Which lipid measurement should we monitor? An analysis of the LIPID study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the optimal lipid to measure in monitoring patients, we assessed three factors that influence the choice of monitoring tests: (1) clinical validity; (2) responsiveness to therapy changes and (3) the size of the long-term ‘signal-to-noise’ ratio. DESIGN: Longitudinal analyses of repeated lipid measurement over 5 years. SETTING: Subsidiary analysis of a Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) study—a clinical trial in Australia, New Zealand and Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 9014 patients aged 31–75 years with previous acute coronary syndromes. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg daily pravastatin or placebo. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We used data on serial lipid measurements—at randomisation, 6 months and 12 months, and then annually to 5 years—of total cholesterol; low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and their ratios; triglycerides; and apolipoproteins A and B and their ratio and their ability to predict coronary events. RESULTS: All the lipid measures were statistically significantly associated with future coronary events, but the associations between each of the three ratio measures (total or LDL cholesterol to HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1) and the time to a coronary event were better than those for any of the single lipid measures. The two cholesterol ratios also ranked highly for the long-term signal-to-noise ratios. However, LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol showed the most responsiveness to treatment change. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid monitoring is increasingly common, but current guidelines vary. No single measure was best on all three criteria. Total cholesterol did not rank highly on any single criterion. However, measurements based on cholesterol subfractions—non-HDL cholesterol (total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol) and the two ratios—appeared superior to total cholesterol or any of the apolipoprotein options. Guidelines should consider using non-HDL cholesterol or a ratio measure for initial treatment decisions and subsequent monitoring

Too Much Medicine in older people? Deprescribing through Shared Decision Making

Too much medicine is an increasingly recognised problem,1 2 and one manifestation is inappropriate polypharmacy in older people. Polypharmacy is usually defined as taking more than five regular prescribed medicines.3 It can be appropriate (when potential benefits outweigh potential harms)4 but increases the risk of older people experiencing adverse drug reactions, impaired physical and cognitive function, and hospital admission.5 6 7 There is limited evidence to inform polypharmacy in older people, especially those with multimorbidity, cognitive impairment, or frailty.8 Systematic reviews of medication withdrawal trials (deprescribing) show that reducing specific classes of medicines may decrease adverse events and improve quality of life.9 10 11 Two recent reviews of the literature on deprescribing stressed the importance of patient involvement and shared decision making.12 13 Patients and clinicians typically overestimate the benefits of treatments and underestimate their harms.14 When they engage in shared decision making they become better informed about potential outcomes and as a result patients tend to choose more conservative options (eg, fewer medicines), facilitating deprescribing.15 However, shared decision making in this context is not easy, and there is little guidance on how to do it.16 We draw together evidence from the psychology, communication, and decision making literature (see appendix on thebmj.com). For each step of the shared decision making process we describe the unique tasks required for deprescribing decisions; identify challenges for older adults, their companions, and clinicians (figure); give practical advice on how challenges may be overcome; highlight where more work is needed; and identify priorities for future research (table). Key messages Deprescribing is a process of planned and supervised tapering or ceasing of inappropriate medicines Shared decision making should be an integral part of the deprescribing process Many factors affect this process, including trust in clinicians’ advice, contradictory patient attitudes about medication, cognitive biases that lead to a preference for the status quo and positive information, and information processing difficulties There is uncertainty about the effect of risk communication and preference elicitation tools in older people Older people’s preferences for discussing life expectancy and quality of life vary widely, but even those who wish to delegate their decisions still appreciate discussion of optionsJJ is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) early career fellowship (1037028) and KM is supported by an NHMRC career development fellowship (1029241

Patient Preferences for Follow-up After Recent Excision of a Localized Melanoma

Importance The standard model of follow-up posttreatment of localized melanoma relies on clinician detection of recurrent or new melanoma, through routinely scheduled clinics (clinician-led surveillance). An alternative model is to increase reliance on patient detection of melanoma, with fewer scheduled visits and increased support for patients’ skin self-examination (SSE) (eg, using smartphone apps to instruct, prompt and record SSE, and facilitate teledermatology; patient-led surveillance). Objective To determine the proportion of adults treated for localized melanoma who prefer the standard scheduled visit frequency (as per Australian guideline recommendations) or fewer scheduled visits (adapted from the Melanoma Follow-up [MELFO] study of reduced follow-up). Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used a telephone interview for surveillance following excision of localized melanoma at an Australian specialist center. We invited a random sample of 400 patients who had completed treatment for localized melanoma in 2014 to participate. They were asked about their preferences for scheduled follow-up, and experience of follow-up in the past 12 months. Those with a recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed by the time of interview (0.8-1.7 years since first diagnosis) were asked about how it was first detected and treated. SSE practices were also assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion preferring standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits, median delay between detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma, and SSE practices. Results Of the 262 people who agreed to be interviewed, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (14.3) years, and 93 (36%) were women. Among the 230 people who did not have a recurrent or new primary melanoma, 149 vs 81 preferred the standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits option (70% vs 30% after adjusting for sampling frame). Factors independently associated with preferring fewer visits were a higher disease stage, melanoma on a limb, living with others, not having private health insurance, and seeing a specialist for another chronic condition. The median delay between first detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma was 7 and 3 weeks, respectively. Only 8% missed a scheduled visit, while 40% did not perform SSE or did so at greater than 3-month intervals. Conclusions and Relevance Some patients with melanoma may prefer fewer scheduled visits, if they are supported to do SSE and there is rapid clinical review of anything causing concern (patient-led surveillance)

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

This research project is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project grant (#1163054). The funder had no role in the design of the study and will have no role in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. Funding Information: AEC is funded by a Career Development Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; 1147843). JFT is a recipient of an NHMRC Program Grant (1093017). RPMS is supported by Melanoma Institute Australia. RAS is supported by a NHMRC Program Grant and Practitioner Fellowship. For RAS, support from the from colleagues at Melanoma Institute Australia, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and NSW Health Pathology is also gratefully acknowledged. RLM is supported with an NHMRC Investigator grant (1194703) and a University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. HPS holds an NHMRC MRFF Next Generation Clinical Researchers Program Practitioner Fellowship (APP1137127). JH is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (1112509). KB is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (1174523) and a University of Sydney Research Accelerator (SOAR) Prize.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colonoscopy is an invasive and costly procedure with a risk of serious complications. It would therefore be useful to prioritise colonoscopies by identifying people at higher risk of either cancer or premalignant adenomas. The aim of this study is to assess a model that identifies people with colorectal cancer, advanced, large and small adenomas.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients seen by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons between April 2004 and December 2006 completed a validated, structured self-administered questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Information was collected on symptoms, demographics and medical history. Multinomial logistic regression was used to simultaneously assess factors associated with findings on colonoscopy of cancer, advanced adenomas and adenomas sized 6 -9 mm, and ≤ 5 mm. The area under the curve of ROC curve was used to assess the incremental gain of adding demographic variables, medical history and symptoms (in that order) to a base model that included only age.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sociodemographic variables, medical history and symptoms (from 8,204 patients) jointly provide good discrimination between colorectal cancer and no abnormality (AUC 0.83), but discriminate less well between adenomas and no abnormality (AUC advanced adenoma 0.70; other adenomas 0.67). Age is the dominant risk factor for cancer and adenomas of all sizes. Having a colonoscopy within the last 10 years confers protection for cancers and advanced adenomas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our models provide guidance about which factors can assist in identifying people at higher risk of disease using easily elicited information. This would allow colonoscopy to be prioritised for those for whom it would be of most benefit.</p

Most bowel cancer symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bowel symptoms are often considered an indication to perform colonoscopy to identify or rule out colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps. Investigation of bowel symptoms for this purpose is recommended by numerous clinical guidelines. However, the evidence for this practice is unclear. The objective of this study is to systematically review the evidence about the association between bowel symptoms and colorectal cancer or polyps.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the literature extensively up to December 2008, using MEDLINE and EMBASE and following references. For inclusion in the review, papers from cross sectional, case control and cohort studies had to provide a 2×2 table of symptoms by diagnosis (colorectal cancer or polyps) or sufficient data from which that table could be constructed. The search procedure, quality appraisal, and data extraction was done twice, with disagreements resolved with another reviewer. Summary ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms to detect colorectal cancer and polyps.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Colorectal cancer was associated with rectal bleeding (AUC 0.66; LR+ 1.9; LR- 0.7) and weight loss (AUC 0.67, LR+ 2.5, LR- 0.9). Neither of these symptoms was associated with the presence of polyps. There was no significant association of colorectal cancer or polyps with change in bowel habit, constipation, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Neither the clinical setting (primary or specialist care) nor study type was associated with accuracy.</p> <p>Most studies had methodological flaws. There was no consistency in the way symptoms were elicited or interpreted in the studies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Current evidence suggests that the common practice of performing colonoscopies to identify cancers in people with bowel symptoms is warranted only for rectal bleeding and the general symptom of weight loss. Bodies preparing guidelines for clinicians and consumers to improve early detection of colorectal cancer need to take into account the limited value of symptoms.</p

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis

BACKGROUND: Several studies and systematic reviews have reported results that indicate that sensitivity and specificity may vary with prevalence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identify and explore mechanisms that may be responsible for sensitivity and specificity varying with prevalence and illustrate them with examples from the literature. RESULTS: Clinical and artefactual variability may be responsible for changes in prevalence and accompanying changes in sensitivity and specificity. Clinical variability refers to differences in the clinical situation that may cause sensitivity and specificity to vary with prevalence. For example, a patient population with a higher disease prevalence may include more severely diseased patients, therefore, the test performs better in this population. Artefactual variability refers to effects on prevalence and accuracy associated with study design, for example, the verification of index test results by a reference standard. Changes in prevalence influence the extent of overestimation due to imperfect reference standard classification. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity may vary in different clinical populations, and prevalence is a marker for such differences. Clinicians are advised to base their decisions on studies that most closely match their own clinical situation, using prevalence to guide the detection of differences in study population or study desig

Lax sphygmomanometer standard causes overdetection and underdetection of hypertension : a computer simulation study

OBJECTIVE: To quantify overdetection and underdetection of hypertension caused by systematic sphygmomanometer errors permitted by the current European standard (EN 1060 'noninvasive sphygmomanometers'). METHODS: We carried out Monte Carlo simulation of measurement of blood pressure (BP) of the adult Australian population using sphygmomanometers showing systematic errors compliant with the EN 1060 standard. We repeated the simulations limiting systematic sphygmomanometer errors to ±1 mmHg. Simulated BP measurements included systematic sphygmomanometer error, random intraindividual BP variability and random measurement error. RESULTS: After three visits, underdetection of hypertension is common owing to variability of BP measurements and systematic errors of sphygmomanometers. After three visits, the wide tolerances of EN 1060 are responsible for approximately 4.9 and 11% of underdetection of systolic and diastolic hypertension, respectively. Underdetection is worse in some groups, for example, permitted sphygmomanometer error causes 20% of all undetected systolic hypertension in 18-24 year-old women.The current standard also results in overdetection of hypertension. Permitted sphygmomanometer error causes 5.8 and 14% of the overdetection of systolic and diastolic hypertension, respectively, after three visits. Overdetection is worse in some groups, for example, after three visits, permitted sphygmomanometer error causes 19% of falsely detected diastolic hypertension in 18-24 year-old men. For all adults, reduction of permitted sphygmomanometer error to ±1 mmHg achieves approximately the same improvement in hypertension detection as at least one additional visit to the clinician. CONCLUSION: Systematic sphygmomanometer errors permitted by the current standard are a preventable cause of clinically significant overdetection and underdetection of hypertension. The standard should be revised to make the effects of equipment related systematic errors negligible compared with the effects of physiological variability.9 page(s