Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes

Background A growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained. Aim To review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice. Design and setting Systematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017. Method The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. Results In total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast–ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP’s role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out. Conclusion GPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice

Does adherence to inhaled corticosteroids predict asthma-related outcomes over time? A cohort study

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) adherence is important for asthma management. Current evidence on the impact of ICS adherence on outcomes is mostly based on correlational analyses of between-person data. Although it is widely acknowledged that asthma outcomes fluctuate over time, evidence on predictors of within-person change is scarce. We aimed to quantify these fluctuations and the longitudinal relationships between ICS adherence and outcomes at both between- and within-person levels.A prospective cohort of persistent asthma patients in France and the UK (n=847, age 6-40 years) provided 3756 reports over up to 2 years via computer-assisted telephone interviews and text messages on ICS adherence, asthma control, reliever medication use and exacerbations. We examined adherence-outcome relationships via longitudinal models, controlling for confounders, including severity.Considerable within-person variability was found for exacerbations (91%), asthma control (59%) and reliever use (52%); 431 (11.5%) reports signalled exacerbations and 2046 (54.5%) poor control. At between-person level, patients with higher average adherence were more likely to report asthma control (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.47), but not asthma exacerbations (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.12) or lower reliever use (b -0.0004, 95% CI -0.089-0.088). At within-person level, higher-than-usual adherence was associated with higher concomitant reliever use (b 0.092, 95% CI 0.053-0.131) and lower subsequent reliever use (b -0.047, 95% CI -0.005- -0.088); it was unrelated to asthma control (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.02) or exacerbations (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.16).Patients maintaining high ICS adherence over time have better asthma control. Temporarily increasing ICS adherence tends to be simultaneous to higher reliever use and reduces reliever use later on. Causes of within-person variation in outcomes require more investigation