Studies on head injury-induced pituitary dysfunction are limited in number and conflicting results have been reported. To further clarify this issue, 29 consecutive patients (24 males), with severe (n = 21) or moderate (n = 8) head trauma, having a mean age of 37 ± 17 years were investigated in the immediate post-trauma period. All patients required mechanical ventilatory support for 8-55 days and were enrolled in the study within a few days before ICU discharge. Basal hormonal assessment included measurement of cortisol, corticotropin, free thyroxine (fT4), thyrotropin (TSH), testosterone (T) in men, estradiol (E2) in women, prolactin (PRL), and growth hormone (GH). Cortisol and GH levels were measured also after stimulation with 100 µg human corticotropin releasing hormone (hCRH) and 100 µg growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH), respectively. Cortisol hyporesponsiveness was considered when peak cortisol concentration was less than 20 µg/dl following hCRH. TSH deficiency was diagnosed when a subnormal serum fT4 level was associated with a normal or low TSH. Hypogonadism was considered when T (males) or E2 (women) were below the local reference ranges, in the presence of normal PRL levels. Severe or partial GH deficiencies were defined as a peak GH below 3 µg/l or between 3 and 5 µg/l, respectively, after stimulation with GHRH. Twenty-one subnormal responses were found in 15 of the 29 patients (52%) tested; seven (24%) had hypogonadism, seven (24%) had cortisol hyporesponsiveness, five (17%) had hypothyroidism, and two patients (7%) had partial GH deficiency. These preliminary results suggest that a certain degree of hypopituitarism occurs in more than 50% of patients with moderate or severe head injury in the immediate post-trauma period, with cortisol hyporesponsiveness and hypogonadism being most common. Further studies are required to elucidate the pathogenesis of these abnormalities and to investigate whether they affect long-term morbidity. P2 Cortisol reserve in head trauma victims: evaluation with the low-dose (1 µ µg) corticotropin (ACTH) stimulation test

No abstract

Background Patient involvement and high‐quality patient‐provider interactions are critical factors for quality of care in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Also, assessing the patient's perspective contributes to optimizing care delivery and patient's experience. Until today, no user‐friendly tools to measure patient experiences exist within immunodermatology. Objectives The aim of this study was to identify the relevant items for patient's experience in immunodermatology and develop a concise questionnaire to assess patient's experience in routine clinical care. Methods Potential relevant items for measuring patient's perspective of immunodermatology care were identified by a literature search. From this longlist, a shortlist from patient's perspective was distilled by semi‐structured interviews with a diverse patient group. This list was reduced to final items using a modified Delphi method in a multi‐stakeholder focus group. For each item, one question was formulated to generate the Patient‐Reported Experience Measure (PREM) questionnaire. A first internal validation was achieved by an email round. Results Forty longlist items were categorized into five domains (access to care, patient centeredness, access to information, care process and satisfaction). During interview rounds, 19 shortlist items were selected if mentioned by ≥40% of interviewees. Via the focus group, the most important items were chosen by participant consensus. For each item, a question was formulated. The final PREM covers 11 items (plus 2 in case of a first consult). The first internal validation showed that the tool is clear, understandable and has an ideal length. Conclusion This short user‐friendly PREM can be used in scientific and routine settings to improve care for patients who suffer from chronic inflammatory skin diseases.

Objectives Disulfiram is an adjunct in the treatment of alcohol use disorders, but case reports indicate that disulfiram ethanol reactions are not always recognized in the emergency department. Our first aim is to remind of this risk with two case reports of life-threatening reactions not immediately considered by the emergency physician. The second aim is to estimate the probability that a disulfiram reaction goes unrecognized with the use of a retrospective study of patients admitted to the emergency department. Methods Clinical files of patients admitted between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014 to the emergency department were retrospectively screened for the key words “ethanol use” and “disulfiram”. Their diagnoses were then scored by a panel regarding the probability of an interaction. Results Seventy-nine patients were included, and a disulfiram-ethanol reaction was scored as either ‘highly likely’, ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ in 54.4% and as ‘doubtful’ or ‘certainly not present’ in 45.6% of the patients. The interrater agreement was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64–0.79). The diagnosis was not considered or only after a delay in 44.2% of the patients with a ‘possible’ to ‘highly likely’ disulfiram interaction. One patient with a disulfiram overdose died and was considered as a ‘possible’ interaction. Discussion and conclusions A disulfiram ethanol interaction can be life threatening and failure to consider the diagnosis in the emergency department seems frequent. Prospective studies with documentation of the intake of disulfiram and evaluation of the value of acetaldehyde as a biomarker are needed to determine the precise incidence. Improving knowledge of disulfiram interactions and adequate history taking of disulfiram intake may improve the care for patients.