Laxatives do not improve symptoms of opioid-induced constipation: results of a patient survey

Introduction: Laxatives are commonly used to treat opioid-induced constipation, the commonest and most bothersome complication of opioids. However, laxatives have a non-specific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of opioid-induced constipation; their use is associated with abdominal symptoms that negatively impact quality of life. Objective: To assess the effects of laxatives in patients taking opioids for chronic pain. Methods: 198 UK patients who had taken opioid analgesics for at least one month completed a cross-sectional online or telephone survey. Questions addressed their pain condition and medication, and laxative use (including efficacy and side-effects). The survey also assessed bowel function using the Bowel Function Index. Results: Since starting their current opioid, 134/184 patients (73%) had used laxatives at some point and 122 (91%) of these were currently taking them. The most common laxatives were osmotics and stimulants. Laxative side-effects were reported in 75%, most commonly gas, bloating/fullness and a sudden urge to defecate. Side-effects were more common in patients <40 years old. Approximately half of patients said laxatives interfered with work and social activities, and one-fifth had needed an overnight hospital stay because of their pain condition and/or constipation. Laxatives did not improve the symptoms of constipation, as assessed by the Bowel Function Index. Constipation was not related to opioid strength or dose of opioid or number of laxatives taken. Conclusions: Use of laxatives to treat opioid-induced constipation is often ineffective and associated with side-effects. Instead of relieving the burden of opioid-induced constipation, laxative use is associated with a negative impact

Misoprostol for small bowel ulcers in patients with obscure bleeding taking aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (MASTERS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: The incidence of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, which originates from the small bowel and is mainly associated with the use of aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), is rising. We assessed the efficacy and safety of misoprostol for the treatment of small bowel ulcers and erosions in patients taking low-dose aspirin or NSAIDs with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients (aged ≥18 years) with small bowel ulcers who were taking low-dose aspirin, NSAIDs, or both for a minimum of 4 weeks, at University Hospital Crosshouse (Kilmarnock, UK). Eligible patients had evidence of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (iron deficiency anaemia, a decrease in haemoglobin concentration of ≥20 × 103 mg/L, or positive faecal occult blood test) and normal upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive 200 μg oral misoprostol or placebo four times daily for 8 weeks. Patients, investigators, and assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the complete healing of small bowel ulcers and erosions, assessed by video capsule endoscopy after 8 weeks of treatment. Primary analysis was by modified intention to treat, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Safety was assessed in the same population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02202967. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2016, and Oct 11, 2017, we randomly allocated 104 eligible patients: 52 to receive misoprostol and 52 to receive placebo. Two patients allocated to misoprostol were later found to meet one of the exclusion criteria, thus 50 randomly assigned patients in the misoprostol group and 52 patients in the placebo group received at least one dose of study treatment. Complete healing of small bowel ulcers and erosions was noted at week 8 in 27 (54%) of 50 patients in the misoprostol group and nine (17%) of 52 patients in the placebo group (percentage difference 36·7%, 95% CI 19·5–53·9; p=0·0002). Adverse events occurred in 23 (46%) of 50 patients in the misoprostol group and 22 (42%) of 52 patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were abdominal pain (ten [20%] in the misoprostol group vs 13 [25%] in the placebo group), nausea or vomiting (nine [18%] vs seven [13%]), and diarrhoea (11 [22%] vs six [12%]). Four (8%) of 50 patients in the misoprostol group had severe adverse events, compared with none in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation: Misoprostol is effective for the treatment of small bowel ulcers and erosions in patients using low-dose aspirin and NSAIDs. Misoprostol might represent a pharmacological treatment option for lesions causing obscure gastrointestinal bleeding that is associated with aspirin and NSAIDs, but its use should be balanced against the risk of side-effects

General and age-specific fertility rates in non-affective psychosis : population-based analysis of Scottish women

The study was funded by Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate (Grant CZH/4/951), NHS Research Scotland (NHS Research Scotland Career Research Fellowship).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Rates, causes, place and predictors of mortality in adults with intellectual disabilities with and without Down syndrome : cohort study with record linkage

Funding: UK Medical Research Council, grant number: MC_PC_17217), and the Scottish Government via the Scottish Learning Disabilities Observatory.Objectives To investigate mortality in adults with intellectual disabilities: rates, causes, place, demographic and clinical predictors. Design Cohort study with record linkage to death data. Setting General community. Participants 961/1023 (94%) adults (16–83 years; mean=44.1 years; 54.6% male) with intellectual disabilities, clinically examined in 2001–2004; subsequently record-linked to their National Health Service number, allowing linkage to death certificate data, 2018. Outcome measures Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs), underlying and all contributing causes of death, avoidable deaths, place, and demographic and clinical predictors of death. Results 294/961 (30.6%) had died; 64/179 (35.8%) with Down syndrome, 230/783 (29.4%) without Down syndrome. SMR overall=2.24 (1.98, 2.49); Down syndrome adults=5.28 (3.98, 6.57), adults without Down syndrome=1.93 (1.68, 2.18); male=1.69 (1.42, 1.95), female=3.48 (2.90, 4.06). SMRs decreased as age increased. More severe intellectual disabilities increased SMR, but ability was not retained in the multivariable model. SMRs were higher for most International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision chapters. For adults without Down syndrome, aspiration/reflux/choking and respiratory infection were the the most common underlying causes of mortality; for Down syndrome adults ‘Down syndrome’, and dementia were most common. Amenable deaths (29.8%) were double that in the general population (14%); 60.3% died in hospital. Mortality risk related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/tube fed, Down syndrome, diabetes, lower respiratory tract infection at cohort-entry, smoking, epilepsy, hearing impairment, increasing number of prescribed drugs, increasing age. Bowel incontinence reduced mortality risk. Conclusions Adults with intellectual disabilities with and without Down syndrome have different SMRs and causes of death which should be separately reported. Both die younger, from different causes than other people. Some mortality risks are similar to other people, with earlier mortality reflecting more multimorbidity; amenable deaths are also common. This should inform actions to reduce early mortality, for example, training to avoid aspiration/choking, pain identification to address problems before they are advanced, and reasonable adjustments to improve healthcare quality.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Management and prevalence of long-term conditions in primary health care for adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population: a population-based cohort study

Background: In the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for performance on management of long-term conditions, according to best-practice indicators. Method: Management of long-term conditions was compared between 721 adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population (n = 764,672). Prevalence of long-term conditions was determined, and associated factors were investigated via logistic regression analyses. Results: Adults with intellectual disabilities received significantly poorer management of all long-term conditions on 38/57 (66.7%) indicators. Achievement was high (75.1%–100%) for only 19.6% of adults with intellectual disabilities, compared with 76.8% of the general population. Adults with intellectual disabilities had higher rates of epilepsy, psychosis, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and heart failure. There were no clear associations with neighbourhood deprivation. Conclusions: Adults with intellectual disabilities receive poorer care, despite conditions being more prevalent. The imperative now is to find practical, implementable means of supporting the challenges that general practices face in delivering equitable care

Comparing uptake across breast, cervical and bowel screening at an individual level:a retrospective cohort study

Funding: CR-UK through its National Awareness & Early Diagnosis Initiative C9227/A17676.Background We investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening. Methods Data linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit. Results 72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening. Conclusion Participation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

General and age-specific fertility rates in non-affective psychosis : population-based analysis of Scottish women

Women diagnosed with non-affective psychosis have a lower general fertility rate (GFR) and age-specific fertility rate (ASFR) than women in the general population. Contemporary data on GFR in this group remain limited, despite substantive changes in prescribing and management. We calculated contemporary estimates of the GFR and ASFR for women diagnosed with non-affective psychosis compared with the general population of women without this diagnosis. A population-based design combined routinely collected historical maternity and psychiatric data from two representative areas of Scotland. Women were included from the NHS Grampian or Greater Glasgow and Clyde areas and were aged 15-44 between 2005 and 2013 inclusive. The 'exposed' group had a diagnosis of non-affective psychosis (ICD-10 F20-F29) and was compared to the general population of 'unexposed' women in the same geographical areas. Annual GFR between 2005 and 2013 for women with non-affective psychosis varied from 9.6 to 21.3 live births/1000 women per year in the exposed cohort and 52.7 to 57.8 live births/1000 women per year in the unexposed cohort, a rate ratio (RR) of 0.28 [

Screening Women in Glasgow: Comparing uptake across cancer screening programmes at an individual patient level

Introduction Population-based screening has been shown to reduce cancer specific mortality. Within Scotland, three national screening programmes exist: breast, cervical and bowel. Despite being a common and preventable form of cancer, the uptake for bowel cancer screening among women lags behind that for breast and cervical cancer. Objectives and Approach Since the benefits of screening accrue with participation, it is important to understand why differences in screening uptake exist. In this study, data on women aged 24-74 in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, invited to take part in one or more screening programme during the period 2009-2013, were linked to demographic and medical data. Uptake was determined based on the presence of a screening attendance or result; the impact of age, deprivation and co-morbidity on uptake was determined using logistic regression for each individual programme, and for the cohort of women invited to participate in all three programmes. Results Overall, 430,591 women were invited to take part in one or more screening programme during the study period. The uptake for bowel screening was, at 61.7%, lower than that seen in either the breast (72.6%) or cervical (80.7%) programme. Despite these differences, the same demographic factors were associated with uptake of each individual screening programme: older women and those living in affluent areas were most likely to attend. Medical factors did differentially influence uptake, those with multi-morbid illness being less likely to participate in breast and bowel, but not the cervical programme. For the 68,324 women invited to participate in all programmes, 52.1% took part in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Conclusion/Implications Uptake of bowel screening was confirmed as lower than uptake of other programmes, although all were similarly impacted by demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors. Individuals were more likely to complete bowel screening if they participate in another programme, suggesting these may serve as a vehicle for improving bowel screening uptake

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of palliative cardiology or usual care in people with advanced heart failure: Two exploratory prospective cohorts

© 2018, © The Author(s) 2018. Background: The effectiveness of cardiology-led palliative care is unknown; we have insufficient information to conduct a full trial. Aim: To assess the feasibility (recruitment/retention, data quality, variability/sample size estimation, safety) of a clinical trial of palliative cardiology effectiveness. Design: Non-randomised feasibility. Setting/participants: Unmatched symptomatic heart failure patients on optimal cardiac treatment from (1) cardiology-led palliative service (caring together group) and (2) heart failure liaison service (usual care group). Outcomes/safety: Symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, performance, understanding of disease, anticipatory care planning, cost-effectiveness, survival and carer burden. Results: A total of 77 participants (caring together group = 43; usual care group = 34) were enrolled (53% men; mean age 77 years (33–100)). The caring together group scored worse in Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (43.5 vs 35.2) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (35.4 vs 39.9). The caring together group had a lower consent/screen ratio (1:1.7 vs 1: 2.8) and few died before approach (0.08% vs 16%) or declined invitation (17% vs 37%). Data quality: At 4 months, 74% in the caring together group and 71% in the usual care group provided data. Most attrition was due to death or deterioration. Data quality in self-report measures was otherwise good. Safety: There was no difference in survival. Symptoms and quality of life improved in both groups. A future trial requires 141 (202 allowing 30% attrition) to detect a minimal clinical difference (1 point) in Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score for breathlessness (80% power). More participants (176; 252 allowing 30% attrition) are needed to detect a 10.5 change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score (80% power; minimum clinical difference = 5). Conclusion: A trial to test the clinical effectiveness (improvement in breathlessness) of cardiology-led palliative care is feasible