Marjolein Y. Berger

In 2102, a multidiscplinary guideline was developed on behalf of the Dutch Association of Pediatrics entitled 'Gastroesophageal reflux disease in children from 0-18 years'. The North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) guideline from 2009 served for guidance. History and physical examination are usually sufficient for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease. It is important to make a distinction between gastroesophageal reflux, a physiological phenomenon in children, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. In practice, medications are provided too often, especially in infants. Only children suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease should be treated according to the therapeutical action plan.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) guideline 'Abdominal pain in children' was published in September 2012. The guideline distinguishes between children with acute abdominal pain (≤ 1 week) and chronic abdominal pain (> 1 week). Abdominal pain can be caused by an underlying somatic condition or can have a functional nature. The chance of finding a somatic cause is far higher in children with acute abdominal pain than in children with chronic abdominal pain. In children with acute pain the emphasis is on diagnosis, whereas in children with chronic pain it is on treatment. Additional investigations in children without indications for a somatic cause can be limited to urinary investigation. Most children with functional abdominal pain can be treated by their GP. This treatment consists of explanation and advice to the patient and his or her parents, with the aim of providing reassurance. In children with continued severe functional abdominal pain, consultation with or possible referral to the paediatrician is advised.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the only instruments available to assess the efficacy of an intervention in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. As allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is a systemic disease, it is now recommended to use not only PROs focusing at classical symptoms, but also health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments in immunotherapy trials. A previously published immunotherapy trial in children and adolescents (6-18 yr) with hay fever provided us with data to assess the relevance of two of these additional outcome measures, the disease-specific rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) and the generic COOP/WONCA-charts (CWC). A PRO was considered relevant if it was responsive to pollen exposure and at least had a moderate correlation with the classical symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Furthermore, we evaluated a post-season PRO, that is, a global assessment of symptoms (GAS). This assessment is used in clinical trials as a tool for selecting participants with sufficient symptoms and in daily practice to evaluate the patient's complaints during the preceding season. We assessed the correlation of this retrospective score with the actual symptoms during the previous pollen season. Data from 36 children and 63 adolescents were analysed. On the basis of the total scores of the paediatric and adolescent version of the RQLQ, both questionnaires were considered relevant as they were responsive to exposure and showed a moderate to strong correlation with the rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms. However, in both children and adolescents, 40% of the RQLQ items were not relevant according to our definition. The CWC as a whole and the separate charts appear less relevant because of the weak correlations with the daily symptom score from the diary. The correlation between our post-season GAS and the in season daily symptom score was weak. The paediatric and adolescent RQLQ are relevant, but could be shortened as they contain a substantial number of irrelevant items. The CWC are not relevant in the monitoring of children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by grass pollen. The retrospective GAS does not sufficiently reflect the actual symptoms during the preceding season.

For respiratory allergic disorders in children, sublingual immunotherapy has been developed as an alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy. Sublingual immunotherapy is more convenient, has a good safety profile and might be an attractive option for use in primary care. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was designed to establish the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite allergen compared to placebo treatment in 6 to18-year-old children with allergic rhinitis and a proven house dust mite allergy in primary care. Described here are the methodology, recruitment phases, and main characteristics of the recruited children.

Background Most febrile children contacting a GP cooperative are seen by a GP, although the incidence of serious illness is low. The guidelines for triage might not be suitable in primary care. Aim To investigate the determinants related to the outcome of triage in febrile children. Design of study Cross-sectional study. Setting Dutch GP cooperative. Method Receptionists filled out a triage questionnaire when parents called regarding their febrile child (aged between 3 months and 6 years) and estimated the level of concern of the parents. The outcome was either telephone advice, a consultation, or a home visit. Children were divided in subgroups based on age <18 months or ≥18 months, and prognostic models for a consultation were constructed. Results Of 422 children, 73% were seen by a GP. Children aged <18 months were more likely to be seen when their parents reported less drinking or shortness of breath. In children aged ≥18 months, a duration of fever of ≥3 days, drowsiness, or a pale, ashen, or mottled skin were predictors of consultation. Children with alarm symptoms were seen according to the guideline. In both subgroups, children without alarm symptoms were more likely to be seen when their parents were concerned. Conclusion The available guideline was followed to a large extent at a GP cooperative. Because, surprisingly, most children were reported to have alarm symptoms, the validity of the triage questions asking parents about alarm symptoms is questionable.

Since knee complaints are common among athletes and are frequently presented in general practice, it is of interest to investigate the type of knee complaints represented in general practice of athletes in comparison with those of non-athletes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the differences in type of knee complaints between sport participants, in this study defined as athletes, and non-sport participants, defined as non-athletes, presenting in general practice. Further, differences in the initial policy of the GP, medical consumption, and outcome at one-year follow-up were also investigated. Patients consulting their GP for a new episode of knee complaints were invited to participate in this prospective cohort study. From the total HONEUR knee cohort population (n = 1068) we extracted patients who were athletes (n = 421) or non-athletes (n = 388). The results showed that acute distortions of the knee were significantly more diagnosed in athletes than in non-athletes (p = 0.04). Further, more athletes were advised by their GP to 'go easy on the knee' than the non-athletes (p < 0.01), but no differences were found in number of referrals and medication prescribed by the GP. The medical consumption was significantly higher among athletes; however, no significant differences were found between the two groups for recovery at one-year follow-up. There are no major differences in the diagnosis and prognosis of knee complaints between athletes and non-athletes presented to the GP. This implies that there are no indications for different treatment strategies applied in both groups. However, athletes are more often advised to 'go easy on the knee' and to rest than non-athletes. Further, there is a trend towards increased medical consumption among athletes while functional disability and pain are lower than among the non-athletes.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is one of the cornerstones of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treatment. Since the development of non-invasive administration forms with better safety profiles, there is an increasing tendency to prescribe immunotherapy in youngsters. However, no overview is available on the efficacy of immunotherapy in all its different administration forms in youngsters. Therefore, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of immunotherapy with inhalant allergens on symptoms and medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register and reference lists of recent reviews and published trials were searched. RCTs including youngsters aged 0-18 yr with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and comparing immunotherapy with placebo, symptomatic treatment or a different administration form of immunotherapy were included. Primary outcome measures were rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and/or medication scores. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated Delphi list. A method of best evidence synthesis, a rating system with levels of evidence based on the overall quality and the outcome of the trials, was used to assess efficacy. Six subcutaneous (SCIT), four nasal (LNIT), seven oral (OIT) and 11 sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy trials, comprising 1619 youngsters, were included. Only 39% of the trials were of high methodological quality. For the SCIT and OIT subgroups the level of evidence for efficacy was conflicting. Moderate evidence of effect was found for LNIT. Analysis of the SLIT subgroup showed no evidence of effect. The evidence for the perennial and seasonal allergen trials within the subgroups varied from moderate evidence of effect to no evidence of effect. In conclusion, there is at present insufficient evidence that immunotherapy in any administration form has a positive effect on symptoms and/or medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis