Biomedical subjects

Dominique Huas

Publications and source records attributed to Dominique Huas.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Diagnostic indicators of restless legs syndrome in primary care consultations: the DESYR study.

The objective of this study is to determine whether spontaneous complaints about sleep or the legs could be used as potential indicators of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in primary care. A total of 351 general practitioners participated in the study. In a first historical patient identification phase, all patients with spontaneous complaints of sleep or leg symptoms over the previous year were identified. A control group without such complaints was identified. In a second prospective data collection phase, those who consulted a participating physician were interviewed to assess consensus diagnostic criteria of RLS. Severity was assessed with the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group severity rating scale. Of 1,405,823 patients consulting during the historical phase, a leg complaint was reported in 61,685 and a sleep complaint in 40,568. A total of 1,432 consulted during the prospective phase. A diagnosis of RLS was assigned to 42.6% of patients with leg complaints, 35.5% of those with sleep complaints, 54.9% of those with both complaints, and 12.9% of those with no complaints. Median RLS severity scores were 18.8 to 20.4. A total of 63.7% of patients were prescribed a venotonic, 43.7% a hypnotic, and 41.5% an anxiolytic. Complaints of sleep or leg symptoms are frequently associated with a diagnosis of RLS, and their presence should alert the physician to the possibility of a differential diagnosis of RLS.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Assessing chronic pain in general practice: are guidelines relevant? A cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of using pain assessment scales on the management of musculoskeletal chronic pain. METHODS: Cluster-randomized controlled multicentre trial in French general practice settings. Practices were randomized by region before patient recruitment. The inclusion concerned patients suffering from musculoskeletal chronic pain. General practitioners assigned to the scale group used two validated assessment instruments; those assigned to the control group cared for their patients according to their usual practice. The primary end-point was the level of relief obtained and the secondary changes in prescription of painkilling modalities. RESULTS: A total of 155 general practitioners included 772 successive patients suffering from musculoskeletal chronic pain. The control group reported a mean level of relief of 50.7% compared with one of 41.1% in the scale group (p<0.0001). In the intervention group, physicians decreased significantly their prescription of level two painkillers. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, the use of pain assessment scales is not associated with greater pain relief. The lesser level of pain relief obtained in the scale group does provide evidence that using pain assessment scales does not enhance the relief of chronic pain in patients in primary care. Guidelines which recommend the systematic use of scales for the assessment and monitoring of chronic pain are not tailored to either the context or the patients encountered in the primary care setting.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

A pragmatic trial of acamprosate in the treatment of alcohol dependence in primary care.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy with acamprosate in alcohol-dependent patients treated in a naturalistic setting in primary care in France. METHODS: The ARES (Acamprosate et Repercussions Economiques et Sociales; Acamprosate and Economic and Social Repercussions) study was performed by 149 general practitioners interested in treating alcohol use disorders in France who included patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence. The only exclusion criteria concerned contra-indications to acamprosate, co-medication with naltrexone and multiple substance abuse. Eligible patients were randomized to one of two treatment arms, either standard care alone or standard care with acamprosate, using an open-label design and followed up quarterly for a period of 1 year. The primary outcome variable was the change from baseline on the Alcohol-Related Problems Questionnaire. Secondary efficacy variables were abstinence, Clinical Global Impression, quality of life measured with the SF-36 and incidence of adverse events. An intent-to-treat population was used for outcome analysis. RESULTS: 422 patients were included, of whom 348 (82%) completed the protocol as planned. At the end of the study, patients randomized to the acamprosate group had significantly better outcomes in terms of total ARPQ score, change from baseline (-2.61 vs -3.44) and number of subjects with no alcohol-related problem. On average, patients treated with acamprosate had one less alcohol-related problem than did the controls. The number needed to treat in order to save one additional patient from alcohol-related problems compared to standard care was 7.14. Statistically significant differences in favour of the acamprosate group were observed for all secondary efficacy outcome measures including quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive therapy with acamprosate in primary care is associated with significantly better functional outcome. Pragmatic trials in alcohol dependence are both feasible and informative.

Acamprosate↗