Symptoms of adult chronic and acute leukaemia before diagnosis: large primary care case-control studies using electronic records

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Leukaemia is the eleventh commonest UK cancer. The four main subtypes have different clinical profiles, particularly between chronic and acute types. AIM: To identify the symptom profiles of chronic and acute leukaemia in adults in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control studies using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records. METHOD: Putative symptoms of leukaemia were identified in the year before diagnosis. Conditional logistic regression was used for analysis, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated to estimate risk. RESULTS: Of cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2009, 4655 were aged ≥40 years (2877 chronic leukaemia (CL), 937 acute leukaemia (AL), 841 unreported subtype). Ten symptoms were independently associated with CL, the three strongest being: lymphadenopathy (odds ratio [OR] 22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13 to 36), weight loss (OR 3.0, 95% CI = 2.1 to 4.2), and bruising (OR 2.3, 95% CI = 1.6 to 3.2). Thirteen symptoms were independently associated with AL, the three strongest being: nosebleeds and/or bleeding gums (OR 5.7, 95% CI = 3.1 to 10), fever (OR 5.3, 95% CI = 2.7 to 10), and fatigue (OR 4.4, 95% CI = 3.3 to 6.0). No individual symptom or combination of symptoms had a PPV >1%. CONCLUSION: The symptom profiles of CL and AL have both overlapping and distinct features. This presents a dichotomy for GPs: diagnosis, by performing a full blood count, is easy; however, the symptoms of leukaemia are non-specific and of relatively low risk. This explains why many leukaemia diagnoses are unexpected findings.This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0608– 10045). Fiona M Walter is part-funded by an NIHR Clinician Scientist award. Richard D Neal is part-funded by Public Health Wales and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. Willie Hamilton is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health

The risk of oesophago-gastric cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records

ArticleBACKGROUND: Over 15 000 new oesophago-gastric cancers are diagnosed annually in the United Kingdom, with most being advanced disease. We identified and quantified features of this cancer in primary care. METHODS: Case-control study using electronic primary-care records of the UK patients aged ≥40 years was performed. Cases with primary oesophago-gastric cancer were matched to controls on age, sex and practice. Putative features of cancer were identified in the year before diagnosis. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for these features using conditional logistic regression, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 7471 cases and 32 877 controls were studied. Sixteen features were independently associated with oesophago-gastric cancer (all P5% in patients ≥55 years was for dysphagia. In patients <55 years, all PPVs were <1%. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of oesophago-gastric cancer reported in secondary care were also important in primary care. The results should inform guidance and commissioning policy for upper GI endoscopy

Quantifying the risk of multiple myeloma from symptoms reported in primary care patients: a large case-control study using electronic records

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Patients with myeloma experience the longest diagnostic delays compared with patients with other cancers in the UK; 37% are diagnosed through emergency presentations. AIM: To identify and quantify the risk of myeloma from specific clinical features reported by primary care patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study using General Practice Research Database primary care electronic records. METHOD: Putative clinical features of myeloma were identified and analysed using conditional logistic regression. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for the consulting population. RESULTS: A total of 2703 patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed with myeloma between 2000 and 2009, and 12 157 age, sex, and general practice-matched controls were identified. Sixteen features were independently associated with myeloma: hypercalcaemia, odds ratio 11.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.1 to 18), cytopenia 5.4 (95% CI = 4.6 to 6.4), raised inflammatory markers 4.9 (95% CI = 4.2 to 5.8), fracture 3.1 (95% CI = 2.3 to 4.2), raised mean corpuscular volume 3.1 (95% CI = 2.4 to 4.1), weight loss 3.0 (95% CI = 2.0 to 4.5), nosebleeds 3.0 (95% CI = 1.9 to 4.7), rib pain 2.5 (95% CI = 1.5 to 4.4), back pain 2.2 (95% CI = 2.0 to 2.4), other bone pain 2.1 (95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), raised creatinine 1.8 (95% CI = 1.5 to 2.2), chest pain 1.6 (95% CI = 1.4 to 1.8), joint pain 1.6 (95% CI = 1.2 to 2.2), nausea 1.5 (95% CI = 1.1 to 2.1), chest infection 1.4 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.6), and shortness of breath 1.3 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.5). Individual symptom PPVs were generally 10% for some symptoms when combined with leucopenia or hypercalcaemia. CONCLUSION: Individual symptoms of myeloma in primary care are generally low risk, probably explaining diagnostic delays. Once simple primary care blood tests are taken, risk estimates change. Hypercalcaemia and leucopenia are particularly important abnormalities, and coupled with symptoms, strongly suggest myeloma.This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0608- 10045). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Fiona M Walter is part-funded by a NIHR Clinician Scientist award. Richard D Neal is part funded by Public Health Wales and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board

Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database

This is the final version of the article. Available from Nature Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: The primary aim was to use routine data to compare cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of the 2005 NICE Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer. The secondary aim was to compare change in diagnostic intervals across different categories of presenting symptoms. METHODS: Using data from the General Practice Research Database, we analysed patients with one of 15 cancers diagnosed in either 2001-2002 or 2007-2008. Putative symptom lists for each cancer were classified into whether or not they qualified for urgent referral under NICE guidelines. Diagnostic interval (duration from first presented symptom to date of diagnosis in primary care records) was compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 37,588 patients had a new diagnosis of cancer and of these 20,535 (54.6%) had a recorded symptom in the year prior to diagnosis and were included in the analysis. The overall mean diagnostic interval fell by 5.4 days (95% CI: 2.4-8.5; P<0.001) between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There was evidence of significant reductions for the following cancers: (mean, 95% confidence interval) kidney (20.4 days, -0.5 to 41.5; P=0.05), head and neck (21.2 days, 0.2-41.6; P=0.04), bladder (16.4 days, 6.6-26.5; P≤0.001), colorectal (9.0 days, 3.2-14.8; P=0.002), oesophageal (13.1 days, 3.0-24.1; P=0.006) and pancreatic (12.6 days, 0.2-24.6; P=0.04). Patients who presented with NICE-qualifying symptoms had shorter diagnostic intervals than those who did not (all cancers in both cohorts). For the 2007-2008 cohort, the cancers with the shortest median diagnostic intervals were breast (26 days) and testicular (44 days); the highest were myeloma (156 days) and lung (112 days). The values for the 90th centiles of the distributions remain very high for some cancers. Tests of interaction provided little evidence of differences in change in mean diagnostic intervals between those who did and did not present with symptoms specifically cited in the NICE Guideline as requiring urgent referral. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the implementation of the 2005 NICE Guidelines may have contributed to this reduction in diagnostic intervals between 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. There remains considerable scope to achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer outcomes.This research was funded by the National Cancer Action Team and the Department of Health Cancer Policy Team. The views contained in it are those of the authors and do not represent Department of Health policy. We can confirm that the corresponding author has had full access to the data and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. We would like to thank Rosemary Tate for early input into the protocol, staff of the GPRD for help in understanding the data. OCU is supported by the Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Ethical approval: Independent Scientific Advisory Committee, numbers 09_0110 and 09_0111

Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND:Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management. OBJECTIVES:Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations. SELECTION CRITERIA:We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS:We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events

Preliminary results of a feasibility study of the use of information technology for identification of suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: the CREDIBLE study

This is the final version of the article. Available from Cancer Research UK/Nature Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: We report the findings of a feasibility study using information technology to search electronic primary care records and to identify patients with possible colorectal cancer. METHODS: An algorithm to flag up patients meeting National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) urgent referral criteria for suspected colorectal cancer was developed and incorporated into clinical audit software. This periodically flagged up such patients aged 60 to 79 years. General practitioners (GPs) reviewed flagged-up patients and decided on further clinical management. We report the numbers of patients identified and the numbers that GPs judged to need further review, investigations or referral to secondary care and the final diagnoses. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and March 2014, 19,580 records of patients aged 60 to 79 years were searched in 20 UK general practices, flagging up 809 patients who met urgent referral criteria. The majority of the patients had microcytic anaemia (236 (29%)) or rectal bleeding (205 (25%)). A total of 274 (34%) patients needed further clinical review of their records; 199 (73%) of these were invited for GP consultation, and 116 attended, of whom 42 were referred to secondary care. Colon cancer was diagnosed in 10 out of 809 (1.2%) flagged-up patients and polyps in a further 28 out of 809 (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: It is technically possible to identify patients with colorectal cancer by searching electronic patient records.We acknowledge the General Practitioners, practice nurses, practice managers and administrative staff who supported this study, our trial co-ordinator Marie Crook, Anthony Ingold who was one of our patient representatives and MSDi for their support in developing the software algorithm. We also acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. This study was funded by the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI). TM is partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the West Midlands (CLAHRC-WM) programme

The macro-economic effects of health co-benefits associated with climate change mitigation strategies

The UK government has specific targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction to lower the risk of dangerous climate change. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions are sometimes perceived as expensive and difficult to implement but previous work has demonstrated significant potential health co-benefits from ‘Active Travel and low carbon driving’, ‘Housing Insulation/Ventilation’, and ‘Healthy Diet’ scenarios which may be attractive to policymakers. Here a Computable General Equilibrium model is used to assess the financial effects of such health co-benefits on the wider economy including changes in labour force, social security payments and healthcare costs averted. Results suggest that for all scenarios the financial impacts of the health co-benefits will be positive and increased active travel in particular is likely to make a substantial contribution, largely due to health care costs averted. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions and improve health are likely to result in substantial and increasing positive contributions to the economy which may offset some potential economic costs and thereby be seen more favourably in times of economic austerity

The diagnostic value of symptoms of possible oesophagogastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstracts of the Cancer and Primary Care Research International (Ca-PRI) Network Seventh Annual Meeting: New Partnerships in Primary Care Cancer Research. June 10-13, 2014, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaOral presentation abstractThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record