Introduction: Children who develop any hypersensitivity reaction to eggs are routinely referred to hospital for Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccination as inpatients to prevent anaphylaxis. We aimed to study the association between hypersensitivity reactions after egg exposure and similar reactions after MMR immunisation; and examine the necessity of hospital admission for vaccination. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in Paediatric Department in Bukit Mertajam Hospital, Penang, between March and December 2014. Children referred from local polyclinics for inpatient MMR vaccination because of a history of egg allergy were recruited. The children were observed in the ward for post vaccination allergic reactions. Concurrently, a group of children without egg allergy was recruited from those admitted for other illnesses but had recent MMR vaccination at polyclinics. Parents of these children were interviewed and asked if they had observed any reactions post vaccination. In both groups, sociodemographics, medical history and family history of atopy were collected. Results: Eighty-seven subjects were recruited in this study. Fifty-four infants with egg allergy had previous mild allergic reactions after exposure to eggs or egg-related products. They were associated with a family history of egg hypersensitivity, personal history of acute gastroenteritis and upper respiratory tract infections. Two of them developed cutaneous rashes post vaccination during observation, but none developed anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions. Two infants among those without egg allergy had post vaccination fever. There was no association between egg allergy and hypersensitivity reactions to MMR vaccine (p=0.632). Conclusions: MMR vaccine can be safely administered to children with mild egg allergy, hence admission for vaccination in the hospital is not warranted. Risk stratification is required to ensure only infants with severe reactions will be admitted for vaccination.
Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

Over 100 articles related to stroke were found in a search through a database dedicated to indexing all literature with original data involving the Malaysian population between years 2000 and 2014. Stroke is emerging as a major public health problem. The development of the National Stroke Registry in the year 2009 aims to coordinate and improve stroke care, as well as to generate more data on various aspects of stroke in the country. Studies on predictors of survival after strokes have shown potential to improve the overall management of stroke, both during acute event and long term care. Stroke units were shown to be effective locally in stroke outcomes and prevention of stroke-related complications. The limited data looking at direct cost of stroke management suggests that the health economic burden in stroke management may be even higher. Innovative rehabilitation programmes including braincomputer interface technology were studied with encouraging results. Studies in traditional complementary medicine for strokes such as acupuncture, Urut Melayu and herbal medicine were still limited.
Stroke

Introduction: This study aimed to determine the views and practices of healthcare providers and barriers they encountered when implementing the national health screening program for men in a public primary care setting in Malaysia. Methods: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants’ socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool. Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a “top-down decision.” Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men “useful,” some felt that it was “time consuming” to fill out (38.2%) and “lengthy” (28.3%). In addition, ‘adult men refuse to answer’ (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier. Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care.