Accuracy of diagnosing atrial fibrillation on electrocardiogram by primary care practitioners and interpretative diagnostic software: analysis of data from screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly (SAFE) trial

Objective To assess the accuracy of general practitioners, practice nurses, and interpretative software in the use of different types of electrocardiogram to diagnose atrial fibrillation. Design Prospective comparison with reference standard of assessment of electrocardiograms by two independent specialists. Setting 49 general practices in central England. Participants 2595 patients aged 65 or over screened for atrial fibrillation as part of the screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly (SAFE) study; 49 general practitioners and 49 practice nurses. Interventions All electrocardiograms were read with the Biolog interpretative software, and a random sample of 12 lead, limb lead, and single lead thoracic placement electrocardiograms were assessed by general practitioners and practice nurses independently of each other and of the Biolog assessment. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Results General practitioners detected 79 out of 99 cases of atrial fibrillation on a 12 lead electrocardiogram (sensitivity 80%, 95% confidence interval 71% to 87%) and misinterpreted 114 out of 1355 cases of sinus rhythm as atrial fibrillation (specificity 92%, 90% to 93%). Practice nurses detected a similar proportion of cases of atrial fibrillation (sensitivity 77%, 67% to 85%), but had a lower specificity (85%, 83% to 87%). The interpretative software was significantly more accurate, with a specificity of 99%, but missed 36 of 215 cases of atrial fibrillation (sensitivity 83%). Combining general practitioners' interpretation with the interpretative software led to a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 91%. Use of limb lead or single lead thoracic placement electrocardiograms resulted in some loss of specificity. Conclusions Many primary care professionals cannot accurately detect atrial fibrillation on an electrocardiogram, and interpretative software is not sufficiently accurate to circumvent this problem, even when combined with interpretation by a general practitioner. Diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in the community needs to factor in the reading of electrocardiograms by appropriately trained peopl

Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: Screening versus routine practice in detection cluster randomised controlled trial

Objectives : To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening. Design : Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm. Setting : 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices. Participants : 14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices. Interventions : Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices. Main outcome measure : Newly identified atrial fibrillation. Results : The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, −0.5% to 0.5%). Conclusion : Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732

A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness

Objectives: This report reviews the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, agents that inhibit tumour necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), when used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. \ud \ud Data sources: Electronic databases were searched up to February 2005. \ud \ud Review methods: Systematic reviews of the literature on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were undertaken and industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were reviewed. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were also undertaken for each agent. The Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM), a simulation model, was further developed and used to produce an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. \ud \ud Results: Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most of high quality, were included. The only head-to-head comparisons were against methotrexate. For patients with short disease duration (≤3 years) who were naïve to methotrexate, adalimumab was marginally less and etanercept was marginally more effective than methotrexate in reducing symptoms of RA. Etanercept was better tolerated than methotrexate. Both adalimumab and etanercept were more effective than methotrexate in slowing radiographic joint damage. Etanercept was also marginally more effective and better tolerated than methotrexate in patients with longer disease durations who had not failed methotrexate treatment. Infliximab is only licensed for use with methotrexate. All three agents, either alone (where so licensed) or in combination with ongoing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), were effective in reducing the symptoms and signs of RA in patients with established disease. At the licensed dose, the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) (95% CI) required to produce an American College for Rheumatology (ACR) response compared with placebo were: ACR20: adalimumab 3.6 (3.1 to 4.2), etanercept 2.1 (1.9 to 2.4), infliximab 3.2 (2.7 to 4.0); ACR50: adalimumab 4.2 (3.7 to 5.0), etanercept 3.1 (2.7 to 3.6), infliximab 5.0 (3.8 to 6.7); and ACR70: adalimumab 7.7 (5.9 to 11.1), etanercept 7.7 (6.3 to 10.0), infliximab 11.1 (7.7 to 20.0). In patients who were naïve to methotrexate, or who had not previously failed methotrexate treatment, a TNF inhibitor combined with methotrexate was significantly more effective than methotrexate alone. Infliximab combined with methotrexate had an increased risk of serious infections. All ten published economic evaluations met standard criteria for quality, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from being within established thresholds to being very high because of varying assumptions and parameters. All three sponsors who submitted economic models made assumptions favourable to their product. BRAM incorporates improvements in quality of life and mortality, but assumes no effect of TNF inhibitors on joint replacement. For use in accordance with current NICE guidance as the third DMARD in a sequence of DMARDs, the base-case ICER was around £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in early RA and £50,000 per QALY in late RA. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to the estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on TNF inhibitors and the effectiveness of DMARDs, but not to changes in mortality ratios per unit HAQ. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used last. The ICER for etanercept used last is £24,000 per QALY, substantially lower than for adalimumab (£30,000 per QALY) or infliximab (£38,000 per QALY). First line use as monotherapy generates ICERs around £50,000 per QALY for adalimumab and etanercept. Using the combination of methotrexate and a TNF inhibitor as first line treatment generates much higher ICERs, as it precludes subsequent use of methotrexate, which is cheap. The ICERs for sequential use are of the same order as using the TNF inhibitor alone. \ud \ud Conclusions: Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab are effective treatments compared with placebo for RA patients who are not well controlled by conventional DMARDs, improving control of symptoms, improving physical function, and slowing radiographic changes in joints. The combination of a TNF inhibitor with methotrexate was more effective than methotrexate alone in early RA, although the clinical relevance of this additional benefit is yet to be established, particularly in view of the well-established effectiveness of MTX alone. An increased risk of serious infection cannot be ruled out for the combination of methotrexate with adalimumab or infliximab. The results of the economic evaluation based on BRAM are consistent with the observations from the review of clinical effectiveness, including the ranking of treatments. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used as last active therapy. In this analysis, other things being equal, etanercept may be the TNF inhibitor of choice, although this may also depend on patient preference as to route of administration. The next most cost-effective use of TNF inhibitors is third line, as recommended in the 2002 NICE guidance. Direct comparative RCTs of TNF inhibitors against each other and against other DMARDs, and sequential use in patients who have failed a previous TNF inhibitor, are needed. Longer term studies of the quality of life in patients with RA and the impact of DMARDs on this are needed, as are longer studies that directly assess effects on joint replacement, other morbidity and mortality

Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a reflexive understanding of action-context dynamism in the theorisation of coaching

In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel's classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal ‘variables’ in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy to the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel's conceptualization of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically