Letters

In reply: Stokes raises a number of relevant issues, but we would like to make the following points. The case we reported occurred in a teaching hospital and neither of us undertakes routine transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in a private capacity. While a Medicare rebate is not directly relevant to the clinical usefulness of a medical procedure, the Medicare Benefits Schedule functions as a surrogate marker for clinical legitimacy. Stokes quotes anecdotes of occasional misuse or overuse of TOE. We agree that single cases neither justify nor give cause to reject a particular kind of monitoring. However, case reports, although lacking a denominator, are a start. The main point of our letter was, in fact, to report the complication of surgery and the vital role played by TOE in achieving a good outcome. Nevertheless, many of us who routinely use TOE consider that its advantages over other kinds of monitoring regularly benefit patients. We agree there is little “hard” evidence to support this, but detailed risk–benefit analysis for many of our routine monitoring devices is similarly non-existent. The Swan–Ganz catheter is a classic example. We suspect that if a group of cardiac anaesthetists and surgeons was asked to review the usefulness of TOE in routine cardiac surgery, the decision of the Department of Health and Ageing might be different.

Chris Cokis MB BS, FANZCA · John Faris MB ChB, DAvMed, FFOM, FANZCA

To the Editor: de Crespigny and Savulescu1 criticise legal and media attention given to the abortion of a 32-week fetus with suspected dwarfism in a case in which the expectant mother had become suicidal. At the same time, they appeal to populism to support legislative change in favour of easier access to late-term abortion. This paradox raises an intriguing point about public opinion and medical ethics. How can members of the public develop opinion unless they are told what is going on? The case was made known to the public (although the patient’s name and face were not shown) because a newspaper editor considered it to be of great interest to many people. The public rightly has an interest in this tragic case, as it relates to at least three controversial themes of significance to public and social health — disability, suicide and abortion. Unfortunately, in recent decades, balanced and informed debate about abortion has been lacking. Instead, the issue has been portrayed simplistically in terms of a woman’s “right to choose”, with little research into the desperate and often coercive circumstances and the harmful consequences of those choices. That late-term abortions are subject to unclear and complex state laws is testament to the fact that abortion is far from a closed case for the public, healthcare professionals and politicians. de Crespigny and Savulescu acknowledge that the case raises “profound and divisive ethical issues”. Yet, they later assure readers that the case “appears to be ethical”, adding to their overall implication that, if only Australia’s laws were clear, uniform and liberal, the media and the public would not have had any business in the matter. Many aspects of the doctor–patient relationship are regulated by legislation — an “intrusion” that is accepted in jurisdictions in which democracy and state-funded healthcare coexist, and necessarily so, to protect both doctor and patient. If legislative change is to occur, public consultation must be sought, and the public must be given more, not less, information about abortion.

Selena R Ewing BHSc

To the Editor: The article by de Crespigny and Savulescu is certainly thought provoking and timely. The harms they cite as caused by an uncertain legal environment are lamentable, although the outcomes were probably the result of multiple factors in addition to the justice system. To bring order, reason, compassion and justice to a clinical problem as complex as termination of pregnancy — especially late termination — requires a framework for decision-making. This should operate at the hospital level, at the national level among the professionals involved, and, as de Crespigny and Savulescu contend, in the national legal system. Most hospitals have now developed consistent guidelines to assist clinicians and patients in decisions regarding pregnancy termination (in the past, there was significant intrahospital diversity and uncertainty). More recently, clinicians involved with late termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality in eight centres in six states and the Australian Capital Territory met in Melbourne to develop a consistent national set of guidelines. There was adequate consensus to produce a document that will soon be submitted for publication for wider community comment. Hopefully, this will facilitate better outcomes for all and perhaps even provide a stimulus for review and consistency of abortion laws.

Leslie Reti SM, FRCOG, FRANZCOG

In reply: Reti is correct that the outcomes of the late abortion case probably resulted from multiple factors in addition to the justice system. A pivotal one was the decision to divulge confidential patient information before there had been a thorough internal review. It is pleasing that hospitals are developing consistent guidelines, although, as we indicated in our article, these guidelines should not include responsibility for clinical decision-making by committee. The responsibility for clinical decision-making should reside with the doctor, and committees should have a purely advisory role. Consistent national professional guidelines are needed. These could be a stimulus for law reform. Without reform, it is only a matter of time before a single complaint about a case leads to a similar succession of adverse outcomes. Ewing writes that we “criticise legal and media attention given to the abortion”. We have no criticism of the media attention and would not presume to criticise the legal processes. Our criticism was of the “decision to expose the events to legal and media scrutiny”. That is, we criticised the decision to expose the case and those involved before a thorough internal review had been conducted. We support transparency and believe that secrecy in relation to medical procedures is contrary to public interest. We agree with Ewing that public consultation must be sought before legislative change. But one thing is clear — abortion law reform is essential. It is unacceptable that, in some cases, such as the late-abortion case we described, doctors may be charged with an indictable offence whether they agree to perform the abortion or not — under the law on abortion or child destruction if they agree to abortion, or under the law of homicide by negligence if they refuse abortion and the patient subsequently commits suicide.

Lachlan J de Crespigny MD, FRANZCOG · Julian Savulescu MB BS, BMedSci

To the Editor: In a recent article, de Costa and Robson1 suggest that Australia’s high rates of caesarean surgery — currently among the highest in the Western world — may be beneficial, and causally related to our low perinatal mortality rate. In support, they cite a single article that reports the outcomes from three large hospitals in Dublin between 1979 and 2000.2 In these hospitals, as in most of the Western world, caesarean rates increased and perinatal mortality rates declined over this 21-year period. The authors of the article ascribe a causal relationship, but admit that “. . . it was not possible to allow for the confounding effect of time”.2 The time factor also confounds the interpretation of Australian data. Furthermore, results from an earlier Dublin study “. . . do not support the contention that the expansion in cesarean birth rates has contributed significantly to reduced perinatal mortality in recent years,”3 and there are many other articles with similar conclusions.4 Moreover, de Costa and Robson do not acknowledge the significant morbidity associated with caesarean surgery, nor the risks to mother and baby in subsequent pregnancies. A recent large retrospective cohort study in Scotland found that women whose first baby had been born by caesarean section had twice the risk of unexplained stillbirth at term in the subsequent pregnancy.5 There are also well documented increased risks of placental pathology (placenta praevia, accreta and percreta) in this group. Such problems are likely to increase in Australia in proportion to the increase in caesarean rate. I note also that King et al, who discuss maternal mortality in the same issue of the Journal, specifically mention the contribution of previous caesarean surgery to severe obstetric haemorrhage and emergency hysterectomy.6 They report that maternal death from amniotic fluid embolism occurred in association with induction in five of seven cases. Australian rates of induction and augmentation are among the highest in the Western world. Finally, as regards onus of proof, I agree with the statements by Enkin et al7 that “. . . the only justification for practices that restrict a woman’s autonomy, her freedom of choice, and her access to her baby, would be clear evidence that these restrictive practices do more good than harm; and second, that any interference with the natural processes of pregnancy and childbirth should also be shown to do more good than harm”, and “. . . the onus of proof rests on those who advocate any intervention that interferes with either of these principles”.

Sarah J Buckley MB ChB, DipObst

In reply: Buckley makes some important points regarding caesarean section, but overlooks the fact that our brief was to explore childbirth options from the viewpoint of the baby, not the mother. The Irish study of Matthews (a paediatrician) and colleagues took as its outcome measure deaths during pregnancy or within one week of birth of normally formed infants weighing > 2.5 kg.1 This was done because two of the main contributors to crude perinatal mortality rates (in Australia and other developed countries) are lethal abnormalities and very low birthweight — neither of which is likely to be improved by increasing caesarean section rates. More than 400 000 births over 22 years were studied retrospectively. While the time factor is acknowledged, the authors clearly show that as caesarean section rates have risen mortality among these normally formed babies of normal weight has fallen. They state that “. . . the caesarean section rate is an important part of the overall package of care delivered”, a “package” that includes the advances in antenatal surveillance and neonatal care of the past 22 years, as well as wider indications for caesarean section. The authors invite other centres to publish “similar matching caesarean section and mortality rates . . . to see whether some hospitals are capable of delivering packages of care that include low caesarean section rates (? < 15%) and perinatal mortality rates of < 1.5/1000 for normally formed babies of normal birthweight”. To date, none have done so, but there have been reports from other large maternity hospitals of similar findings to those of Matthews et al. One of these adds that “[our] low incidence of intrapartum hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (1.3/1000 births) . . . suggests that a policy of more liberal caesarean section may benefit babies in ways other than simply avoiding death”.2,3 In other words, this very large and careful study, and others resulting from it, strongly support the view that current caesarean section rates are good for babies.

Caroline M de Costa FRANZCOG, FRCOG

To the Editor: The article by de Costa and Robson1 is a timely reminder that the ideology and politics surrounding maternity services could have an adverse impact on Australia’s excellent record as one of the safest countries in the world in which to be born.2 de Costa and Robson highlighted continuity of care as the attribute of antenatal supervision and birthing that women value most highly, and they quote evidence of the safe care provided by a midwife or general practitioner in a “low-tech” environment. This type of care is currently provided by a diminishing number of GP obstetricians and midwives in small obstetric units throughout rural Australia, where continuity of carer ensures the continuity of care that leads to maternal satisfaction and good health outcomes. Data show a lower rate of adverse events in small rural hospitals compared with urban hospitals. Studies in diverse environments suggest communication breakdowns and handovers between multiple carers are major risk factors.3,4 These points of vulnerability are minimised in the close environment of a small rural hospital. National and international data demonstrate the safety of small rural maternity services,5 and yet rural obstetric units continue to be closed at an alarming and accelerating rate. The proponents of “de-medicalising” birth and improving maternal satisfaction through continuity of care are focused on perceived problems in the delivery of obstetric care in large urban hospitals. The evidence presented by de Costa and Robson confirms that women are most satisfied with care by a midwife and GP in a “low-tech” environment. While this option may now be unavailable in many urban areas, it is generally the model that exists in rural areas. Unfortunately, the politics of change is resulting in the application of urban- and ideology-based processes to rural maternity units, where they are often inappropriate and can lead to reduced support for rural procedural obstetricians. This is likely to result in the eventual closure of the maternity units — a situation in which women, their babies, local healthcare professionals and their communities will all lose out in the end. For rural communities, the risk in local maternity services is not to the standard of care, but to the continued existence of their services. Transferring alternative urban models of maternity care to country hospitals may be superficially attractive to budget-focused health authorities or ideologues, but it is rural people and their babies who will have to live with the consequences.

Graham M Slaney · Susan M Stratigos

Gwendolyn L Gilbert,* Heather F Gidding,† Josephine Backhouse,‡ Peter B McIntyre§ * Director, ‡ Serology Project Officer, Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, PO Box 533, Wentworthville, NSW 2145. † Epidemiologist, § Director, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW. LyngATicpmr.wsahs.nsw.gov.au To the Editor: Varicella vaccine was licensed in Australia in 2000. It is safe and efficacious and can prevent significant acute morbidity, significant out-of-pocket expenses for parents of affected children and, in Australia, prevents an estimated 450 admissions to hospital and one death per year.1 In September 2003, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommended giving varicella vaccine to all children at 18 months of age.2 The net effect of childhood immunisation on varicella morbidity will depend on vaccination coverage. Modelling of Australian (unpublished National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases data) and UK3 seroprevalence data suggests that, for a range of vaccine efficacy estimates, 80% coverage is required before morbidity is reduced in adults. Accurate Australian coverage data are unavailable, as varicella vaccine is not funded under the National Immunisation Program.2 National serosurveillance can provide a practical alternative estimate of vaccine uptake. The first Australian national serosurvey of vaccine-preventable diseases, for which sera were collected between July 1996 and February 1999, established baseline seroprevalence for future assessment of the effects of changes in the vaccination schedule. It showed that the incidence of varicella was highest in 5–9-year-old children,4 indicating that infant vaccination would provide optimal protection. The second national serosurvey (with sera collected in 2002) is under way, with methods identical to those of the first.4 We compared varicella IgG levels in children aged 1–5 years, testing 459 sera in the first serosurvey and 380 in the second (see Box). The proportion with protective or equivocal antibody levels increased between the two serosurveys. The difference was statistically significant only in 3–4-year-olds, which is consistent with the greatest uptake when children enter childcare. Although there is some variation in varicella incidence over time, the changes are consistent with only modest vaccine uptake in the time that varicella vaccine has been available in Australia. The only other available estimates of varicella vaccine uptake are from GP consultations5 and reports to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), which also indicate it is modest. For example, only 6.2% of children aged 4 years were reported to the ACIR to have received varicella vaccine (Brynley Hull, Epidemiologist, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, personal communication). This is probably an underestimate, as there is no incentive for notifying varicella vaccination. However, a low vaccination uptake is consistent with use only in the private sector, and could lead to an increase in adult morbidity (despite an overall reduction in infection rates) because of a higher average age of infection (unpublished National Centre for Immunisation Research data). Unless vaccine is provided in the routine immunisation program at no cost to parents, uptake is unlikely to meet the 80% target required to reduce disease burden in all ages.3 Varicella IgG seroprevalence in preschool children in the 1st and 2nd national serosurveys 1st serosurvey, July 1996 to February 1999 2nd serosurvey, 2002 Age group No. Positive Negative Equivocal* No. Positive Negative Equivocal* Increase in positive and equivocal (95% CI) P 1 to < 3 years 138 27 (19.6%) 111 (80.4%) 0 152 34 (22.4%) 118 (77.6%) 0 2.8% (−6.6 to 12.2) 0.6 3 to < 5 years 214 72 (33.6%) 140 (65.4%) 2 (0.9%) 152 73 (48.0%) 79 (52.0%) 0 13.4% (3.3 to 23.6) 0.01 5 years 107 61 (57.0%) 46 (43.0%) 0 76 43 (56.6%) 33 (43.4%) 0 −0.4% (−15.0 to 14.1) 1.0 Total 459 160 (34.9%) 297 (64.7%) 2 (0.4%) 380 150 (39.5%) 230 (60.5%) 0 4.2% (-2.4 to 10.8) 0.2 *Sera giving equivocal results by enzyme immunoassay were retested and most were resolved by immunofluorescence (IF). These results represent the few that were still equivocal by IF and are probably low-titre positive results.

Gwendolyn L Gilbert · Heather F Gidding · Josephine Backhouse · Peter B McIntyre

Angelo Labate,* Mark R Newton,† Graeme M Vernon,‡ Samuel F Berkovic§ * Research Fellow, Brain Research Institute, † Neurologist, § Director, Epilepsy Research Centre, ‡ Drug Information Pharmacist, Austin Health, Heidelberg West, VIC 3081. s.berkovicATunimelb.edu.au To the Editor: Tramadol is a synthetic, centrally acting analgesic that was approved for use in Australia in 1998. Seizures have been reported in patients receiving the drug in overdose and, rarely, at the recommended dose.1-4 Over a one-year period, we observed a number of tramadol-associated seizures in the First Seizure Clinic at Austin Health, an outpatient service for rapid evaluation and diagnosis of patients with new-onset seizures.5 We evaluated 197 patients from April 2003 to April 2004. One hundred had alternative diagnoses to epileptic seizures: syncope (n = 56), convulsive syncope (n = 27), panic attacks (n = 3) and other events (n = 14). Of 97 patients with confirmed seizures, 8 (5 male; median age, 34 years [range, 18–51 years]) were associated with tramadol (Box). Two patients who had received high doses of tramadol (600–750 mg/day [maximum recommended dose, 400 mg/day]) had developed seizures within 24–48 hours. Among the other six patients, who had received tramadol in the recommended dose range (50–300 mg/day), seizures had occurred 2–365 days after commencing therapy. Long-term psychotropic medication was taken by two patients. Seizures were generalised tonic–clonic seizures, without auras or focal features. No patient had a prior history of seizures, and none had a recurrence after they had ceased taking tramadol for a median of 9 months’ follow-up (range, 2–14 months). Electroencephalographic studies were normal in seven patients, with only one isolated sharp slow-wave in one patient. Computed tomography scans were all normal, and magnetic resonance imaging was normal in five patients. Previous US studies suggest a relatively low risk of seizures with tramadol, unless it is taken by people with epilepsy or taken with other drugs that reduce the seizure threshold.2-4 Tramadol is now widely prescribed in Australia, with 1.65 million prescriptions for oral tramadol issued under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2003.6 The Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee had received 83 reports of convulsions associated with tramadol to March 2004, although in only three cases was the association classified as “certain”. In our First Seizure Clinic, tramadol is the most frequently suspected cause of provoked seizures. We cannot calculate the exposure risk in our population, but the frequency of tramadol-related seizures suggests that they may be under-reported. It is important to consider tramadol as a possible cause of seizures — even when used at recommended doses. This may avoid inappropriate use of anti-epileptic drugs and unnecessary restrictions on driving and choice of vocation that might apply in cases of new-onset epilepsy. Details of eight patients with tramadol-related seizures at the First Seizure Clinic, Austin Health, April 2003–April 2004 Patient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Age (years) 18 35 31 33 48 51 25 45 Sex M F F M M M F F Tramadol dosage (mg/day) 750 600 100 300 100 50 100 300 Treatment duration (days) 1 2 7 365 21 90 2 180 Concomitant psychotropic drug taken No No No Yes* Yes† No No No Duration of follow-up (months) 12 9 14 9 9 3 3 2 * Chlorpromazine hydrochloride 200 mg/day. † Haloperidol 1 mg/day.

Angelo Labate · Mark R Newton · Graeme M Vernon · Samuel F Berkovic

Barbara A Hawkshaw,* Yeqin Zuo† * Planning and Evaluation Officer, Health Promotion Unit, Central Sydney Area Health Service, Level 9 North, King George V Building, RPAH, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050; † Currently Tobacco Control Program Coordinator, Cancer Institute NSW, Sydney, NSW barbara.hawkshawATemail.cs.nsw.gov.au To the Editor: The World Health Organization recommends that hospital staff ask about the smoking status of every patient, and offer brief quit advice and pharmacotherapy.1 These effective strategies2 underlie the Central Sydney Area Health Service (CSAHS) Smoke Free Environment Policy,3 which specifies the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in managing nicotine dependence of inpatients. Recording quit advice is yet to become a regular feature of medical records, but documentation of smoking status and NRT prescribing is evidence of compliance with the policy. To monitor the implementation of this policy in CSAHS, we examined the medical records of smokers for evidence of NRT prescribing in hospital or at discharge. A small sample was chosen to provide a “snapshot” of NRT use. First, we identified 2718 patients admitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Canterbury Hospital between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002 who were single admissions, stayed 48 hours or longer, and were current smokers (ICD-10 code Z720).4 Current smokers were defined as those who had smoked any tobacco in the past month.4 Sixty medical and 60 surgical patients from each hospital were selected randomly by random number generation (medical/surgical status was based on the specialty of the admitting doctor). After excluding 33 patients who were either ex-smokers or smokers who died during admission, the sample included 207 patients. Records were examined for smoking history, NRT prescribing during hospitalisation, and documentation of smoking status or NRT prescribing on discharge summary. NRT was prescribed to 13 patients (6.3%) during their hospitalisation (Box). All 13 received patches. A larger proportion of medical patients than surgical patients had NRT prescribed in hospital (8.1% v 4.6%) and at discharge (7.1% v 2.8%). In 8% of records, smoking was identified on the discharge summary. Most records (80%) provided numerical information about daily cigarette consumption. Seventy per cent of our sample smoked more than 10 cigarettes per day. Other records described consumption in subjective terms only, such as “heavy”. We believe that this is the first study in Australia to estimate the NRT prescribing rate for inpatients using medical record audit. Very few patients who were smokers were prescribed NRT. It is encouraging that most patients who were prescribed NRT were given a supply of patches at discharge. The NSW Health Department’s Guide for the management of nicotine dependent inpatients is a commitment to assisting people to quit.5 Implementation of the CSAHS Smoke Free Environment Policy3 by hospital staff requires a greater knowledge of the barriers to prescribing NRT and documenting quit activities at all levels of the hospital system. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescribing and smoking history Medical* Surgical* Total NRT prescribing (n = 99) (n = 108) (n = 207) During hospital stay 8 5 13 (6%) At discharge 7 3 10 (5%) Smoking history (n = 99) (n = 108) (n = 207) Number of cigarettes recorded 76 90 166 (80%) Years of smoking recorded 26 41 67 (32%) Cigarettes per day (n = 76) (n = 90) (n = 166)† 1–10 25 24 49 (30%) > 10 51 66 117 (70%) * Admission categorised according to specialty of admitting doctor. † Only 80% of total sample indicated number of cigarettes per day.

Barbara A Hawkshaw · Yeqin Zuo

Desmond O’Brien Emeritus Honorary Anaesthetist, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031. hdobrienATbigpond.com.au To the Editor: Tonti-Filippini condemns denial of elective surgery to smokers as discriminatory.1 He disregards the fact that surgery requires anaesthesia, which may require serious consideration before undertaking non-urgent surgery, and in no way involves discrimination. He mistakenly regards denying elective surgery to those who continue to smoke as discrimination, in breach of the Hippocratic Oath, and the Australian Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics. In fact, to proceed with elective, especially cosmetic, surgery in a heavy smoker is more in breach of the Oath and the AMA Code than not proceeding, for the following reasons. Smokers are at a significantly greater risk under anaesthesia than non-smokers because, firstly, smoking reduces the capacity of the lungs to take up oxygen, thus increasing the risk of hypoxia and its consequences to heart and brain.2 It also causes coughing and breath-holding during anaesthesia,2,3 creating surgical difficulties, and the risk of error. Postoperative coughing causes additional pain (especially after thoracic and abdominal operations), and increases the risk of postoperative bleeding, infection, delayed healing and even wound breakdown.4,5 Rather than being discriminatory, delaying elective and cosmetic surgery until he or she stops smoking is very much in the patient’s interests.

Desmond O’Brien

Daniel M Fatovich Specialist in Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, GPO Box X2213, Perth, WA 6847 daniel.fatovichAThealth.wa.gov.au To the Editor: I have read with interest the debate in the MJA on the use of tPA in acute ischaemic stroke. Most recently, Levi et al published a position statement stating that it is a major advance.1 This was probably in response to Hoffman’s critical editorial.2 At the 10th International Conference on Emergency Medicine in June 2004, a session on the use of tPA in acute ischaemic stroke clearly portrayed thrombolysis as not standard care.3 I have attended other emergency medicine conferences where thrombolysis was seen as risking more harm than good. Conversely, I expect that stroke physicians attend stroke conferences that endorse thrombolysis. In my experience, when such divergent views exist, it usually means that we don’t have enough answers. I would like to outline here some other viewpoints that are not often considered. Number needed to harm (NNH): The best results to date were from the NINDS study that reported a number needed to treat (NNT) of 8.4 With their findings of an intracranial haemorrhage rate of 6.4%, the NNH is about 16. Hence, for every 16 patients treated with tPA, two may derive much benefit, but one much harm. These odds are worse than Russian roulette. The Cleveland study reported an intracranial haemorrhage rate of 22%.5 Hence, the worst possible NNH is about 5. Other authors have expressed similar ethical concerns.6 Risk tolerance is an individual judgement, but, when faced with the above issues, my practice is to ask what I would want for myself. Knowing that the earlier thrombolysis is given the better,7 my personal choice would be to only have thrombolysis if it is administered within 90 minutes of stroke onset (ie, maximal benefit and minimal risk). Unfortunately, it is rare for patients to present early enough for this to occur. Furthermore, many of my colleagues do not know what they would want for themselves, so how can we advise our patients? Pathophysiology: Heart muscle is relatively robust, whereas the brain is a softer structure. A haemorrhagic complication is very different in the two organs. Mode of thrombolysis: Giving thrombolysis by infusion is an outdated approach. Furthermore, thrombolysis is almost a forgotten therapy for acute myocardial infarction in tertiary centres because of the use of primary angioplasty. When thrombolysis is used, the agent is given as a bolus. Uptake of this mode of administration would be rapid if it were shown to be effective and safe for acute ischaemic stroke. Obviously, consensus among care providers on the use of tPA does not exist. This means that more research needs to be done to work out the answers to these difficult questions. I believe there is much support for this, as we need to define who should be receiving thrombolysis, and, perhaps more importantly, who should not. We all want something that works! However, we need greater knowledge to overcome the safety issues. The answer to Levi’s question “Why did it take so long?” is “Because it is a complex problem”.

Daniel M Fatovich

Ian R Rogers,* George A Jelinek,† Ian Jacobs* * Associate Professor, † Professor, Discipline of Emergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA 6009. Ian. RogersAThealth.wa.gov.au To the Editor: We applaud the call of Levi and his co-contributors for collegiate communication and consensus regarding the use of tissue plasminogen activator in acute ischaemic stroke.1 Emergency care providers are acutely aware of their role at the centre of the acute healthcare system. Daily, we interact with colleagues from other disciplines in the course of seeking the best clinical care for our patients. However, the views expressed by Hoffman2 are shared by many emergency physicians and prehospital care providers. We remain unconvinced of the role of thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke outside the setting of properly constituted clinical trials. On review of the contributors list in Levi’s article, we are unable to identify a single specialist emergency medicine or prehospital care provider. Consensus is not likely to be achieved until position statements from expert groups include a strong representation from all the specialty disciplines involved in the care of stroke patients. We look forward to developments in this direction.

Ian R Rogers · George A Jelinek · Ian Jacobs

Christopher R Levi (on behalf of the Australasian Stroke Unit Network, the New South Wales Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce Stroke Initiative, and the Towards A Safer Culture Stroke Expert Working Group) Director, Acute Stroke Services, John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag No. 1, Hunter Region Mail Centre, NSW 2310. christopher.leviAThunter.health.nsw.gov.au In reply: We thank the authors for their comments on our recent position statement.1 We fully agree and accept the view of Rogers and colleagues that emergency physicians are central to the timely and safe delivery of emergency medical care in our health system. This is especially the case for a therapy such as intravenous tPA, given the narrow therapeutic window and coordination challenges. We view the development of linkages with our colleagues in emergency medicine as crucial in implementing not only tPA but also a number of acute stroke therapies showing great promise in the advanced stages of development.2 Our position statement is a starting point for broader discussion, and we are pleased that discussions between the key groups are under way. We agree that, when considering patient suitability for intravenous tPA, a number of uncertainties remain, and we fully support the rationale for the ongoing clinical trials of thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke (see www.astn.org.au/epithet/index.html and www.ist3.com/). The risk–benefit ratio will be improved in the 0–90-minute window, as indicated by Fatovich. However, it is likely that some patients at much later time points will also gain benefit. We would emphasise, however, that according to Australia’s independent arbiter of therapeutic safety and efficacy, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, intravenous tPA is an approved therapy if given within a 3-hour window, under appropriate clinical circumstances and within appropriate healthcare settings. Regarding the comments by Fatovich on number needed to harm, it is important to recognise that the most serious adverse outcome of intravenous tPA — fatal intracerebral haemorrhage — is already accounted for in the calculations of number needed to treat (for patients to survive free from dependency). Intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy in the form of prourokinase has been found to be effective in reducing dependency in acute ischaemic stroke, shown angiographically to be caused by middle cerebral artery occlusion.3 Feasibility issues, however, presently limit the application of the intra-arterial approach, and the relative risk of intracranial haemorrhage, even with this more targeted approach, is similar to that seen with intravenous therapy. The importance of cross-disciplinary teamwork in the effective application of current and future acute stroke therapies cannot be underestimated. Central to this is the need to develop an effective dialogue between the leaders of these teams — stroke physicians and emergency physicians. The Australasian Stroke Unit Network, the New South Wales Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce Stroke Initiative, and the Towards A Safer Culture Stroke Expert Working Group are committed to the task of helping to build better links between stroke units and emergency departments.

Ron Borland,* Catherine J Segan† * Nigel Gray Distinguished Fellow, † Behavioural Scientist, The Cancer Council Victoria, 1 Rathdowne Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 ron.borlandATcancervic.org.au To the Editor: The editorial on web and telephone counselling in Australia1 has the capacity to seriously mislead readers. It asserts: Despite this extensive use, the review confirmed that no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted of the efficacy of web or telecounselling either in Australia or internationally.1 The assertion was based on a review commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and from a review in the United Kingdom, but is simply not true. It may be true for services designed to deal with mental health problems, narrowly defined, but it is patently false if it is taken to include services to facilitate smoking cessation. We note that nicotine dependence is a recognised mental disorder,2 and thus, strictly speaking, even if the review asserted that it was restricted to mental health, it would still be wrong. We do not know about the accuracy of the statements in relation to other drug use problems, but for smoking cessation there are a number of randomised trials of telephone-based systems,3 and at least two web-based resources are translations to the Internet of tailored computer advice services shown to be effective in RCTs.4,5 Both include Australian examples of RCTs. Our group demonstrated that the Quitline callback service as operated by Quit Victoria (phone 131 848) enhances cessation outcomes.6 Another study showed that an interactive personalised computer advice program called the QuitCoach (www.theQuitCoach.org.au) is effective in facilitating cessation, particularly by reducing relapse.4 It is currently available through the Department of Health and Ageing’s website at www.quitnow.info.au. We wonder why this omission has happened. What makes a health issue as important as smoking so invisible? Are other drug and alcohol issues similarly invisible? Tobacco kills about 19 000 Australians each year, and disables many more. There is increasing evidence suggesting it plays an important aetiological role in the development of some mental disorders. Smoking rates among people with schizophrenia and depression are extraordinarily high.7-9 The Victorian Quitline has pioneered the integration of support for psychiatric conditions with smoking-cessation counselling,10 and, although this service has not yet been subject to outcome evaluation, it is apparent that it meets the proximal needs of both smokers with concurrent mental disorders and their carers. Telephone and web-based services hold tremendous potential both as stand-alone services and as integrable components of comprehensive, coordinated care. High quality evaluations are required, and they need to be seen as an integral part of service delivery. People in other healthcare areas could learn a lot from what has been achieved in smoking cessation.

Ron Borland · Catherine J Segan

Helen Christensen,* Barbara Hocking,† Dawn Smith‡ * Deputy Director, Centre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200; † Executive Director, SANE Australia, Melbourne, VIC; ‡ Chief Executive Officer, Lifeline Australia, Canberra, ACT. helen.christensenATanu.edu.au In reply: Borland and Segan are correct in assuming that we did not include substance disorder randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the assessment of the efficacy of web and telecounselling services in our editorial.1 Our definition of web and telecounselling was also strict in that we included only contact that involved a person (a counsellor) online or by telephone. We specifically excluded interactive personalised web programs such as www.theQuitCoach.org.au or others specifically in mental health (narrowly defined), which have been found effective when delivered by the Internet. (Such programs include Panic Online,2 MoodGYM and BluePages.3) The use of RCTs in evaluating the areas of substance use, anxiety, depression and other mental health problems is to be applauded. Borland and Segan’s letter is also instructive in reminding us of the importance of coexistent substance-use disorders and mental health problems. Organisations such as SANE are committed to reducing the health costs of smoking in people with mental health problems and have developed specific programs for this purpose. Importantly, we are in agreement with Borland and Segan that telephone and web-based services “hold tremendous potential both as stand-alone services and as integrable components of comprehensive, coordinated care”. However, our editorial reported that web and telecounselling (not integrated web-based management systems) have yet to be evaluated through RCTs. One point we contest is the view that smoking is invisible. Our systematic review of funding allocations to mental health research has found that the category of substance-use disorders, of which smoking was the third-largest component (below alcohol and opioids), received the most Australian research funding in 2000.4 The level of funding for substance use exceeded that for childhood disorders and dementia. Compared with substance-use research, depression research received less than half, and psychosis and anxiety less than a third, of funding. Affective disorders contribute the highest disease burden, and dementia has the highest health system costs. Although all our projects in these important areas require proportionately more funding, it is not helpful to claim that the omission of smoking outcome research is due to failure to recognise its importance.

Helen Christensen · Barbara Hocking · Dawn Smith

Ailsa Goulding,* Andrea M Grant,† Peter L Davidson‡ * Professorial Research Fellow, † Assistant Research Fellow, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, ‡ Research Fellow, Injury Prevention Research Unit, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Ailsa. GouldingATstonebow.otago.ac.nz To the Editor: The interesting article on playground safety and arm fractures by Sherker and Ozanne-Smith1 documents a steady increase in hospitalisation rates for arm fractures among Victorian children between 1987 and 2002. It would appear that the increase over this 15-year period was about 45%. These figures may represent the tip of the iceberg, as few children with arm fractures are admitted to hospital and most are treated on an outpatient basis. Increases of similar magnitude in forearm fractures in adolescence have also been reported recently in the United States.2 It would seem that children are becoming more vulnerable to such fractures. This is a concern, as fractures of the distal forearm are extremely common during growth. Indeed, about a quarter of all fractures during childhood and adolescence occur at this site. One factor that might be contributing to this rising incidence of arm fractures during growth is increasing childhood adiposity. Childhood obesity has increased sharply in Australian children over recent years.3 Obese children fall with more force, and, although they may have more bone for chronological age than children of healthy bodyweight, adaptive increases in bone mass are not enough to accommodate their high bodyweight gain, placing them at a biomechanical disadvantage during falls on the outstretched arm.4 Our studies of consecutive series of girls and boys with distal forearm fractures indicate that a high proportion of these children are overweight. Moreover, in a 4-year prospective study of 170 girls, we found that high bodyweight at baseline increased the risk of new fractures.5 In their study, Sherker and Ozanne-Smith measured the heights and weights of 402 children under 13 years of age who had broken their arm falling from playground equipment between 2000 and 2002. We wonder how many of these children were overweight or obese for their age. Examination of the body mass index values would provide this information, and we ask that the authors report these data for both girls and boys using international cut-off points. We would like to know whether or not overweight is contributing to rising rates of arm fracture in Australian playgrounds.

Ailsa Goulding · Andrea M Grant · Peter L Davidson

Shauna Sherker,* Joan Ozanne-Smith† * Postdoctoral Research Fellow, NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW; † Chair of Injury Prevention, Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. Shauna. SherkerATunsw.edu.au In reply: The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically among Australian children, particularly over the past 2 decades.1 However, the role of obesity as a risk factor for fall-related arm fracture remains unclear. Using standard definitions for child overweight and obesity,2 our study population3 (Box) did not demonstrate quite as high a prevalence of obesity as had been previously reported for Victorian schoolchildren.1 This case series was part of a larger, yet to be published case–control study, the results of which indicate no significant difference in body mass index between children who fell from playground equipment and fractured their arm (cases) and those who fell and landed on their arm with no significant injury (controls). The negative public health effects of increasing prevalence of obesity among Australian children highlight the need to promote safe and enjoyable physical activity. Playground equipment provides a very popular means of physical activity for children. Improving playground safety standards to minimise the risk of arm fracture — a traumatic, costly and preventable childhood injury — has never been more urgent. Children with arm fracture caused by falls from playground equipment, showing proportion of children who were normal weight, overweight or obese.* * Based on unpublished data from Sherker and Ozanne-Smith.3

Shauna Sherker · Joan Ozanne-Smith

Erica L Mann Managing Director, Wyeth Australia and New Zealand, 17-19 Solent Circuit, Norwest Business Park, Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153. To the Editor: Wyeth Australia welcomes the opportunity to comment on Lu and colleagues’ discussion of whether rheumatoid factor status is a predictor of tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα)-inhibitor response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1 Wyeth provided the data used by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to originally exclude patients who test negative for rheumatoid factor from access to TNF-α inhibitors. Although Wyeth agreed with the PBAC’s interpretation that only patients with positive rheumatoid factor status may benefit from etanercept, efficacy in those testing negative for rheumatoid factor was not clearly established because of the small number of patients in these subgroups. Importantly, the subgroup analysis divided all study participants into two groups depending on their rheumatoid factor status and only included ACR 20 response (a standard from the American College of Rheumatology which requires at least 20% reduction in swollen joint count, tender joint count, and in three out of five of patient’s assessment of pain, patient’s assessment of disease activity, investigator’s assessment of disease activity, acute phase reactant levels and patient’s assessment of disability). This analysis may not represent the likely response of patients who test negative for rheumatoid factor, but who develop severe, progressive rheumatoid arthritis and otherwise meet the stringent eligibility criteria associated with Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule listing (excluding positive rheumatoid factor status). It is possible that the small number of unique rheumatoid-factor-negative patients who have severe disease will not have a different response to etanercept from similar patients who are rheumatoid-factor positive. More recent data are available from a large multicentre study that compared treatment with etanercept in combination with methotrexate to either monotherapy alone for control of RA disease activity.2 Subgroup analysis for the effect of rheumatoid factor on treatment responses showed that the presence of rheumatoid factor in the circulation of study patients did not significantly affect the responses to therapy among treatment groups. Although these new data have yet to be presented to the PBAC for reconsideration, a submission on this matter is under way.

Erica L Mann

To the Editor: We report an unusual case of Ross River virus (RRV) disease in a 7-year-old child. The patient presented to her general practitioner with fever, rash and pain in the lower limbs. Swelling of the joints of the hands and left knee was found, with a widespread rash that covered the trunk, limbs and face. The rash comprised lesions of varying types, including maculopapular, vesicular and petechial lesions (Box). Rash in a child with Ross River virus disease The general practitioner transferred the patient to the state tertiary paediatric service. No antibiotics were given before transfer. On arrival at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, the patient was unwell, with a fever of 38°C. A provisional diagnosis was made of septicaemia (probably meningococcal), and treatment was begun with intravenous ceftriaxone. Extensive investigations were performed, but results of all initial serological, polymerase chain reaction and culture investigations were negative. Rheumatology review was requested because of the prominent arthritic component of the illness. This revealed widespread polyarthritis, and the illness was felt to be a reactive or post-infectious process. The child’s family raised the possibility of RRV disease, as her grandmother had had this disease several years previously, and the child had stayed overnight at her grandmother’s home in a coastal lake area 2 weeks before disease onset. The area had abundant mosquitoes, as well as kangaroos, which are vertebrate amplifiers for RRV.1 Serological tests for RRV were performed 3 days after admission, and were negative for IgG and positive for IgM. Repeat serological testing during convalescence showed a fourfold rise in IgG titre (from 80 to 320), confirming the diagnosis of RRV disease. The patient’s rash decreased over several days. She had persistent synovitis in the left knee at review 3 weeks after admission. At review at 8 weeks all symptoms and signs had resolved, and she had full function. This case highlights the fact that, while RRV disease with severe symptoms and arthritic manifestations is uncommon in children, it nevertheless should still be considered in the differential diagnosis of children with a febrile and arthritic disease.1,2 This child’s illness appears to have been a reactive vasculitis and polyarthritis, which, while well recognised with other infections, is not well described in association with RRV disease in children. RRV arthritis is caused by joint infection, and treatment is currently based on empirical anti-inflammatory regimens. During the recent RRV disease epidemic in Western Australia, 1174 notifications for RRV disease were received between 1 October 2003 and 31 March 2004. Of these, 21 patients were aged 15 years or younger. Thus, while RRV disease is an infrequent illness in children, it does occur, and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a child who presents with a febrile illness, rash and joint symptoms from an area with known autochthonous transmission of RRV.

Kynan T Feeney · Kevin J Murray · Amanda J Whittle · Gary K Dowse

To the Editor: Previous articles in the Journal have stressed the importance of making obesity prevention a public health research priority.1,2 Participation in physical activity is one important factor in counteracting increase in body weight.3 While recent studies have focused on environmental factors that influence walking (eg, presence of paths and trails, accessibility of destinations)4 and the possibility of environmental innovations to increase rates of participation, few studies have investigated participants’ perception and understanding of variation in physical activity in relation to environmental factors across the seasons. Our study aimed to examine how people perceive the impact of changes in ambient temperature and hours of daylight across the seasons on their rates of physical activity. We compared residents of the southern and northern hemispheres: a group of women from Sydney, Australia (n = 121; mean age, 19 years [SD, 2 years]), and a group of women from Trier, Germany (n = 109; mean age, 21 years [SD, 3 years]). Participants completed a brief written survey specifically designed for our study. The survey, using an “open question” format, asked participants to describe and explain any perceived changes in their physical activity during winter and summer. The majority of Australians and Germans perceived seasonal changes in physical activity (73.6% and 71.6%, respectively), with no significant difference between the two groups. These changes typically entailed a decrease in physical activity levels during winter (noted by 55.2% and 66.2% of Australians and Germans, respectively). A significantly higher number of Australians than Germans perceived a change from outdoor activities (eg, swimming) to indoor activities (eg, squash) between summer and winter (χ1 = 9.21; P = 0.002). Significantly more Germans than Australians perceived themselves to be affected by environmental factors (χ1 = 9.37; P = 0.002). These results support the contention that environmental changes are linked to changes in activity levels,5 and that more extreme climatic changes (such as those experienced by Germans compared with Australians) are associated with a greater perceived impact on levels of physical activity. Programs aiming to encourage greater participation in physical activity in winter need to challenge people’s perception of the impact of environmental factors by offering indoor opportunities for exercise, particularly to people from Germany. It appears that Australians are more aware of indoor opportunities for physical activity. Research into environmental factors that encourage or discourage walking4 needs to be taken into account when designing programs to enhance physical activity across the seasons. For example, constructing walking or cycling paths in the neighbourhood may encourage people to continue with indoor activities during the colder seasons by making the indoor venues more easily accessible.

Tanja Hechler · Josephine Y Chau · Sarah Giesecke · Silja Vocks

To the Editor: The articles in the General Practice issue are most interesting. Sadly, the articles on how general practitioners are paid1-6 have largely missed the point. It is not only how GPs are paid, but also how much that matters. No matter how ideal the incentive incorporated in the payment method may be, if the quantum is too little even the most idealistic GP will find it impossible to work in a professional manner. Payment here includes both direct personal income and the associated practice conditions. In most countries, changes in GP financing focus more on how to keep costs down than on rewarding quality. Green was the only author to address this issue, making the point that US family medicine organisations have recently changed from showing how good GPs can be to ensuring they are paid well enough to do that good work, and to provide incentives to encourage the next generation of family physicians.6 Since the introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1949, the United Kingdom has gone through several cycles of declining incomes and conditions for GPs, followed by declining interest and recruitment, in turn followed by higher pay and conditions that attracted new recruits. Overall, UK GPs have been paid relatively well compared with their hospital specialist colleagues. It is no accident that the UK has developed the highest levels in the world of academic general practice, as well as research in practice, while the British taxpayers obtain the highest value from their overall health service.7 Currently, in Australia, the Journal classifieds confirm that there are vast discrepancies between expected salaries for specialist and GP services; perhaps there is a lesson for funding. Until salaries for GPs are similar to those for specialists, bright young medical graduates will prefer to work in higher-paying, hospital-based specialties. Merely altering the payment system will make little difference. The value potentially obtained from good primary care will remain out of reach unless the total resources put into this sector are increased.

James A Dickinson

To the Editor: Proposals to manage the shortage of general practitioners by recruiting and training overseas-trained doctors and funding new medical schools will take years to take effect and be enormously expensive. The crisis is with us now. Support for properly trained practice nurses by Medicare, either as a rebate or a salary, could rapidly ameliorate the shortage of GPs, and would deliver improved patient care. I do not refer here to nurse practitioners — that is a different issue. Practice nurses in many developed countries undertake routine GP tasks. Increasing specialisation requires GPs to have more time to evaluate patients. Nurses can complete an initial case summary: these are time consuming and are often missing. Nurses can measure blood pressure; perform Pap smears, breast examination, and vaccinations; counsel people (who will often reveal important information to a nurse); sterilise instruments; explain asthma plans and puffers; give simple dietary advice; and supervise diabetes protocols. This is not a second-class option — it will improve care: doctors who have worked with the system find it improves the quality of their practice and saves them a great deal of time to do other tasks. New and bridging courses for these nurses, a few of which exist, would rapidly produce a workforce happy to work from 9 am to 3 pm, or job share. They need Medicare support. The Minister for Health and the shadow minister may wish to consider this.

Sandy L A Reid

To the Editor: Poor adherence to therapy with asthma preventer medications is common among teenagers with asthma. This is often simple forgetfulness rather than active non-compliance. One of our adherent patients shared his secret with us — the alarm mode on his mobile phone. He set this to be activated twice daily to remind him to take his medicine. A recent survey by Newspoll showed that about 90% of teenagers aged between 13 and 19 years in Melbourne and Sydney have a mobile phone, most of them on a prepaid plan.1 We have subsequently recommended this reminder system to other patients, who have expressed interest in adopting the practice. This could be useful for all patients required to take regular medications. In the absence of a mobile phone, many household appliances (such as microwave ovens) have electronic timers that could be programmed to sound an alarm on a regular basis.

Gaudenz M Hafen · John Massie

To the Editor: Recent media reports have claimed numerous health benefits for A2 milk1,2 (eg, “new wave milk”, “wonder milk”). It is becoming more widely available, particularly in health food shops, and is advertised on Queensland television. We believe it is important to offer clear information about this product and cows’ milk allergy. A2 milk is produced by cows homozygous for the A2 polymorphic variant (his→pro) at amino acid 67 of the b-casein gene. A difference in degradation patterns of the A1 and A2 variants is purported to lead to differences in immunological or pharmacological effects,3-5 which we will not comment on here. Regarding cow’s milk allergy, β-casein is one of at least seven proteins in cows’ milk with allergenic significance (α-, β- and κ-casein, α- and β-lactoglobulin, lactoferrin and transferrin). One would not expect a single amino-acid difference in one protein to have a significant effect on milk allergenicity. We have found in discussion with parents of milk-allergic children, as well as from inquiries from the community to AllergySA, that there is a perception that A2 milk may be less allergenic than “normal” milk (which contains A1 and A2 b-casein). Although most proponents of A2 milk have made no explicit claims about allergenicity — and indeed some have cautioned against the use of A2 in milk-allergic individuals — there have been media reports that may have led to this perception.6 However, these reports are misleading. For example, it is quite likely that children with a previous history of cow’s milk allergy who have been found to tolerate A2 milk have in fact “grown out” of the allergy, which is the usual natural history. Others may never have had true milk allergy. We obtained a sample of pure A2 milk from A2 Dairy Marketers (Acacia Ridge, QLD) and used it for skin-prick testing of 11 consecutive milk-allergic children (Box). The tests compared A2 milk with “normal” (A1/A2) milk and cow’s milk protein extract. The mean diameter of the wheal raised by normal milk was not significantly different to that raised by A2 milk (8.2 mm for normal milk v 10.7 mm for A2 milk; P = 0.09, paired t test). No patient had a negative reaction to A2 milk when the reaction to normal milk was positive. We did not perform an oral challenge with A2 milk in these children, as many had experienced severe allergic reactions, and the predictive value of a positive skin-prick test in the presence of a clear recent history of clinical allergy is high. We therefore caution that A2 milk should not be used by those with IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy, particularly those who have had recent severe reactions to milk. Mean wheal diameter* (mm) on skin-prick testing Patient Normal milk† A2 milk† Cow’s milk extract‡ Histamine positive control 1 12 10 8 4.5 2 11.5 12 11 5.5 3 4 8 6 15 4 8 11 10.5 3 5 12 8 6 9 6 3 5 2 9 7 7 15 7 10 8 7 7.5 5 7.5 9 6 7.5 4 3.5 10 13 25 4.5 3 11 7 9 3 5 Mean 8.2 10.7 6.1 6.8 * As wheals produced are not necessarily circular, it is standard to report diameter as the mean of two measurements taken perpendicular to each other. Results for all negative controls were 0 mm. † Normal and A2 milk were stored frozen, and aliquots thawed for testing. They do not produce wheal reactions in non-allergic individuals. ‡ Cows’ milk extract is manufactured for skin-prick allergy testing by Hollister-Stier, Wash, USA, and purchased from Richard Thomson, Sydney, NSW.

William B Smith · Deryn Thompson · Margaret Kummerow · Patrick Quinn · Michael S Gold