy-focused diet and clinical history in the diagnostic workup. Testing on suspected food triggers should also establish whether sensitization to nsLTP is present, using purified or recombinant nsLTP allergens such as Pru p 3. The avoidance of known trigger foods and advice on cofactors is currently the main management for this condition. Studies on immunotherapy are promising, but it is unknown whether such treatments will be useful in populations where Pru p 3 is not the primary sensitizing allergen. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of cofactors, improving diagnostic accuracy and establishing the efficacy of immunotherapy.     

A prevalence study of primary dystonia in eight European countries

There have been few epidemiological studies of dystonia. Most previous studies have provided estimates based on few cases. A European prevalence study was undertaken to provide more precise rates of dystonia by pooling data from eight European countries. Diagnosed cases were ascertained by adult neurologists with specialist movement disorders (and botulinum toxin) clinics. The crude annual period prevalence rate (1996–1997) for primary dystonia was 152 per million (95% confidence interval 142–162), with focal dystonia having the highest rate of 117 per million (108–126). Prevalence rates for cervical dystonia, blepharospasm and writer's cramp were as follows: 57 (95% confidence interval 51–63), 36 (31–41), and 14 (11–17). The age-adjusted relative rates were significantly higher in women than in men for segmental and focus dystonias with the exception of writer's cramp. Comparing rates between centres demonstrated significant variations for cervical dystonia, blepharospasm and writer's cramp, probably due to methodological differences. Our results provide the first data on the prevalence of primary dystonia and its subtypes across several European countries. Due to under-ascertainment of cases, our rates should be seen as conservative and an under-estimate of the true prevalence of dystonia. Received: 1 November 1999 / Received in revised form: 27 April 2000 / Accepted: 28 May 2000     

Migration and mental health in Europe (the state of the mental health in Europe working group: appendix 1)

Background

This paper is a part of the work of the group that carried out the report "The state of the mental health in Europe" (European Commission, DG Health and Consumer Protection, 2004) and deals with the mental health issues related to the migration in Europe.

Methods

The paper tries to describe the social, demographical and political context of the emigration in Europe and tries to indicate the needs and (mental) health problems of immigrants. A review of the literature concerning mental health risk in immigrant is also carried out. The work also faces the problem of the health policy toward immigrants and the access to health care services in Europe.

Results

Migration during the 1990s has been high and characterised by new migrations. Some countries in Europe, that have been traditionally exporters of migrants have shifted to become importers. Migration has been a key force in the demographic changes of the European population. The policy of closed borders do not stop migration, but rather seems to set up a new underclass of so-called "illegals" who are suppressed and highly exploited. In 2000 there were also 392.200 asylum applications.The reviewed literature among mental health risk in some immigrant groups in Europe concerns: 1) highest rate of schizophrenia; suicide; alcohol and drug abuse; access of psychiatric facilities; risk of anxiety and depression; mental health of EU immigrants once they returned to their country; early EU immigrants in today disadvantaged countries; refugees and mental healthDue to the different condition of migration concerning variables as: motivation to migrations (e.g. settler, refugees, gastarbeiters); distance for the host culture; ability to develop mediating structures; legal residential status it is impossible to consider "migrants" as a homogeneous group concerning the risk for mental illness. In this sense, psychosocial studies should be undertaken to identify those factors which may under given conditions, imply an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and influence seeking for psychiatric care.

Comments and Remarks

Despite in the migrants some vulnerable groups were identified with respect to health problems, in many European countries there are migrants who fall outside the existing health and social services, something which is particularly true for asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants. In order to address these deficiencies, it is necessary to provide with an adequate financing and a continuity of the grants for research into the multicultural health demand. Finally, there is to highlight the importance of adopting an integrated approach to mental health care that moves away from psychiatric care only.

     

Effects of immediate versus delayed antihypertensive therapy on outcome in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of immediate versus delayed antihypertensive treatment on the outcome of older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, we extended the double-blind placebo-controlled Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) trial by an open-label follow-up study lasting 4 years. METHODS: The Syst-Eur trial included 4695 randomized patients with minimum age of 60 years and an untreated blood pressure of 160-219 mmHg systolic and below 95 mmHg diastolic. The double-blind trial ended after a median follow-up of 2.0 years (range 1-97 months). Of 4409 patients still alive, 3517 received open-label treatment consisting of nitrendipine (10-40 mg daily) with the possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg daily), hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25 mg daily), or both add-on drugs. Non-participants (n = 892) were also followed up. RESULTS: Median follow-up increased to 6.1 years. Systolic pressure decreased to below 150 mmHg (target level) in 2628 participants (75.0%). During the 4-year open-label follow-up, stroke and cardiovascular complications occurred at similar frequencies in patients formerly randomized to placebo and those continuing active treatment. These rates were similar to those previously observed in the active-treatment group during the double-blind trial. Considering the total follow-up of 4695 randomized patients, immediate compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment reduced the occurrence of stroke and cardiovascular complications by 28% (P = 0.01) and 15% (P = 0.03), respectively, with a similar tendency for total mortality (13%, P = 0.09). In 492 diabetic patients, the corresponding estimates of long-term benefit (P < 0.02) were 60, 51 and 38%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive treatment can achieve blood pressure control in most older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Immediate compared with delayed treatment prevented 17 strokes or 25 major cardiovascular events per 1000 patients followed up for 6 years. These findings underscore the necessity of early treatment of isolated systolic hypertension.     

Follow-up of renal function in treated and untreated older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators

BACKGROUND: In the outcome trials that provided information on renal function in older hypertensive patients, diuretics and beta-blockers were mostly used as first-line drugs. The long-term renal effects of calcium-channel blockers remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the changes in renal function in 2,258 treated and 2,148 untreated patients with isolated systolic hypertension, of whom 455 had diabetes mellitus and 390 had proteinuria. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the double-blind placebo-controlled Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial. Active treatment was initiated with nitrendipine (10-40 mg/day) with the possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg/day), hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25 mg/day), or both, titrated or combined to reduce the sitting systolic blood pressure by at least 20 mmHg, to less than 150 mmHg. The main outcome measures were serum creatinine concentration and creatinine clearance calculated by the formula of Cockroft and Gault. RESULTS: Serum creatinine concentration at the time when participants were randomly allocated to study groups was less than 176.8 micromol/l (2.0 mg/dl), averaging 88 micromol/l. At the time of the last serum creatinine measurement, the blood pressure difference (P< 0.001) between the two groups was 11.6/4.1 mmHg. In the intention-to-treat analysis (11,427 patient-years), serum creatinine and the calculated creatinine clearance were not influenced by active treatment. However, in the patients assigned randomly to receive active treatment, the incidence of mild renal dysfunction (serum creatinine at least 176.8 mmol/l) decreased by 64% (P= 0.04) and that of proteinuria by 33% (P= 0.03). Active treatment reduced the risk of proteinuria more in diabetic than in non-diabetic patients: by 71%, compared with 20% (P= 0.04). In non-proteinuric patients, active treatment did not influence serum creatinine, whereas in patients with proteinuria at entry to the study, serum creatinine decreased on active treatment (P< 0.001). Furthermore, in on-randomized treatment comparison stratified for risk at baseline, serum creatinine concentration did not change (P= 0.98) in patients continuing to receive monotherapy with nitrendipine, whereas it increased by 6.73 mmol/l (P < 0.001) in patients who received hydrochlorothiazide alone or in combination with other study medication (P < 0.001 for difference in trends). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, antihypertensive treatment starting with the dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker, nitrendipine, did not decrease blood pressure at the expense of renal function and prevented the development of proteinuria, especially in diabetic patients.